TOC/INDEX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA

Question and Answer Session
On Refining and Petrochemical Technology
TOC/INDEX

50th Anniversary
NPRA Question and Answer Session on
Refining and Petrochemical Technology

Conducted by the National Petroleum Refiners Association

Suite 1000, 1899 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

© 1999 National Petroleum Refiners Association

TOC/INDEX

Typesetting/Layout by:
Automated Graphic Systems
4590 Graphics Drive
White Plains, MD 20695-3111

Printed in U.S.A.
TOC/INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Category Page Section Category Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
I. GENERAL PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 B. Alkylation-Hydrofluoric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
A. Treating and Desalting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
B. Lube Oil Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
C. Solvent Deasphalting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
D. Crude Distillation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C. Reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
E. Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 D. Aromatic Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
F. Computer/Process Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E. Polymerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
G. Safety and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 F. Isomerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
H. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 G. Etherification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
H. Environmental Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
II. HEAVY OIL PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 V. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT . . . . . 159
Mechanical Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 A. Sulfur Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Safety and Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Amine Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Sulfur Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Tail Gas Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Optimization/Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 B. Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Feed and Product Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Catalyst(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Fractionation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Solid and Chemical Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
B. Coking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 C. Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Mechanical Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Process Heaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Optimization Residual Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Residual Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Steam Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
C. Visbreaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
VI. PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
III. HYDROGEN PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 A. Propylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
A. Hydrogen Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B. Ethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Hydrogen Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B. Hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Reactor Bed Plugging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Panel Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Reactor Effluent Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Participation Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Catalysts and Catalyst Sulfiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Index to NPRA Q&A Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Reactor Safety of Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Subject Headings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
General Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Topic Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
IV. LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Registration List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
A. Alkylation-Sulfuric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
TOC/INDEX
INTRODUCTIONS
FRITZ:
Good morning, and welcome to the 1997 NPRA Ques-
tion & Answer Session on Refining and Petrochemical
Technology.
I am Paul Fritz, Vice President of Engineering for
Pennzoil Products Company and the current Chairman
of the NPRA Manufacturing Committee. On behalf of
the Committee, I welcome you to the celebration of our
50th Q&A.
Our industry has come a long way over the past 50
years, surviving through some rough ups and downs. The
technology we have developed along the way has been
the backbone of our success, and the NPRA Q&A has
played a key role in this process. As a former panelist
myself, I can appreciate all that goes into these sessions.
I was proud then to be a part of it, and I am proud to
participate today.
Before we begin, I am privileged to introduced Urvan
Sternfels, President of NPRA, who is here today in recog-
nition of our 50th anniversary. Urvan has been with
NPRA since 1971, after receiving his law degree from
the Georgetown University Law Center. In March of
1982, he was appointed President of the association and
has held that position ever since.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
STERNFELS:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is really a
pleasure and an honor to be here to help celebrate a
momentous event for NPRA, for the refining industry,
the petrochemical industry which is now becoming part
of this process session, and with you as the participants,
the essential ingredient, in this historic day for the Q&A.
The NPRA, as you know, has had this session going
on nominally for 50 years. And I am here this morning
to first of all say that I am very proud to be invited to
celebrate with you what I think is one of the cornerstone’s
of the refining industry’s technology development, and
also a cornerstone of something else I would like to talk
about this morning. And that is it is a cornerstone for
the development of you and all of your peers.
One thing I have observed in my tenure at NPRA is
the fact that the people who sit in this room or rooms
like it, and have sat for years at these sessions, end up
being the folks that I ultimately deal with as presidents
of their companies, as vice presidents of refining compa-
nies in this country as well as those overseas. You are seen
as the up and comers in the industry. Otherwise, you
would not be here. I think it is important to note that
what makes this industry so great is the participation, the
quality and the dedication that this type of conference
illustrates best.
I am here this morning really to give you a history
lesson to some extent. I will be followed by Roger Hem-
minghaus who is the Chairman of the organization this
year and last, and he will talk more about some of the
fine people who have contributed to the success of this
meeting and to the association’s endeavors. But this morn-
ing I would like to mention to you the fact that the
NPRA is an organization that goes back even beyond the
50 years we celebrate today. Very soon in the beginning
of this next century we will be celebrating our 100th
anniversary as an organization.
I would like to go back and visit history for a moment
because even though this kind of endeavor is 50 years
old, it has its underpinnings and its beginnings going
back even farther.
The NPA, the National Petroleum Association, which
was the first organization founded out of the companies
in the Pennsylvania oil fields in 1902, was developed
not by staff, but by its members, by company people,
executives and some of the independent refining compa-
nies who saw a need to have an opportunity to get together
and talk about the industry’s problems, to get to know
their competitors and to basically become more
acquainted with business as it was being done by other
people, and to find out how they could learn how to do
it better themselves.
I would like to read to you from a history book written
by Fayette B. Dow, who was the second executive of the
Association.
5
TOC/INDEX
The history reads that, ‘‘a meeting of representatives
of independent oil refiners was held in the private dining
room of the Hotel Lincoln in the City of Pittsburgh on
June 17th, 1902 at 10:00 a.m.’’ The minutes read; ‘‘W.E.
Wall who had called the meeting was elected Chairman,
and Herbert Eaton, Secretary. The Chairman stated the
objectives of the meeting. He requested that all those
present give their views on the situation and suggest any
plan that would result in securing good to the independent
oil refiners of Pennsylvania and Ohio.’’
Well, that was the genesis, and you can already see
that this was something that was moving towards how
refiners could better themselves. Later in the history, there
is an interesting story about the Department of Manufac-
ture of the association of the NPA which was very active
and taking quite an interest in technological activities.
During the last two years the Department of Manufacture
had undertaken a program of cooperative engineering,
participated in by 15 to 20 member companies. A very
competent combustion engineer was employed to bring
about boiler room economics; analysis of existing perfor-
mance were made, changes in practice instituted. The
history goes on to record how the beginnings of this type
of conference played a part in the development of the
association. Over the years, the NPA and the WPRA
developed activities involving the sharing of technological
interests or technical interests. There was also a camarade-
rie and a learning about each other as well as fierce compe-
tition, not only within the independent sector, but
between the independents and the majors if you will, the
‘‘House,’’ Standard Oil companies.
There was one very interesting rendition in this history
book that I will paraphrase for you. It was about an
independent oil man who was an employee. He told his
employer, the President of his company, that he was going
to go to a meeting of the Association to see what it was
like and his employer said, ‘‘well, that is fine, just do
not join.’’
The employee went to the meeting and he joined.
When he returned, he reported this fact to his boss and
his boss said, ‘‘well, that is interesting, but certainly you
recall the fact that I told you not to join. Surely, you must
have had a good reason for joining this organization.’’
The fellow said, ‘‘well, I am not sure I have a good
reason, but here is what happened.’’
I was at the meeting and I was standing near two
refiners that happened to come upon one another. They
knew each other and they were talking about how they
saw old Bill the other day and discovered that he really
does not have horns.
I listened to this conversation and very soon thereafter
I came upon another conversation between two others
fellows in the business who said, ‘‘I remember old John.
I was talking to him the other day and it really occurred
6 Introduction
to me that he does not have a forked hoof anymore. He
is an all right guy.’’
I then thought that if there were four refiners that had
come to the realization that they had a lot in common,
and that they needed to get together and come to know
one another better, that this was an all right organization.
I went up to the desk and put down our money and
joined; and that is why I joined, sir.’’
I think this illustrates the point that this Association
has, as many others do, as its basis, the concept that
camaraderie, getting to know one another better, has
developed not only a strong relationship situation that
lasts for years, but it also has commercial value to the
companies. Because once you know someone, you are
willing to ask him questions, and willing to respond to
questions a lot more forthrightly and helpfully rather than
considering him the enemy.
Don O’Hara, my predecessor, the third guy in the
chain, wrote part of the history of this Association and I
would like to read to you something about trade associa-
tions that he wrote in his history of the second 25 years
of the Association.
He wrote, ‘‘a trade association is organized to serve
the commercial needs of the members and its activities
are necessarily directed towards commercial affairs, but it
is more than that. When men of goodwill meet together
for any common purpose, they will form friendships and
retain memories that are founded on more than commer-
cial interests. Such a history deals with the formal actions
of the association and it is difficult to find the proper
chapter to recall the actions and personal relationships
which grew out of these meetings.’’ I think that is
entirely true.
These memories are part of this organization’s history.
It is part of the fiber of this Association. It is part of this
industry, and it is a part that I think will bear you fruit.
Your interests in learning about the technological aspects
probably come first, but not followed far behind are those
that you develop with the people and the personnel that
you deal with, both in your plants and certainly with
your competitors.
The other point I would like to leave you with is while
the Association is honoring the 50th anniversary of this
activity, it is not only a demarkation line of where we
have come, it is also an indication of where we are going.
I think the promise of the advances we see in this industry
will probably be enhanced by the relationships and the
exchange of information that comes about here in this
room.
There was one other aphorism in this book that I
thought you should know. It is simply that if each of the
refiners has one dollar and they exchange them, they still
have one dollar. If two refiners each have one idea and
they exchange them, they each have two ideas. That is
the equation that this conference is built upon.
TOC/INDEX
I commend you for being here. I hope that you will
take the time to look to your left and look to your right
and look to the man or woman in front of you and the
one in back of you because I think when you do that
you will find that in the future you will have looked at
somebody that is going to be one of the leaders of this
industry. I hope it is you. I am confident that you will
see one of them in the leadership of this organization in
the future. I thank you for being here. Please celebrate
with us and enjoy the rest of this conference. Thank
you again.
FRITZ:
Thank you, Urvan. The history was very informative,
and it occurred to me that there is a living history of
refining today, here within the audience. I would ask at
this time all former panelists of the Q&A to stand and
be recognized. Thank you. Would all former panel moder-
ators in the audience stand and be recognized? Thank you.
Also with us today is Roger Hemminghaus, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of Ultramar Diamond Sham-
rock and current Chairman of the NPRA. Roger started
his career in the refining and marketing industry as an
engineer for Exxon USA.
In December of 1996, Roger assumed his current posi-
tion following the merger of Diamond Shamrock and
Ultramar Corporation. Prior to the merger, Roger was
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Dia-
mond Shamrock.
HEMMINGHAUS:
I am very proud of this opportunity to serve as Chair-
man of the organization that lends its name to this session.
NPRA is the premier trade association for the hydrocarbon
processing industry. This is an exciting time to be in this
industry and it is an exciting day to be here among the
leaders in this industry.
The economy is good. Technology is changing rapidly.
Our customers and shareholders are becoming much more
demanding and we do not lack for regulatory challenges.
I spent all day Monday in a White House conference
on climate change. It seems all of Washington is focused
on global warming and the preparation for the interna-
tional negotiations on this subject in December in Kyoto,
Japan. Just when we have spent tens of billions of dollars
and solved most of the Clean Air Act challenges, bet your
money we will be handed some CO2 global warning
challenges in the future. Please keep your eye on this
issue. It will impact our businesses and all of society.
The 50th anniversary of any organization or any event
is truly a momentous occasion. But the 50th anniversary
of a technical meeting like Q&A which has played such
an important role in the industry and to society as a whole
is a truly remarkable event. And New Orleans is an exciting
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
city to hold this 50th anniversary. There is a lot of Q&A
on the streets of New Orleans.
Over the past day, I have observed how proud the
NPRA staff is to be hosting this 50th celebration. I hope
you too are proud of your individual and your company’s
contribution to the success of Q&A and the role it has
played in the advancement of refining and petrochemical
technology.
What is unique about Q&A is that it is truly a team
effort with input from diverse disciplines across the indus-
try. Its success is dependent on contributions from com-
petitors, suppliers and customers and if successful, which
Q&A certainly is, we all walk away winners.
Contributions to the Q&A start at the top. The senior
executives of your company have made a commitment to
fund and manage NPRA and support its technical activi-
ties. They have also made a commitment to provide
resources to staff the committees responsible for the meet-
ings and provide participants and sign your expense
accounts. And we thank you, Paul, for your and the
manufacturing committee’s contributions and all those
who serve on the screening committee.
Next there are the panelists. A good looking group.
They not only spend 2 1⁄2 days on this stage, but countless
hours, much on their own time, preparing and editing.
And we all know that during this preparation that their
normal jobs continue and pile up.
The suppliers and vendors who serve our industry also
play a very major role as regular or associate members of
the Association, they, too, fund and contribute to the
management of NPRA. Vendors offer panelists, literature
and their expertise. Thank goodness they also sponsor
events, including receptions and riverboat rides that make
a day of technical discussion much more palatable.
Members of the trade press have been instrumental in
advertising our meetings and they also report on key
happenings and expand on the communications of the
proceedings. Based on the pile of paper out in front
of my room this morning, they also provide jobs for
paper workers.
Last but not least, there is, you, the participants. There
are those who have been around a long time and have
not been bashful to comment from the floor or engage
in vibrant conversation. Folks like Pete Andrews, Bob
Davis, Chuck McCoy, Anders Nielsen and the late Bob
Flanders to name just a few. Others have provided occa-
sional but vital comments and questions. Then there are
those who may just have listened and learned and most
importantly brought back new concepts to their plants.
Throughout the history of this industry there have
been monumental challenges at each crossroad. The future
promises even more. Perhaps the most important tool we
can use to reach our goals and remain viable is technical
teamwork. The best answers are found when people sat
down and shared information and ideas. With innovative
7
TOC/INDEX

thinking, quality principles and teamwork we will make
the quantum leap into the 21st century.
I thank each and every one of you for your contribu-
tions to NPRA and the Q&A. I am sure that this meeting
will serve as a major catalyst for technology development
and sound operation of petroleum refineries and petro-
chemical processing plants. But even if the outcome of
this meeting were to lead to only one idea, and that idea
avoids an accident or tragedy, well, then I think it is well
worth the investment.
I must tell you that last night after conducting serious
Association business over a scotch and dinner, Urvan
Sternfels insisted that he and I patrol Bourbon Street to
ensure your safety. Now, we must have been very early
or you must have been very smart, because I did not see
many of these name tags on the street.
I hope you have a great conference and enjoy this 50th
celebration. Please be careful, Urvan and I will not be
out there tonight checking on your safety. Have a great
conference and enjoy the celebration. Thank you.
FRITZ:
Thank you, Roger. I can report I had breakfast with
Roger and Urvan this morning and they were much more
chipper than I was. So, my conclusion is they are tougher
than I am.
Before I introduce our moderator for the session, I
would like to give recognition to your hardworking NPRA
staff who really pull this meeting together and do the
countless small tasks that make the Q&A session a success.
I would like to introduce the Technical Director of
the NPRA, Terry Higgins. Terry has held that position
since 1992, and will forever remain one up on me for
the picture of me that he posted outside the Q&A session
last year when I was a panelist in 1975 with my mutton
chop sideburns and long hair. I have yet to achieve any
payback for Terry—but his time is coming! I would like
to introduce Terry Higgins.
HIGGINS:
Thank you, and I welcome you all. I would like to
thank Roger and Urvan for their time and also Baker
Petrolite for the fine entertainment last night.
As Mr. Hemminghaus said, NPRA is proud to be
recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Q&A. We thank all
who have contributed so much over the years.
I had an interesting conversation last night which
reflects the comaraderie which has developed within the
industry over the years, which was also alluded to earlier.
The children of two of our long term screening committee
members, Art Suchanek and Marty Grosboll, were mar-
ried a few years ago. Last night they learned that they
were grandparents to be.
Throughout the next two and a half days, the panel
will respond to questions submitted by industry and
screened by a panel of experts. I will first call upon the
panelists to respond to each question and then open the
discussion to the floor. I encourage your active participa-
tion. When commenting, please state your name and com-
pany.
Approximately two weeks after the meeting, a copy
of the comments will be mailed to each participant for
corrections, additions, or deletions as deemed necessary.
After the return of the participants’ comments, they will
be printed and published in a hardback book by NPRA.
Each registrant at the 1997 NPRA Question and Answer
Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology will
receive the bound transcript of the meeting. The bound
transcription includes a subject index which identifies
pages where specific topics are covered. Some of the tran-
scripts (i.e., 1990-94) are also available in electronic for-
mat with search capabilities. Additional post 1994 years’
transcripts will be available electronically at some time in
the future.
Again, NPRA encourages your participation. We also
encourage you to take advantage of the hospitality pro-
vided throughout the week by the various suppliers.
Experts are available to discuss their products and answer
questions not adequately covered during the sessions. The
hospitality rooms offer an excellent opportunity to become
better acquainted with those who serve our industry.
Background information on the panel can be found
in your program book and will be available in the back
section of the transcript.
NPRA welcomes suggestions or criticisms for improve-
ment of our program. Evaluation sheets are available for
this purpose or attendees can contact NPRA’s Washing-
ton office.

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.

8 Introduction
TOC/INDEX
I. GENERAL PROCESSING
A. Treating and Desalting
Question 1.
What new techniques have been successfully used to
enhance breaking tight emulsions in desalting heavy
crudes?
FOSTER:
At Lyondell-Citgo Refinery we process 17°API gravity
Venezuelan crude. We see very tight emulsions. Typical
incoming salt ranges about 30-40 lb/mbs. Our desalted
crude content is about 1 lb/mb, so we run about 96-98
percent salt removal efficiency.
We have two main crude stills that process 17°API
gravity crude. We have upgraded our older crude still and
from a Petreco Low Velocity to a standard Howe-Baker
design. We operate it with two single stage desalters opera-
ting in parallel. The oil/water mixture enters from a hori-
zontal feed pipe below the third grid, but above the oil/
water interface. The new crude still, No. 537, has a Petreco
Bioelectric design with two stages in series. The oil/water
mixture is injected between the first and second grids and
between the second and third grids.
We usually demulsify our injection into both the oil
and desalter wash water utilizing Betz’s EMBREAK
(2W157) demulsifier. We actually see lower chemical
usage and more consistent water separation from the paral-
lel design than we do from the series design and that is
due to the longer residence time which is about 40 minutes
versus the 20 to 25. It is also due to the greater disengag-
ing height.
There is nothing wrong with the Petreco desalter itself.
It is just that operating it in series is more forgiving for
water slugs because of a longer residence time. In fact we
intend to go to series operation on the other crude still
at the next opportunity. Our washwater rates run about
six to eight percent of crude rate, mixed valve settings
around 6 to 12 psi and we do a mud wash about once
a week for about 30 minutes at a time. Operating tempera-
ture runs about 285 to 300°F.
CAIN:
At the Delaware City plant, we have success using the
split feed technology to desalt heavy crudes. Betz patented
the split feed approach to desalting. It means injecting part
of the primary emulsion breaker into desalter washwater as
well as the crude charge. In addition to the crude, the
washwater contains emulsion stabilizers. Injecting the pri-
mary breaker into the washwater allows intimate contact
between these stabilizers and the chemical. As a result,
better dehydration is achieved.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
WILLIAM HEIMBAUGH (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
For those refiners who are considering specific gravity
and viscosity reduction with naphtha, kerosene or similar
diluents, please keep in mind there may be a significant
impact on electrical transformer requirements due to the
increased conductance of the diluted feedstock.
Question 2.
Has anyone encountered fouling of downstream preheat
trains when emulsion polymers were used in desalter
applications?
BINFORD:
At both Lyondell-Citgo and Citgo Corpus Christi, we
fed our NOVUS technology for over three years in desalter
washwater with no detrimental impact on downstream
fouling. When properly fed, emulsion polymers will not
enter the bulk hydrocarbon phase for several reasons. First,
because of their very high molecular weight (⬎1 million),
they are totally insoluble in hydrocarbon. Second, their
charge densities make them totally insoluble in the crude
oil. The only way that emulsion polymers can enter the
preheat train is with water carried over in the desalted
crude. Consistent desalter operation, especially in terms
of dehydration, is key. Third, with normal water carry-
over, the amount of emulsion polymer leaving with the
desalted crude is negligible compared to both inorganic
and organic foulants in the desalted crude.
As an example, our NOVUS technology is typically
fed at 0.5ppm or less based upon crude charge. If 5%
desalter water is used in the desalter, this equates to 10ppm
NOVUS in the wash water. At 0.5% water carryover,
there will be 0.05ppm of NOVUS exiting the desalter.
Inorganic sediment content of even a relatively clean crude
would be 10 ptb. At a typical 60% desalter sediment
removal efficiency rate this would equate to 4 ptb in the
desalted crude, or about 100 ppm. Thus the contribution
9
TOC/INDEX
to fouling from an well run desalter emulsion polymer
program would typically be 2000 times less than that of
the inorganic particulate in the desalted crude. Insoluble
asphaltenes, another common foulant in crude preheat
trains, can exceed several weight percent, making these a
greater source of fouling as well.
Additionally, our NOVUS technology decomposes at
around 350°F. So in the hottest exchangers of the preheat
train, small oligamers are formed composed of primarily
carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. This coupled with the
negligible content in the desalted crude to begin with
eliminates any contribution to preheat fouling.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
To borrow a line from the panel member that suggested
that the best way to reduce NOx emission from an FCC
Regenerator was to shut down the Main Air Blower, I
would say that the best way to break a tight emulsion is
not to make it so tight in the first place. Although that
sounds a little glib, there is a point to it.
One of my fond memories that I will always treasure
as an Engineer was when I was given the opportunity by
Unocal to supervise their Oil Shale Retort in Parachute,
Colorado. The Shale Oil (Kerogen) that was produced
had a specific gravity of about .93, and contained a lot
of grit from the decrepatated mineral matrix of the Oil
Shale (rock). In order to avoid plugging up the catalyst
beds of the downstream hydrotreater, we needed to wash
that grit out of the Shale Oil. We used the same principle
to accomplish this as is used for desalting Crude Oil.
That is, wash the Shale Oil with water, and hope that
the wetted solids will remain with the aqueous phase. As
you can imagine, a very tight emulsion can be made with
these ingredients.
We learned that it was easier not to make a tight
emulsion than it was to break a tight emulsion. The lesson
here is to not run with the delta P across the mix valve
too high. Run with it just as low as you possible can to
still get the net effect. The best way to get good contact
between the water and the solids with a minimum pressure
drop is to reduce the viscosity of the oil. This can be
done by increasing the temperature of the oil, but it can
only be increased to the point that you run out of amper-
age across the grid. So if you are starting from scratch,
you want to design in lots of horsepower for the grid.
Another method is to recycle a light oil stream such as
naphtha to reduce the viscosity (and the specific gravity).
However, this reduces the residence time of the oil, so
you now have to make the vessel larger.
In order to get clean Kerogen out the top of the Desalt-
ers (we called them Deashers) we had to let some of the
oil go out the bottom with the water and the emulsion
layer. We put in some Vortoils to further process the
water stream, and to recover some of that Kerogen. The
Vortoil is a high pressure drop hydroclone that I believe
10 General Processing
is manufactured in Australia. However, their steel inlet
nozzles would eat out in about a week with that high
pressure drop and the solids in the water. We got Coors
to make some ceramic nozzles for them. They had a life
of about six weeks. Fortunately the Vortoils could be
taken apart and refurbished in just a few hours.
There was a good paper written on the subject of
desalting heavy crudes by Nalco, and presented at the
1990 NPRA Annual Meeting. It is AM-90-18. Inciden-
tally, I find that these papers are a good source of informa-
tion, and some of them turn out to be classics. I always
insist that my Technical Library gets a complete set of
the papers that are presented every year.
PAUL FEARNSIDE (Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P.):
We have had some very good successes lately using our
ultimar polymer technology. It is a new style polymer. It
does not require any inversion equipment. This has
allowed people to run the very heavy crudes, typically
heavy Venezuelan, without the need to reduce your
throughput by using diluent like that gentleman just pre-
vious to me mentioned.
JIM ZEIBIN (Husky BPU Operations):
We have had fouling of the brine line due to polymer
overfeed. The polymer was fed at over 3 ppm and as high
as 5 ppm. We have also seen polymer deposits in the
desalter during turnaround. The polymer addition also
allowed a fine abrasive clay to be carried over to the
crude overhead and ended up in our overhead washwater
resulting in seal damage of the washwater pumps.
ED ALVERSON (Baker Petrolite):
New chemistry has been developed to enhance the
treatment of heavy predominately solids laden, crudes,
such as Cold Lake, Lloydminster and San Joaquin Valley.
Completed field trials have shown increases in salt removal
and decreases in BS&W, oil and brine.
Also, secondary water clarification costs from the
desalters and through the wastewater treatment plants
have been reduced. It has been our experience lately that
many of the new techniques that we have employed in
dealing with heavy crudes really are a return to closer
adherence to the fundamentals of the desalting process.
In the past, the lighter crudes which were run had a
little more margin for error in treating. What we find
with the heavier crudes is that we have lost that margin
for error. So we must pay closer attention to the desalter
process fundamentals in processing heavy crudes. This
would include maintaining proper washwater mixing and
proper electrostatic field strength.
In conclusion, we would say that the strategy for treat-
ing heavy oils must include three points. One is a proven
desalter design. The second is a properly and carefully
chosen chemical treatment that would consider the effects
TOC/INDEX
that may come from the use of clarifier polymers when
solids are present. Finally, and most important, there are
optimum operation parameters. It is critical that the water
level be properly controlled in your desalter when process-
ing heavy crudes.
MICHEL ROY (Petro Canada Products):
I wanted to corroborate some of the comments that
were made about the Betz Novus technology. We have
been using Novus emulsion polymer for over three years
in the Montreal Refinery and it has enhanced our heavy
crude operation significantly by improving the quality of
the effluent brine and the overhead corrosion control.
Novus has allowed us to successfully process very low
API crudes with BS&W as high as 1.0% and desalter
temperature as low as 220°F. More recently, the through-
put has exceeded the desalter design by over 10% and
the control remains the same.
At the last crude unit turnaround, less deposit accumu-
lation was observed int he desalter and no sign of polymer
deposit was observed neither in the brine or the preheat
trains exchangers.
The key for emulsion polymer injection is the proper
injection system and feed point which was our supplier
recommendation. A low dosage is effective and has
reduced the primary breaker consumption.
Question 3.
What are the possible color precursors and color bodies
in different types of Merox sweetened kerosene streams?
How can these problems be minimized?
JOSECK:
Based on discussions with UOP, oxygen, nitrogen,
sulfur and other compounds in the feed can affect the
product color. The oxygen compounds include phenols,
with poly and dihydric compounds being more prone
to color than monohydric phenols. Carbonyles include
carboxylic acids, aldehydes, ketones and esters. Nitrogen
compounds include amines, aniline and ring compound
such as pyrrole and pyridine. Olefins and diolefins also
have chromophoric properties.
The key point is the degree of color loss is crude source
dependent. Some crudes yield distillates that are very color
stable, while some yield distillates that are extremely color
unstable. A Merox process cannot improve color stability,
but certain precursors can turn into color bodies as they
pass through an oxidizing environment. A measure of
feedstock color stability is a test for the feedstock color
precursors. In one feedstock we suspected olefins and
some aromatics. We attempted to segregate the olefins
and aromatics, but with limited success through liquid
chromatography column. The olefins can be formed in
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
heaters. One method to reduce them is by reducing crack-
ing in the process heaters by eliminating high skin temper-
atures, increasing velocities and reducing residence times.
We have also periodically cleaned the fractionator
before the Merox unit in an attempt to reduce feed color
bodies. As trays foul, we notice the feedstock color decline.
We also considered reducing the feedstock endpoint and
segregating feedstocks. We identified an aromatic sulfur
compound as the color precursor by liquid chromatogra-
phy, NMR and x-ray testing, but did not segregate out
the feed source.
UOP has an accelerated color stability test. Though it
does not identify particular compounds, it is a simple way
to predict how color stable or unstable an individual
feed is.
Basically, a sample is exposed to air at an elevated
temperature for 20 hours. The saybolt color is determined
before and after the test. Assuming the saybolt color of
the fresh sample is Ⳮ25 or above, the sample is considered
color unstable if the color loss is more than 10 numbers.
Merox operations can be adjusted by minimizing feed
temperature and air addition to minimize unwanted side
reactions resulting in color body formation. Caustic
changeout frequency practices can be optimized so that
the color bodies absorbed into the caustic are not recycled
back to the reactor feed.
BINFORD:
I would agree with all of Mr. Joseck’s comments. One
thing that is important to note is the mercaptans are
heavier in the heavier fractions of the kerosene stream.
They are harder to extract through the Merox, with reactor
space velocity being the typical extraction efficiency limit.
It is important to note too that the Merox process does
not make color bodies, per se. They exist already in the
base fuel as described, but can be exacerbated by the
addition of oxygen in the Merox treating process.
Mr. Joseck already mentioned that minimization of
oxygen addition during the process can help minimize
11
TOC/INDEX
color body formation. Most downstream product tankage
contains oxygen since nitrogen blanketing of these tanks
is uncommon. This introduced another source of oxygen
that can initiate color body formation. Some antioxidants
can be added upstream of the Merox without adversely
affecting the Merox unit itself. Choosing the proper type
of antioxidant is critical, however. If the Merox is not
working and additives are not either, the only options are
to either get the cracked stock out of the finished product
or to make some processing changes upstream as Mr.
Joseck has already described.
CYNDIE M. FREDRICK (Merichem Company):
Nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds, diolefins,
naphthenic acids, and phenolic compounds are possible
color precursors in kerosene streams. In the presence of
air, the precursors would oxidize to color bodies such as
coupled phenolics, polymers and color bearing nitrogen
compounds. The problem could be minimized by apply-
ing either a pre-treatment or a post-treatment. A caustic
pre-wash could be a good pre-treatment for naphthenic
acids, thiophenols and phenolic compounds, and an acid
wash process could be a good treatment for the removal of
nitrogen compounds. A more expensive hydroprocessing
option may be considered.
Question 4.
What is the typical clay life experienced in jet fuel caustic
treating systems? What clay disposal methods are used?
MALEK:
The normal design criteria that we use for clay life is
approximately 20,000 barrels per ton of clay. The life can
be extended significantly beyond this by proper clean up
of the feed before it goes to the clay treater. Generally,
clay treaters are preceded by a waterwash column, a salt
dryer, or perhaps some electrostatic separation device.
The operation of these devices will affect your clay life.
Frequent changeout of the washwater will improve clay
life.
Concerning the type of feedstocks that are going
through the system, there are a certain amount of olefinic
materials which can be found in some jet fuel. These
olefin compounds get caught up in the clay and cause
deterioration.
The typical disposal of spent clay is to industrial land-
fills.
JOSECK:
We use clays for various treating processes including
jet fuel. We are able to dispose of spent clay as non-
hazardous waste after steam stripping. We are able to
dispose of clay due to low flash, low toxicity, low reactivity
and acceptable pH. We have approval for uses in a cement
12
plant for at least one location, but there is limited interest
from the cement plant’s application.
JAMES MANN (Merichem Company):
Clay life is very dependent on the amount of water
used, and soaps and surfactants carried over from the
caustic washwater systems to the clay treater. We have
historical information that the life will range from 30,000
barrels per ton of clay to 120,000 barrels per ton. A typical
life for a FIBER FILM娃 system is about 100,000 barrels
per ton. Functionally, the purpose of the clay is to remove
metal chelates that cause JFTOT failure, and surfactants
that cause WISM failure. Clay treaters have also been
used for solids removal, color body removal, and residual
water removal. Free water can significantly shorten the
clay life. For this reason, the unit design usually places
the clay treater downstream of the salt dryer. The salt
dryer reduces the freewater haze point by an average of
about 25°F below the salt tower inlet temperature. The
change of the bed is dictated by test failure, generally
WISM or pressure drop across the clay treater. We are
only aware of two methods of clay disposal. In some
instances, the clay can be incinerated. The most common
disposal option is land filling.
Question 5.
How do refiners handle outside feedstocks that are high
in sodium prior to an HDS and/or FCCU, i.e., an outside
gas oil with high sodium levels?
BARLOEWEN:
The question asks how to deal with high sodium con-
taining feedstocks to an FCCU or an HDS unit. A number
of refiners have installed dedicated separate electrical
desalters to handle that situation. The people that are
most inclined to do that are the ones that import a lot
of external feeds purchased on the open market. The main
source of contamination is typically ballast water in the
tankers or barges. There is a good reference in the August,
1996 issue of Hydrocarbon Processing entitled ‘‘Using
Desalting for FCC Feedstocks.’’
BINFORD:
I agree with Mr. Barloewen’s comments that purchased
feeds need to be desalted prior to downstream processing.
If the purchased feed is going to be caustic washed or has
been caustic washed to remove H2S, this should be done
prior to desalting the feed. Acid injection into the desalter
washwater can sometimes be beneficial to emulsion resolu-
tion. The acid will neutralize the caustic, break the emul-
sion and transfer any organically bound sodium back into
the desalter brine as an inorganic salt. If coker gas oil is
used, the coke fines can be a problem. Coke fines have
already been covered relative to fouling, but in a gas oil
desalter, they can accumulate at the interface and wreak
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
havoc in terms of separating that emulsion. We know of
one refiner that has installed a filter upstream of their gas
oil desalter to remove the coke fines and help the desalter
operate more effectively.
FLETCHER:
A common way of handling high sodium feedstocks
is to segregate high sodium feedstocks in separate tankage
if available and then slip them into the unit into the
FCCU in a controlled manner. The second most common
method as the sodium is hitting the unit is to increase
fresh additions or fresh plus equilibrium catalyst additions
until the sodium reaches acceptable levels in circulating
inventory.
PAUL FEARNSIDE (Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P.):
One way we have been able to help people out on
purchased gas oils is to suggest injecting some condensate
or boiler feedwater with that cargo as it is offloaded into
tankage along with a demulsifier. We have been able to
achieve upwards of 50 percent removal of the sodium.
Question 6.
What steps are refiners taking to handle increased
amounts of naphthenic acid crudes? Please comment on
a) dilution, b) metallurgy, c) monitoring, and d) analyti-
cal testing as they relate to the crude and vacuum units.
Please comment, as well, on downstream units such as
hydrotreaters, hydrocrackers, FCCUs, etc.
ROMAN:
Naphthenic acids are commonly found in crude oils
from California, Romania, Russia, Texas and the Arabian
Peninsula. They are corrosive to carbon steel, 5 to 9
chrome and type 304 stainless steel when the neutraliza-
tion number is above .5 milligrams per gram and when
the temperature is above 430°F. Absence of scale and
grooving are characteristics of this type of corrosion.
Crude assays should be utilized to determine the distribu-
tion of the naphthenic acids as they are often found to
concentrate in particular cuts.
An additional concern is their decomposition to form
low molecular weight acids such as propionic and butyric
acids which will end up in the upper side cuts. Formic
acid has also been found in overhead liquids. Type 316
stainless steel with 2 1⁄2 percent molybdimun should be
employed to obtain acceptable corrosion rates. It is also
desirable to keep the fluid velocities as low as possible
when this type of attack is present.
TASKER:
I agree with what has already been said. Obviously, if
you have a new unit, you can design accordingly. The
use of 316 stainless is very good to employ because the
molybdimun content does resist the naphthenic acid
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
attack, unlike some of the other stainless steels. But, of
course, if it is an existing unit, then what you have to do
is employ a proactive program to ensure that you are
controlling any acids that are forming or any results of
the acids which are formed.
BINFORD:
Still the most common method being employed to
deal with naphthenic acid in crudes processed on an
opportunity basis is dilution. Most refiners tend to start
at a relatively low blend ratio of the naphthenic acid crude
to the other crudes in the blend. They blend to a total
acid number value and then increase the blend if corrosion
is not observed.
Utilizing high temperature corrosion inhibitors to treat
naphthenic acid corrosion in specific areas of the tower
can allow the refiner to increase the percentage of naph-
thenic acid crude beyond the ‘‘untreated maximum’’ while
controlling corrosion. Since the type and the amount of
naphthenic acid is crude specific, the refiner should also
be concerned with the interaction between the blends.
It is important to note that even with the same naph-
thenic acid crude, corrosivity of the crude blend can be
quite different if the other crudes that are being blended
change such that the sulfur content changed. This is due
to the fact that some sulfur species act as a passivators
against the naphthenic acid in the system. Steels have
already been covered, but one important note is that
316L stainless steel needs to be specified, rather than 316.
Depending on the manufacturer, 316SS can drop below
the 2.5 percent minimum molybdenum content that you
need in order to protect against naphthenic acid.
Mr. Peterson already covered the boiling ranges of the
acids and where they end up. We have conducted detailed
characterization of high naphthenic acid crudes and have
been able to correlate naphthenic acid structure and
molecular weight to boiling range. This is evidenced in
the processing unit by the distillation cuts that the acids
concentrate in.
Monitoring of the product draws which are subject to
naphthenic acid corrosion is the most common way to
identify corrosion activity. A combination of high temper-
ature electrical resistance probes and measurement of iron/
nickel ratios in the gas oils and the bottom streams is
used, since corrosion can be very localized, thus evading
detection by the probes alone in many cases.
Spot checks of iron in the side draw streams can be
used to ‘‘flag’’ corrosion activity. We use a value of one
ppm or higher in a product side draw a point of concern.
This serves as a red flag to do more extensive analysis.
Finally, it is more common to see the acids concentrated
in the vacuum gas oil streams as opposed to the atmo-
spheric gas oils, although some of the very light naphthenic
acid crudes can contain acids that distill in the atmo-
spheric tower.
13
TOC/INDEX
CAIN:
Our primary solution to the problem has been dilution
in a couple of our plants. However, in one plant we
have upgraded the metallurgy of the hottest piping, above
550°F in atmospheric heater, to 316L stainless steel. We
closely monitor corrosion probes in the vacuum heater
outlet and vacuum gas oil draw. The HVGO draw is
checked for total acid number and metals pickup rou-
tinely.
FOSTER:
As has been said before, we make extensive use also of
316L and 317L stainless steels, both at our new crude
still and our existing crude still, and 347 stainless in the
heater tubes in our new vacuum meter. When we were
considering the upgrade of one of our existing crude stills
that had traditionally run a relatively sweet crude, the
upgrade of metallurgy was so extensive to handle the
naphthenic acids that we chose instead to build a new
crude still. It was cheaper to actually build a new crude
still than it was to go through the revamp of the existing
sweet crude still.
We really keep an eye on any equipment in the 450
to or 750°F range rather, and especially the equipment
in the 550 to 650°F range where naphthenic acid attack
is most rigorous.
As far as monitoring is concerned, we perform periodic
wall thickness monitoring in locations of high velocity,
turbulence, impingement and our laboratory routinely
measures total acid number on the crude and vacuum
unit product streams. Heavy vacuum gas oil is our heaviest
naphthenic acid bearing stream with TANs up to
about three.
MICHAEL J. ZETLMEISL (Baker Petrolite):
Just indexing the problem by TAN has its difficulties.
We have had experience with cuts that have identical
TANs and did not have anywhere near the same corrosi-
vity. One improvement on this is to look at weight percent
naphthenic acids which looks at the carboxylic acid group
in particular. But even there, two crudes with the identical
carboxylic acid content will not necessary have the same
corrosivity. People now postulate that this has something
to do with the structure of the acids. Other than that,
our experience closely follows what the panel and others
have said. We have been successful also in using high
temperature inhibitors.
ELKIN CARMONA CUADROS (EcoPetrol):
According to this, we have a lot of corrosion/erosion
problems in our topping units in the transfer line to the
atmospheric tower. Have you any experience with this?
Could you recommend any operation practice for minim-
izing this? In any case, could you recommend a special
metallurgy?
14 General Processing
BINFORD:
I would look at a couple of things. Number one, make
sure the metal wastage you are experiencing it is not
simply a velocity related effect. Also not knowing what
the metallurgy is, you should determine if it is erosion,
corrosion, naphthenic acid corrosion or possibly even sul-
fidic acid attack depending on the metallurgy. Metallurgy
review, flow calculations and stream characterization
should provide enough information to properly diagnose
the problem. We have treated transfer lines chemically
with success and so that is certainly another option as well.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
I have two questions. We have some typical problems
of erosion on the crude heater outlet. There are six passes
and six thermowells at the outlet, and also two thermowells
on the transfer line. Almost all of them, however, have
been severely eroded during the last year of operation.
We took it out and found that a large hole had been
made on each. The material was Monel. What is the best
material to be used for this service? What is the experience
of other refineries on such phenomenon?
The second question is, we sometimes get crudes which
are very acidic, pH of 3.5, possibly due to acid injection
in the wells. We have also been advised by the Demulsifier
supplier to maintain a pH of 5.5 to 6.5. Is there any
specific inspection procedure to be done on the desalters?
BINFORD:
We have known several refiners that had thermo wells
in the heater outlet and suffered from erosion around
the thermo wells, especially if they were running highly
naphthenic acid crudes. This is due to high velocities
created at the edges of the eddies behind the thermowells.
In most cases, they just elected to take the thermowells out.
Also monel would not typically be selected for this service.
FOSTER:
I might talk a little bit about crude compatibility. The
gentleman said a minute ago the TAN of crude certainly
does not tell the whole story. There is also the issue of
crude compatibility.
We were very concerned about crude compatibility
early on because we were in a mode of operating with
some Venezuelan crudes and also running some of our
traditional crudes at the same time. So we did extensive
corrosivity testing with mixtures of Venezuelan crudes
and various sour crudes and found that the mixtures
themselves are much more corrosive sometimes than either
crude by itself, no matter what the TAN number was.
There may be some value in doing that in your case
as well, in looking at the specific crude mixtures that you
are running and trying those crude mixtures and some
of the cuts from those crude mixtures in combinations
of various metallurgies. It is not a well understood science
TOC/INDEX
yet. It is getting more well understood all the time. But
until that time, we have a lot of testing to do for specific
crude combinations that we are going to be running.
BINFORD:
Regarding the question on acid and the pH in the
effluent water for the desalters, we have had experience
where we have had effluent water from desalters running
down in pH’s of 2 or 3, and not seen significant corrosion
in the desalter shell. That was in California, however, and
our determination there was that the acids were weak
organic acids that were depressing the pH. Therefore, we
did not see any major corrosion. If it is truly a strong
mineral acid, I would suspect that you would see corro-
sion. The first thing I would do is go upstream to the
crude supplier, and put a stop to the use of strong mineral
acids in the upstream production.
PAUL FEARNSIDE (Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P.):
You cannot go with any one specific analyses or process
parameter change, be it dilution or whatever. You have
to look at all of them. One of the things that we do is
we not only look at the TAN number, we look at the
sulfur content and the sulfur species involved. We also
do something we call the NAT, naphthenic acid titration.
We are able to look at the crude, do our testing on it
and are able to tell the customer which specific problem
they are going to see before they even run the opportu-
nity crudes.
DAVID SLOAN (The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company):
One non-traditional application that a number of refin-
ers are studying is to send the ATBs to a deasphalter for
gasoil separation and recovery at temperatures that are
below the threshold for naphthenic acid corrosion. The
acids are then decomposed in the downstream conver-
sion processes.
Question 7.
Please poll the panel as to whether or not they are having
problems maintaining kerosene and diesel quality when
processing high naphthenic acid crudes. If so, how are
they solving these problems?
CAIN:
Our main experience with high naphthenic acid crudes
has been Main Pass crude. We notice that when charging
more than 6 percent of main pass, the kerosene developed
a tea colored tint and the diesel develop a yellow tint.
This problem cleared up once hydrotreated and presented
no problem with the finished product quality.
HENKE:
We do not experience problems maintaining kerosene
and diesel quality when processing high naphthenic acid
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
crudes. This question is a bit confusing. I suspect that
the person submitting this question is equating high naph-
thenic acid containing crudes to a high naphthene concen-
tration in the distillates. We do not see this relationship
in the crudes that we run.
ROMAN:
Insofar as the relationship does hold, we have run
naphthenic crudes that have naphthenic acids in them.
The only problem we have had is that occasionally the
cetane number of the diesel cut is low. We have had to
add cetane improver when we run those crudes.
TASKER:
In the Canadian upgrading complex where the feed
typically has higher naphthenic acid content, there does
not appear to be any issues relative to the kerosene and
diesel quality. They appear to be relatively unaffected.
These products are hydrotreated also.
AMANDA HOWERTON (Merichem Company):
Merichem has considerable experience using the fiber
film contactor technology to treat kerosene and diesel
streams derived from high naphthenic acid crudes. Kero-
sene treatment typically includes caustic washing, water
washing, salt and clay to produce jet fuels. Properties
that are affected are acid number, copper strip corrosion,
WISM, TOT, sodium, calcium and haze. For stove oil,
diesel and heating oils, a caustic wash and salt dryer
are typically sufficient when fiber film contactor systems
are employed.
Question 8.
What are the critical parameters measured to assess the
naphthenic acid corrosiveness of crude oils, such as
TAN, sulfur, etc.?
BINFORD:
This was fairly well covered I think when we discussed
Question 5, both from the panel and several good com-
ments from the floor. But just to quickly summarize the
critical parameters that we feel need to be measured: total
acid number, some form of a naphthenic acid number
to look at naphthenic acid specifically, the amount and
different types of sulfur in the crude and the relationship
between those sulfur compounds and the naphthenic acid.
Finally, characterizing the naphthenic acids relative to
their distillation profile. This is a critical element because
it can give you an idea of where the naphthenic acids will
end up thus allowing you can make a judgment as to
whether or not the metallurgy in a given area is going to
withstand the napthenic acids.
FOSTER:
I spoke just a moment ago of the crude compatibility
issues with high sulfur crudes. We are interested in getting
15
TOC/INDEX
at this answer and other answers regarding naphthenic
acid attack more thoroughly. We are participating in an
industry sponsored effort with CLI International, centered
in Houston. If you are interested, you can give them a
call and see if you want to participate. This group is
investigating the corrosivity of different crudes, with a
special emphasis on naphthenic acid bearing crudes.
One of its goals is to discern which species of the
naphthenic acid family is most corrosive. So there is a lot
more learning currently going on in this area.
Question 9.
In our LPG Merox unit, we are experiencing frequent
carryover of caustic with LPG in the RSH extractor even
at lower than design LPG flow rates. What could be
the reason for this carryover? Please suggest methods
to minimize.
FOSTER:
We have had some problems dealing with caustic carry-
over, and I can relate some of the problems we have had
and why we have had them. The main reason we have
had problems is because of extractor tray fouling due to
thiosulfate salts. This compound is formed when you have
a feed that is high in H2S that contacts the circulating
caustic and produces sodium bisulfide. It is then subse-
quently oxidized in the caustic regenerator.
Once the level of this salt reaches saturation in your
extractor, it tends to precipitate out in your extractor.
The symptom of this is a dark black appearance of caustic.
Another symptom is your extractor stops extracting and
you begin to carry over caustic. That is what happens to us.
Taking the equipment out of service and subjecting it
to a mild citric acid wash usually clears the equipment,
but the best prevention, best solution is to keep H2S out
of the feed to begin with. You need to go further upstream,
probably to your fluid units or cokers to really address
the H2S issue. But properly designed units come with a
prewash that has a weak caustic stream that knocks out
most of the H2S or virtually all of your H2S before it
enters your extractor area.
We are working to correct the problem this year. We
did not design our system with the proper prewash. We
are correcting that problem this year on one of our extrac-
tors and the next year on the other.
CAIN:
The only thing I have to add is that temperature in
the LPG Merox should be about 100°F and entrainment
increases with decreased temperature. The lowest practical
operating temperature is 70°F, according to UOP.
PETERSON:
We had seen something in our LPG MDEA contactor
which might relate to possible problems here as well. We
16
had put a new supply line into service for the MDEA
and apparently had some pipescale or other dirt get into
the system. We setup some pretty tight emulsions in the
two-phased separation. The continuous phase was the
MDEA in this contactor. We used some silicone antifoam
which gave us temporary relief. The one thing that helped
us out a little longer term was to move the level to where
there was a level tap in the tower and we drew off the
emulsion offending layer and dirt through that tap and
that gave us a little more permanent solution.
S.N. PURI (Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India):
When an LPG stream is treated with aqueous NaOH
solution, some entrainment of caustic is possible unless
additional facilities are provided. The treated LPG from
the over head of the extractor usually contains on an
average less than 5 ppmw sodium. However in case of
upset, such as fall of column pressure, much more caustic
can be entrained. Therefore, installation of a knock out
drum at the overhead of the extractor should be considered
as a safety option. From this vessel, the treated product
may be passed through a sand filter coalescer to reduce
the amount of entrained caustic to less than 1 ppmw.
CYNDIE M. FREDRICK (Merichem Company):
The treating unit licensor should provide a low carry-
over design by utilizing the proper technology. Some of
the design features of a FIBER FILM娃 Contactor system
that help minimize carryover are concurrent flow with
the hydrocarbon, minimal mixing, and low pressure drop.
A proper system design should guarantee caustic carryover
specifications of less than one ppm as sodium.
The experience Merichem has had with caustic treating
over the years has shown us several operating factors that
can affect caustic carryover. High recycle rates have a
tendency to cause carryover problems. High caustic
strength also increases the chance that carryover will occur.
Another factor that may lead to carryover is fluctuations
in pressure and/or flow. Caustic temperature and caustic
level are also variables that should be monitored.
EDWARD SMITH (UOP):
The panelists and participants have addressed many of
the key points. UOP agrees that caustic carry-over from
an LPG Merox extractor can be due to salt deposition
on the active area of the trays, the presence of a foaming
system, possibly caused by carryover from the upstream
amine system, or fluctuating operating pressures. The
corresponding solutions to these problems are: circulating
caustic maintenance (strength, % spent, etc.), prevention
of amine carryover, and proper pressure control of the
unit. As with any type of unit, excessively high throughput
relative to design capacity can also be a problem source.
One additional and very important item is that the
extractor trays are specified to be seal welded so that they
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
are leak tight. Before commissioning, the trays are leak
tested and repaired if necessary. There have also been
cases where after many years of service, leaks developed
in the trays that impacted extractor hydraulics. Once
repaired, extractor performance was restored.
UOP has designed over 400 units for LPG type feed.
Please contact us directly to discuss a specific problem.
Question 10.
What is the best way to separate the carried over sodium/
caustic from the hydrocarbon product in a Merox treater?
SAMUELS:
In looking at this question, the panel was not sure
whether we were talking about LPG treaters here or fixed
bed. So we will answer both. For LPG Merox treaters,
to separate caustic from the LPG, UOP recommends a
downflow sand filter. It has been our experience with
olefin treaters, for example that this is very effective. We
drain caustic water on a regular basis and we do not have
problems in the coalescers upstream of the alky feed dryers.
For kerosene Merox treaters, we do see some problems
with caustic hydrocarbon separation in the waterwash
vessels. We believe the root cause here is due to a high
pH in the water wash. If you get up around a 12 pH,
this will cause a separation problem and some emul-
sion problems.
We tried two solutions. One was a more frequent
change out of the water, but that was not very effective
due to the water wash alkalinity. So we have actually
injected a salt, MKP, monopotassium phosphate as a
buffer to reduce the pH and that seems to be effective.
FUSSELL:
We also use sand filters on our LPG Merox units.
Another thing that you need to consider is your disulfide
oil off of your Merox. You will have caustic carryover
into that stream as well, and you need to be careful about
where you put it.
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
Caustic carryover can be readily reduced down to less
than 0.5 parts per million sodium by the use of a new
technology, high efficiency coalescer, especially when the
IFT values go very low, down in the 1.5 dynes per centime-
ter range.
JIM STONE (Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality):
If this is a jetdeck unit, there is a weephole that is
sometimes under the downcomer. If it goes to the tray
below, you can be jetting material into the downcomer
and flood the tower.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
S.N. PURI (Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India):
Caustic carryover problem from the hydrocarbon prod-
uct in the Merox treater can be solved by any of the
following methods:
● Using sand coalescer, caustic carryover can be
brought down to about 1 ppmw. Properly sized sand
filter can eliminate caustic carryover appreciably.
● New Merfining FIBER-FILM娃 technology—Mer-
ichem Co. has developed a sweetening process using
a proprietary FIBER-FILM娃 bundle to achieve inti-
mate contact between hydrocarbon feed and caustic
solution. FIBER-FILM娃 bundle comprises long
continuous small diameter fibers placed in a pipe.
The caustic solution wets the fibers creating a large
interfacial area. The hydrocarbon stream flows as a
continuous phase through the fibre bundles. The
treated hydrocarbon stream contains minimal caus-
tic carryover.
AMANDA HOWERTON (Merichem Company):
There are two approaches to resolve a problem involv-
ing caustic carryover. The first approach is to minimize
the amount of caustic that is carried over in the hydrocar-
bon by identifying process parameters or improperly
designed or applied equipment which may be causing the
problem. Possible causes of high caustic carryover are
vigorous mixing producing emulsions, high caustic to
hydrocarbon ratios, high hydrocarbon rate, insufficient
hydrocarbon caustic separation tankage, high viscosity of
caustic due to an increase in concentration.
Another approach would be to add equipment to sepa-
rate the caustic and hydrocarbon or to coalesce entrained
caustic. A water wash system can also be added. Another
option to consider is a nonmixing mechanism such as
that produced in a FIBER FILM娃 Contactor.
Question 11.
What problems are associated with using ammonia
instead of caustic to oxidize mercaptans in gasoline and
kerosene? What have been the results, and how have
these problems been solved? What is the impact of H2S
in concentrations less than 5 ppmw?
MALEK:
UOP has successfully applied its caustic free Merox
process on a number of applications, both in gasoline and
kerosene. The process is basically similar to the Merox
process using caustic, but ammonia is used instead of
caustic as the alkali source. The reactor beds are pre-
impregnated with specialized Merox catalysts to accom-
modate both applications.
A problem that has been of concern to this technology
is the disposition of the aqueous ammonia waste. There
is free ammonia in the aqueous waste water stream that
is drawn from the unit. Also some ammonia organic
17
TOC/INDEX
compounds can be formed. If the stream goes to a sour
water stripper, the ammonia will be sprung to the sulfur
plant. The sour water stripper bottoms may present a
problem in terms of inability to recycle this back to the
refinery for reuse. It may have to be routed to the wastewa-
ter treating plant for disposition of the ammonia organic
compounds. This can put a significant additional load
on the waste treatment plant. Other alternatives might
be to consider disposition of this through some sort of a
chemical treating step or oxidation step similar to what
has been proposed for disposing of waste caustic streams.
This process has received a lot of interest, particularly
by people who cannot easily dispose of spent caustic.
S.N. PURI (Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India):
In using ammonia (a weak base) instead of caustic,
mercaptide ions from less oxidizable thiols (high mol.
wt; more branched and tertiary) may not be available
quantitatively. Hence the product mercaptan will be out
of specs. Injection of activator along with the feed to
augment the thiol oxidation in the ammonia system is
recommended.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
What is the panel’s experience in using ammonia
instead of methanol in catalyst reimpregnation?
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
The problem with using ammonia in a sweetening
process is the potential failure of the copper strip corrosion
test when the feed contains trace amounts of hydrogen
sulfide. The ammonium sulfide formed in the product
will cause failure of the copper strip test. The corrosive
product requires either multiple waterwash stages or
another caustic wash to remove ammonium sulfide.
Ammonium sulfide concentration of about 1 ppm
weight could fail the copper strip test. A caustic or water
wash process would be the most effective method for
treating that contaminated stream.
EDWARD SMITH (UOP):
There are currently three UOP Caustic-Free Merox
units treating gasoline and four treating jet fuel. These
units use ammonia as an alkaline source in place of caustic.
All units are operating satisfactorily and are producing
on-spec product. When using ammonia, it is important
that it is not present in the treated products. For jet fuel
treating, an efficient water wash system removes ammonia
to below 0.5 wppm. The Caustic-Free units for gasoline
are not equipped with water washing facilities.
The impact of less than 5 wppm of H2S in the feed
to a Caustic-Free unit is negligible, as product quality is
not affected. Neither copper strip corrosion nor ammo-
nium sulfide have been reported to be in the products
by any of the refiners operating the 7 units.
18
Question 12.
What concentration of ammonium sulfide in naphtha can
cause a failure of the copper strip corrosion test? What
are the most effective treating methods for that contami-
nated stream?
CAIN:
We have some field data on the sulfide versus the
copper strip test. For a 0.5 ppm sulfide, i.e., you should
get 1A, for 1.0 ppm 1.0, 2A on the copper strip, and for
3 to 5 ppm sulfide, a 2C to 3C. There are various methods
you can use to get your tank on spec. You can add caustic
and water, and there are fuel additives that help sulfide
contaminated gasoline pass the copper strip test as well.
BINFORD:
Relative specifically to the ammonium sulfide question
in naphtha, we have seen literature that suggests that
approximately 10-20 ppm of ammonium sulfide in naph-
tha can cause failure of the copper strip corrosion test.
An excellent reference paper on the copper strip corrosion
test is a paper by Clark and Lasage from the Alberta Sulfur
Research Limited of the University of Calgary. The name
of the paper is ‘‘The Copper Strip Corrosion Test: Under-
standing and Supplementing It..’’
They are added proportional to the ‘‘equivalent’’
amount of hydrogen sulfide, 2 ppm of ammonium sulfide
equating to 1 ppm of H2S. Corrosion inhibitors can be
added into the naphtha to effectively treat the contami-
nated stream. We have several organic corrosion inhibitors
that are approved by all the major pipelines and are effec-
tive at meeting the copper strip test.
PETERSON:
Our experience with ammonia and sulfide is in diesel,
not in naphtha. We have a hydrotreater in which we do
not run the fractionator downstream of the stripper. So
we have trouble stripping all the H2S out of the diesel
cut. It is a high pressure stripper running about 100 psi.
The operators check these stripper bottoms with a Drager
tube in the vapor space of the sample bottle.
Generally, if they see a positive indication of H2S, 1,
2 or more ppm, we have trouble passing the copper strip
corrosivity test. In fact, we have seen values as high as 80
ppm in the vapor space, which, depending on partition
coefficients, could be quite a bit down in the diesel.
We tried to use caustic to tie up this H2S in the diesel
stream and created some very tight haze problems in the
tanks. These were so bad we had to rerun the diesel back
through the crude unit. We could not get the haze to
break. We then tried an aqueous ammonia injection and
put as much as 5 to 10 quarts per day into a 20,000
barrel a day diesel stream. We can pass the copper strip
with no problem. But with this much ammonia into the
system, we have trouble passing the NACE spindle test.
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
What apparently is happening is the ammonia is neutraliz-
ing the organic acid based NACE inhibitor.
We have since used a different H2S agent, a BetzDearb-
orn product. It is far more expensive than ammonia but
it allows us to cut back dramatically the amount of NACE
inhibitor in the pool.
We may have also seen some tank particulate and tank
corrosion problems dealing probably back to the H2S and
ammonia and we’re working with BetzDearborn at this
point to try to resolve those issues.
Question 13.
Has any refinery tried injecting a stream of H2 into the
crude feed prior to the first crude preheat exchanger to
mitigate fouling problems that are mainly associated
with auto-oxidation reactions?
BINFORD:
We have not heard of any refinery injecting hydrogen
into the crude feed in an attempt to mitigate polymeriza-
tion of unsaturated components. There are several reasons
why this probably would not be practical.
Number one, most crude units are not designed to
recover the hydrogen. In most U.S. refineries today the
value of hydrogen would be such that you certainly would
not want to lose it into your fuel gas.
Number two, crude units are not operated at sufficient
temperatures and pressures to saturate the double bonds
without the presence of a catalyst surface. So, even if
hydrogen was injected it is unlikely that it would really
have an effect. Somebody did suggest putting some cata-
lyst into the front of the crude unit and letting it run down
the line, but we did not think that was very practical either.
Number three, it is unlikely that the crude preheat
exchangers would be optimized for two-phase flow if you
did inject hydrogen, and that may very well throw you
into a pressure drop limit somewhere along the preheat
exchanger train.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Question 14.
Is any refinery co-processing crude and condensates? Is
this causing any crude heat exchanger fouling problems?
If yes, how is it tackled?
BINFORD:
We have seen and still are seeing several refiners co-
process crude and condensates. Depending on the conden-
sate and crude composition, either minimal or severe
fouling has been observed. Severe fouling has been most
common when condensates were blended with highly
asphaltenic crudes. The most effective solution is proper
feed stream characterization which usually includes blend
studies to ensure that the asphaltenes in the base crude
blend will not precipitate with the amount of condensate
that is being blended. It is important to note that as the
temperature of the crude is increased through the preheat
train, the asphaltenes will become less soluble in the blend.
So if you do a blend study at room temperature, we would
suggest that the maximum condensate be set 15 or 20
percent below what the blend study predicts as the ‘‘theo-
retical maximum.’’ This will prevent you from getting
into a problem in the hot train of the exchangers. If
economics dictate that higher percentages of condensates
should be run, chemical antifoulant programs can help
to disperse the asphaltenes through the preheat train.
Once you get past the crude furnace and the condensate
is distilled overhead, the asphaltenes will usually stay in
solution through the rest of the system.
MALEK:
Condensates are routinely run commingled with crude
oil. However, it is very infrequent that a significant
amount of condensate can be added to an existing crude
operation because condensates tend to have much higher
yields of distillate and naphtha. They tend to overwhelm
the overhead condensing system, tower diameter, and
heater capacity if you are trying to maintain throughput
in the unit at anywhere near original design capacity.
As far as fouling, in addition to the asphaltene precipita-
tion phenomenon that was previously discussed, we have
seen some of the sour condensates that are produced from
the Canadian gas production which have extremely high
levels of sulfur. Some of it even appears in a free form.
This material can cause fouling in the heat exchanger
train and aggravate fouling and corrosion. This may be
what this question is alluding to. But on the whole, con-
densates are handled with a minimal amount of fouling
in most operations.
B. Lube Oil Manufacturing
Question 15.
What type of catalysts are refiners using when hydrotreat-
ing waxes (slack and hard waxes) for color improvement?
Are there any new developments?
19
TOC/INDEX
FOSTER:
On the catalysts for hydrotreating waxes, nickel moly
or nickel tungsten on aluminum supported catalysts are
typically used for high severity hydrotreatment for produc-
tion of food grade quality waxes. This results in a product
wax color of at least 20 saybolt. Treatment of slack waxes
depends on the intended downstream use. If they are
destined for a fluid unit, a little pretreatment is needed
to remove the sulfur and nitrogen down to required levels.
The opposite extreme is pretreatment for catalytic dewax-
ing conversion into very high viscosity index base oils.
This requires removal of the same sulfur and nitrogen
down to a very few part per million.
JOSECK:
We are currently using Criterion 424 nickel moly cata-
lyst to hydrotreat the hard wax in the wax hydrofinisher.
We are also using Criterion 454, nickel tungsten in several
multi-purpose hydrotreaters to treat waxes for color and
FDA specifications.
TASKER:
We are looking at color improvement, not just for
color improvement of the hydrotreating, but also for use
in the food industry. Nickel moly and nickel tungsten
catalysts types are required; mobile metal catalyst cannot
be used in this service.
There are new developments on the way, but I am not
at liberty to disclose those at the moment. Slack waxes
contain 5-20 percent of lube material and the lubes con-
tain aromatics. So the severity of the hydrotreating
depends on the product specifications, mainly the color
range.
Achieving a Saybolt of plus 30 needs very high severity
hydrotreating, near that of white oil hydrotreating operat-
ing conditions. The catalyst, the nickel moly and the
nickel tungsten maximize hydrogenation.
Recovery of color degradation through the dewaxing
system, and production of industrial quality ASTM
D1500 color range is achieved only by classical hydrofin-
ishing conditions. There you would use cobolt moly and
nickel moly.
The hard waxes have a very low oil content, less than
.5 percent for the macrocrystalline and up to 2 percent
for the microcrystalline. To achieve color specifications
in the Saybolt upper scale for macrocrystalline waxes with
a melting point of 60-65°C and in the ASDM D1500
scale for microcrystalline with the melting point of 65-
70°C, we used medium severity hydrotreating with mainly
nickel-moly catalysts.
As a general comment, with all types of waxes, the
reactor temperature has to be maintained relatively low,
typically lower than about 329-343°C to achieve the best
color improvement.
20 General Processing
Question 16.
What volatility specifications are lube refiners facing on
light neutrals? How are they addressing these specifica-
tions?
ROMAN:
The International Lubricant Standardization and
Approval Committee or ILSAC has the dual objective
of unifying American, European and Japanese lube oil
standards and ensuring that these oils meet the changing
demands for new engines. Engine makers are demanding
lower volatility base stocks to reduce unburned hydrocar-
bon emissions and maintain catalytic converter life.
An additional objective is to lower oil consumption
for fleet vehicles. The upcoming ILSAC GF3 specifica-
tions for lube oils have not yet been formally stated.
However, the consensus within the industry is that the
current GF2 volatility specification of 17 percent gas
chromatograph vaporization at 700°F or a NOACK vola-
tility of 22 percent will be replaced with a more stringent
volatility limit. A GF3 NOACK volatility spec at a value
of about 15 percent is generally expected, which corres-
ponds to a GCD vaporization of 700°F of nine percent
based on an ASTM correlation.
Ashland has adopted a light neutral oil volatility target
of 8 percent GCD vaporization at 700°F for planning
purposes. The volatility decrease will require a slightly
heavier and higher viscosity light neutral product from
Ashland’s solvent refined lube operation.
In addition, the shift in light neutral product viscosity
will require a complementary increase in heavy neutral
product viscosity to maintain acceptable product yields
for the lube operation.
JOSECK:
The only thing I have to add is we are currently adjust-
ing the volatility in the vacuum tower either at the crude
unit or the vacuum tower on the back side of the hydro-
treater or hydrocracker.
MALEK:
The only comment I have is that this is going to be
a tough spec to make.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Light neutral oil volatility specifications are decreasing.
Prior to addressing lube vacuum column modifications
that affect the neutral oil product volatility via fraction-
ation improvement between gas oil and light neutral oil,
the atmospheric column performance should be analyzed.
Light neutral oil volatility specifications can be materially
improved by modification to the atmospheric column.
The atmospheric column wash zone and stripping section
TOC/INDEX
performance both affect light neutral oil volatility. Modifi-
cations to improve the wash and stripping section perfor-
mance are usually less costly than modifications to the
vacuum column.
Question 17.
What saturate levels are refiners targeting in their fin-
ished base oils? From what type of refinery feedstocks
are these produced?
JOSECK:
For light viscosity neutrals, depending on the applica-
tion, we are targeting a minimum of 90 percent saturates
for passenger motor oil applications for the Group II
base oil specification. We are currently processing Myan,
Appalachian, East Texas and North Louisiana crudes
using either all hydroprocessing or extraction and hydro-
processing technology. The API recognizes two groupings,
(Group I and Group II) of conventional base oils in the
API 1509 publication, Engine Oil Licensing and Certifi-
cation Systems, Fourteenth Edition, December 1996.
The specifications are for the two groups, group one,
less than 90 percent saturates, group two, greater than 90
percent saturates. Group I base oils are typically produced
utilizing the solvent extraction technology. Group II base
oils are typically produced using hydrocracker technology.
Both processes produce base oils satisfactory for lubricant
compounding, blending.
Our refineries utilize a variety of paraffinic crudes to
produce both groupings of base oils. The specific crude
oil feed stocks dictate the process technology necessary
to produce base oils. The saturate level a particular refiner
chooses is based on what they can produce utilizing their
refinery hardware as well as what markets they intend to
supply. All oil formulations do not require Group II
base oils.
MALEK:
I agree with those comments. The group two specifica-
tions that are proposed primarily relate to oxygen stability.
One of the areas of controversy is that the very low
aromatics content or the high saturates content may actu-
ally impede the effectiveness and solubility of additives.
ROMAN:
Group I lube stocks are defined as having more than
10% aromatics, and Group II lube stocks are defined as
having 10% or less aromatics. Group II stocks have higher
boiling points at a given kinematic viscosity than Group
I stocks and as a result are able to meet the new lower
volatility requirements which the engine manufacturers
are demanding. They also have better oxidative and ther-
mal stability characteristics. Their only downside is their
poor solvency for soot which is a problem in diesel engines.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
It is not economical to produce Group II base stocks
with solvent extraction due to the very high yield losses
experienced in extraction in order to reduce aromatic
content as opposed to extraction to increase viscosity
index.
Our current base oils contain 15-25 percent aromatics.
Most of these are monoaromatics and this makes it diffi-
cult to reduce aromatics via solvent extraction. A C25
monoaromatic has a distribution coefficient with furfural
that is very similar to that of a C25 naphthene or even a
C 25 paraffin. Increasing treat rates to remove these
monoaromatics also removes an unacceptable amount of
naphthenes and paraffins.
Hydrocracking processes are able to minimize this yield
loss by saturating the aromatic rings and also by cracking
higher boiling range material down into the base stock
cut to replace some of the components that have been
cracked to diesel and lighter material. As ILSAC GF3
volatility standards are adopted, we would expect that
only GF2 stocks will be used in the lighter multigrade
engine oils such as 5W30 and 10W30.
Solvent refined Group I stocks will be used for heavy
duty engine oils and other higher viscosity single grade
passenger car motor oils.
FOSTER:
I will just add that some refineries are looking at the
inclusion of very high volatility index oils, over 1120, to
boost overall saturate levels as the result of performance
of their base oils. Mr. Roman covered the hydroxy vapor-
ization, dewaxing and so forth.
Conventional solvent extraction will only be satisfac-
tory for a few select crudes. Otherwise, severe hydrorefin-
ing must be used.
Question 18.
What is the normal, average consumption (losses) of
NMP in a lube extraction process? How are the products
of decomposition of NMP dealt with? Do these products
play a role in corrosion within the unit? Are there any
recommended chemical treatments that reduce/elimi-
nate the corrosion? Does anyone have a program that
cleans or renews the solvent either internal or external
to the extraction unit?
JOSECK:
The average loss of NMP in the lube extraction unit
is less than 0.1 lb per mbbls. The NMP solvent is recovered
by distillation from the extract and raffinate. We have
not identified any products of decomposition from the sol-
vent.
In the NMP unit, the corrosion rates are extremely
high in the extract recovery section, particularly in high
velocity areas. The corrosion rates are low in the raffinate
recovery section indicating a corrosion relationship
21
TOC/INDEX
between the solvent, extract, and the extract recovery
section. We have been using a chemical corrosion treat-
ment program for years with favorable results.
The filming and neutralizing chemical treatment is
targeted at specific hot corrosion areas, typically areas
with high velocities in the extract section. We have also
upgraded metallurgy using hastelloy C威 in the high corro-
sion areas, although this is extremely expensive.
We recently increased the number of chemical addition
points and the total chemical injection rate for the protec-
tion of additional high corrosion areas. Upon increasing
the chemical feed, fouling occurred in several towers. The
fouling was identified as thermal decomposition of the
filming and the neutralizing amines. We are in the process
of switching to Betz chemicals based on improved bench
thermal decomposition testing.
BINFORD:
I’ll add some comments to Mr. Joseck’s answer on
some of the things that we did to choose the chemical
that he has just switched to.
The goal of Pennzoil’s research program was to increase
the run length of the unit by a factor of two. As Mr.
Joseck said, the real problem with the neutralizer program
was that the previous program was reacting with the degra-
dation acids. The salts of those acids were corrosive as
well as being insoluble in the NMP, thereby causing a
fouling problem as well.
A product that we developed provided equal corrosion
protection to the program that was used previously and
significantly lowered fouling potential on the bench. At
this point, we have been applying the new product in the
unit for about six weeks. We are feeding the corrosion
inhibitor into the extract column bottoms and into the
flasher overhead. Coupons installed in the dryer side draw
vapors have just been pulled at the end of week five. This
area has historically seen the most aggressive corrosion in
the system. The first set of readings on these coupons
indicate that corrosion rates have been cut in half, from
15-20 mils per year down to about 9 mils per year. Corro-
sion probes installed in the flasher overhead have held
at historic rates of less than one mil per year on the
new program.
Fouling in the flasher bottoms loop, the area that has
historically limited unit run length due to fouling, is
being monitored with a deposition coupon installed in
the flasher bottoms piping feeding the extract stripper.
This coupon was also pulled at the end of week five and
showed no indication of fouling. We are also installing
a split stream filter, which was designed for this area to
monitor buildup of foulants in the system. We will have
additional data from that slip stream filter shortly.
Based on these initial results, we do see a correlation
between corrosion and fouling in the unit and it looks
22 General Processing
like we may be able to effectively deal with both through
a different chemical treatment.
CAIN:
We lose about one gallon of solvent per 10,000 barrels
of charge oil. Corrosion is controlled with soda ash injec-
tion to maintain the desired pH. Soda ash is injected in
the extract mix surge vessel.
CHARLES HARRISON (Bechtel):
I agree in general with the comments, including the
mechanical losses as well as the process losses. If you have
a well maintained and well operated plant, we are aware
that you can achieve losses of 10 ppm by volume based
on charge rate. The decomposition products of NMP are
organic acids. Bechtel recommends neutralization of these
acids with soda ash solution. If left unneutralized, these
acids definitely play a role in the unit corrosion. This
corrosion usually occurs in the hot areas such as heater
tubes and heater outlet transfer lines and in areas of high
turbulence such as trays and in pumps.
We assume that by cleaning and renewing the solvent,
which is the third part of that question, that you mean
removing the organic acids and/or products of neutraliza-
tion from the NMP. We do not know of any program,
nor do we know of any refiner who attempts to clean or
renew the NMP. We do recommend neutralization. The
neutralization products are removed in the extract and
do not build to unacceptable levels in the unit.
V.K. KAPOOR (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
Although my concern is not related to this particular
Question 18, I believe the refractory index is the reason-
able method for the final lube quality control rather than
BI. Is there any experience available for using online
instrument?
JOSECK:
We are using online refractive index in the hydro-
cracker, but not in the NMP unit.
C. Solvent Deasphalting
Question 19.
Are new technologies being developed for the processing
of heavy solvent deasphalter bottoms? Has anyone been
able to produce a stable asphaltene/water emulsion or
dispersion?
JOSECK:
We have developed an emulsion formulation for a
resinous asphalt with as much as 40 percent oil as a multi-
component blend. The product is marketed as a road
dust suppressant called Pennz Supress 威 D. A significant
TOC/INDEX
amount of information is available on the Internet for
asphalting emulsions. There is a manufacturing associa-
tion for asphaltic emulsions called the Asphalt Emulsion
Manufacturing Association.
TASKER:
A number of years ago we performed plant tests, and
with the data from those tests we produced some case
study estimates of routing the solvent deasphalter bottoms
to an H-Oil unit. The tests actually showed that a quality
fuel oil could be produced from the high conversion
bottoms from the H-Oil unit. To date, however, we
have not had a customer sufficiently interested and with
sufficient capital to invest in this unique scheme. How-
ever, we did issue a paper on this a few years ago.
To answer the other part of the question about the
emulsion, our parent company IFP has studied the emul-
sion approach for disposal of deasphalter bottoms and
this approach has shown that there are some interesting
data for good burning.
TOM HALFORD (Petro-Canada):
Petro-Canada operates a slurry hydrocracker reactor in
the Canmet unit at its Montreal Refinery. This technology
is supported by pilot plant work in the National Center
for Upgrading Technology in Devon, Alberta.
Recently, the M.W. Kellogg Technology Company
had a pilot plant test done at NCUT on the Canmet
pilot plant using a ROSE de-asphalter bottoms as feeds-
tock. They got as high as 73% conversion of the nC5
asphaltenes. The only reason they stopped at 73% was
that they ran out of feed.
This data is published in a paper entitled ‘‘The Role
of Polar Aromatics in Residual Hydrocracking’’ presented
at the NCUT Conference ‘‘Directions in Refining and
Marketing of Synthetic Crude Oil and Heavy Oil’’ held
in Edmonton, Alberta, September 1997.
ELKIN CARONA CUADROS (EcoPetrol):
Do you have any experience for reaching high yields
in DMO up to 56 percent in volume for heavy residue
with 40-50 of penetration in a demet deasphalting with
unit with LPG solvent for bottoms obtaining five percent
weight of concarbon in DMO? Do those new technologies
include high yields with high quality like this?
HIGGINS:
No response.
D. Crude Distillation
1. Mechanical
Question 20.
There has been significant discussion on advances in
random and structured packing in recent years. What
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
new technologies are being developed and implemented
in tray systems?
HENKE:
There have been significant developments in fraction-
ation tray technology in the past several years. Two key
developments are active area enhancements and inlet area
enhancements. Each of these technologies can be applied
without major welding modifications to the fractionator.
Active area enhancement technologies, incorporating
small fixed or movable valves can typically increase the
vapor handling capacity of conventional trays by up to
30 percent.
Inlet area enhancement technologies utilizing the area
underneath the downcomer to increase the vapor handling
capacity, can increase the vapor handling capacity of con-
ventional trays by up to 25 percent.
Overall fractionation efficiency and turndown capabil-
ity are not affected by the change to these trays.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
There are numerous new high capacity trays available
in the marketplace. These high capacity trays all use basi-
cally one or both of two different methods to increase
the effective vapor handling capability of the trays. Several
of the trays use a smaller valve design or a smaller valve
design in conjunction with a directional valve. While the
inherent capacity increase from the smaller valve designs
is approximately 6-8%, the improved capacity claims run
as high as 30%. This simply is not true. The other method
to increase the vapor handling capacity of a tray is to
utilize a portion of area under the downcomer for vapor
flow. On a conventional tray, the area at the bottom of
the downcomer is a solid plate.
The various vendors use different patented and proprie-
tary techniques to utilize the bottom area of the down-
comer. Several high capacity trays ‘‘hang’’ the downcomer,
which allows active area under the suspended downcomer.
Many of these high capacity trays perform well. However,
the design of these trays is inherently more complex. More
complete design information is required. High capacity
tray failure rate is high relative to conventional trays.
While the capacity of these trays is higher, the tray turn-
down range is lower. Prior to implementing a high capac-
ity tray design, the various operation modes should be
studied thoroughly. Installation tolerances and inspection
requirements of high capacity trays are very important.
BRIAN D. ALBERT (Koch-Glitsch):
Significant developments in tray technology have been
introduced in the past five years. Two tray advancements,
active area enhancements and inlet area enhancements,
are particularly well-suited for increasing capacity without
major modifications to the column.
23
TOC/INDEX
Active area enhancement technologies
Tray active area performance has been enhanced by
new tray technologies that employ small fixed or movable
valves. The Bi-FRAC娂 tray, developed by Koch Engi-
neering Co., Inc. is an example of a fixed mini-valve and
the Glitsch VG0 is a example of a moveable mini-valve.
The mini-valve designs can increase the vapor handling
capacity of conventional trays by up to 30%.
Inlet area enhancement technologies
MAX-FRAC娂 and Nye威 trays by Koch-Glitsch are
examples of high performance trays which utilize the area
under the downcomer to increase the vapor handling
capacity. These trays can increase capacity by as much as
25% in comparison to conventional trays, while maintain-
ing the same efficiency and turndown capability.
Inlet area enhancements are particularly appropriate
for trays that have relatively large downcomers, but are
jet flood limited with conventional valve or sieve trays.
Retrofitting conventional trays with Nye威 or MAX-
FRAC娂 trays provides a capacity increase approximately
proportional to the increase in tray active area. The result-
ing lower vapor velocity through the enlarged active areas
results in a reduced tray pressure drop and lower levels
of entrainment.
Superfrac威 tray by Koch-Glitsch is a high performance
tray which utilizes both inlet area and active area enhance-
ments to achieve higher capacity and efficiency.
Most revamps with high performance trays do not
require extensive modifications to the existing tower weld-
in attachments and can easily be accomplished during a
short turnaround.
Question 21.
To what extent is the industry experiencing the presence
of mercury in crude overhead systems, and what have
been the associated problems?
MALEK:
The appearance of mercury is relatively uncommon in
crude oil, although it has shown up on certain specific
crudes. If concentrations of mercury appear in the total
crude in excess of one to two parts per million, you can
expect that some of it will show up in the overhead of
the crude tower system. You can also expect it to show
up in practically all of the product side streams. The
solubility of elemental mercury is about one to three parts
per million in hydrocarbon. Mercury also appears in crude
oil and other hydrocarbons in two other forms. It appears
as cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) and also as organic mercury
compounds which have a broad boiling range.
The organomercury compounds are relatively unstable
and will breakdown under the temperature conditions of
the crude heater. There is considerable work going on at
the research level to try and determine what can be done
24
about treating some of these high mercury crudes. Work
is being done by IFP and UOP on this particular problem.
BINFORD:
Elemental mercury has been found in the top of atmo-
spheric towers, for example, in the manways when the
columns open for maintenance. One instance occurred
in the Pacific Northwest refinery that had been processing
the Southeast Asia condensate. The condensate contained
trace amounts of mercury.
As a result of extended processing of the condensate,
small amounts of mercury condensed and collected into
visible quantities in the tower. During routine inspection,
the inspector found tablespoonful quantities of liquid
mercury in the upper manway nozzle. The presence of
mercury in this fashion represents a personnel hazard from
both breathing and skin contact.
Mercury spill kits are available to remove mercury and
thereby minimize danger to personnel entering vessels,
and should be used whenever mercury is detected. There
are also instruments that can be used to detect mercury
vapor in small concentrations. The capability of these
instruments has increased by several orders of magnitude
over the last several years. These better analytical capabili-
ties alone may be accounting for some of the increase in
mercury being cited in crude units.
Mercury does not attack carbon steel or steel alloys. It
is not corrosive to most other metals, except for aluminum
and aluminum alloys where it causes stress corrosion
cracking. The gas processing industry has avoided the use
of aluminum because of this. It also does not react readily
with sulfur or other trace crude contaminants to form salts.
And as a result, rarely plays a role in equipment fouling.
There is good information in NACE literature (1998
annual meeting, 1996 fall meeting minutes) and through
the GPA (Gas Processing Association) concerning mer-
cury found in equipment during turnaround inspections
in both the refining industry and the gas processing
industry.
Finally, it is common for heavy foreign crudes to be
blended back with condensates to achieve a gravity spec
or to bring the viscosity down to a manageable level. We
have seen some of this with South American crudes. The
mercury found in these crudes may not be from the base
crude at all, but from the condensate that is being used
to blend the crudes back.
HAHN:
I would just add that there is some concern that mer-
cury can attack monel and you get rapid metal embrittle-
ment or cracking. It takes a combination of precisely the
correct temperature and usually in the presence of caustic
to make that happen. So if you are going to experience
that, it is usually a rather rapid event and you will either
have it or not. We have had mercury in our overheads,
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
as evidenced by small droplets when we have opened up
overhead exchangers and not found any detrimental effects
from the mercury other than just the hazard of disposing
of it.
CARLOS CANZIANI (Refineria San Lorenzo S.A.):
In the case of crude oils with mercury content between
400 and 1100 ppb, what are the impact on environment,
considering gaseous and liquid effluents and final products
quality, when those crude oils are processed in a low
complexity refinery?
MALEK:
We believe that probably the most effective way to
capture this mercury will be in the form of mercuric
sulfide. So I think most of the work is directed toward
removing any of mercuric sulfides solids in the crude,
and to try and convert the other forms of mercury to a
sulfide so that it can be removed.
2. Process
Question 22.
What is the panel’s recent practice and experience with
regard to the effectiveness of crude preheat antifoulants?
JOSECK:
Our experiences are mixed. We have historically used
antifoulant for years at one refinery when energy prices
were high. As energy prices decrease, the antifoulant pro-
gram was determined to be uneconomical. We redesigned
the crude pretrain, specifically the desalted crude preheat
exchangers for offline cleaning. The offline cleaning design
was more for turnaround extension. With the offline
cleaning, we are currently able to extend the crude unit
turnaround cycle to over five years. Turnaround duration
is not currently limited by preheat train fouling.
At a second refinery, we had two crude units processing
the same crude. The two units were shutdown and
replaced with a third. We experienced fouling in both
the older two crude units, while the fouling is greatly
reduced using antifoulant in the replaced crude unit. The
antifoulant program by Betz began in 1981 and is still
active.
BINFORD:
There is a tremendous amount of literature in past
NPRA meeting transcripts on preheat antifoulants. I
would just say that the limited use of crude preheat anti-
foulants, especially in the late ’80s up through a couple
of years ago is really the result of poor payback due to
low energy prices and relatively low capacity utilization
in the U.S. In the last few years, however, as we have all
noticed, capacity utilization has steadily increased to now
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
pretty high levels. It may be time to relook at justification
for crude preheat antifoulants in your particular system.
CAIN:
We have success with crude unit antifoulants in two
plants. In one plant we are using Nalco/Exxon and the
other plant we are using Betz.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
There is a school of thought that antifoulants should
not be dictated midway through operations. Once the
preheat exchangers are clean antifoulant injection can
be done.
Question 23.
What atmospheric and vacuum heater outlet conditions
(temperature and pressure) are practiced by refiners pro-
cessing heavy crude oils, in particular heavy Canadian
crudes? What impact does the heater design have on
selecting these conditions?
CAIN:
At our Louisiana plant, we charge mostly Arab Medium
and we achieve a cutpoint around 1050 to 1060°F. In our
atomospheric heater, preheat runs around 600°F, heater
outlet, 730-750°F. The flash zone pressure is 27-32 psig.
In the vacuum heater, the outlet is 760-765°F and flash
zone pressure is 48 mmHg.
TASKER:
For the Canadian crudes, the heater outlet temperatures
generally run in the order of 370-380°C or 700-710°F.
We have not seen many problems in this range. Obviously,
the heater design comes into play when trying to push
the unit to its absolute ultimate capacity. The designs
with which I am familiar have not had any major design
differences compared to other heaters.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Atmospheric and vacuum heater outlet operating tem-
perature and heater design are integrally linked. Operating
atmospheric and vacuum heater outlet temperatures of
760 and 790°F are achievable on heavy Canadian or heavy
Venezuelan crudes. However, the heater design is very
important. Oil mass flux rates, heater coil size transitions,
and oil residence times (number of heater passes) deter-
mine the maximum operating temperature prior to ther-
mal cracking. Heater outlet temperatures and heater coil
design determine the maximum peak oil film temperature.
In one case, the atmospheric heater operating on a blend
of Canadian crude operated at a 760°F outlet. The atmo-
spheric heater was initiating cracking that loaded the vac-
uum jets. Reducing vacuum heater outlet temperature
had very little impact on ejector load. Instead, a 20°F
25
TOC/INDEX
reduction in atmospheric heater temperature dramatically
reduced vacuum ejector load.
Question 24.
Does anyone operate at vacuum residue cut points of
1100°F or higher? Please be specific as to crude type
and heater outlet/flash zone conditions. What are your
maximum atmospheric and vacuum heater outlet temper-
atures in lube and fuels operations?
MALEK:
There have been reported cut points of 1100°F or
higher. It is not so much a question of whether it is
feasible, but whether you really want to operate that high.
As you continue to increase the temperature and decrease
the vacuum in order to achieve these conditions, you get
into higher and higher levels of thermal cracking. The
gas make that the vacuum system has to handle gets
quite large.
We see designs now that are below 25 millimeters in
the flash zone. This is achievable due to the low pressure
drop contacting devices and techniques that are being
used inside of vacuum towers. I think the vacuum technol-
ogy has gotten to the point now where we can produce
very high cut points. However, the quality of the gas/
oil that is produced will ultimately limit the maximum
practical cut point.
We found that sometimes that the metals and concar-
bon that you might expect to be present in vacuum gas
oil are distorted on the crude assay information because
the techniques that were used to generate that crude assay
information are subject to the same limitations that we
have in operating units. In other words, gas oil quality
may not be as bad as the crude oil assay would indicate
because of poor separation in the laboratory apparatus to
produce that data.
TASKER:
We have one client in Japan who is running quite close
to 1100°F on the deep cut and they are processing Arabian
crudes. There have been no reported problems at this
stage.
FOSTER:
We operate our new crude and vacuum unit with resid
cut points as high as 1100°F. Of course, we are running
the Venezuelan 17 gravity crude. We use a KBC wet unit
design employing both heater coil steam and vacuum
column stripping steam.
Our design base is for crude outlets temperatures of
705°F and crude column flash zone temperatures of
approximately 690°F and 20 psig. Vacuum heater outlet
design base was about 790°F with a vacuum column flash
on conditions of 765°F and 35 millimeters of mercury.
26
RONALD BREDEHOFT (KTI Corporation):
One additional thing you need to look at, especially
if you are going to fire your furnace a little bit harder, is
the furnace outlet and transfer line conditions. Be sure
that the velocity in your transfer line and all your lines
going to the transfer line does not exceed 80 percent of
critical velocity.
Question 25.
Has anyone improved the stripping efficiency below the
flash zone of their atmospheric crude distillation column
in an attempt to recover more diesel from reduced crude?
If so, how was it achieved and what was the magnitude
of the improvement? Has anyone installed an external,
reduced crude, steam stripper?
MALEK:
Generally, we find that if good contacting and an
adequate amount of stripping steam is added to the bot-
tom of a crude stripping section, you will get essentially
complete removal of all the diesel components. If you are
adding steam rates in excess of five to six pounds per
barrel of atmospheric residue and not getting suitable lift
of the diesel components, you probably have improperly
design trays or perhaps lifted or damaged trays.
We have found problems in several stripping sections
of towers, particularly large towers that are equipped with
internal cans in the lower stripping zone. They have not
been designed such that the internal can extends below
the liquid level. This allows steam to short circuit or
bypass the stripping zone. This is one area to look at in
your design.
The question also asks about external strippers. We
have used these, but it can be a little inefficient to do
this. If you are running a real low pressure atmospheric
column, you probably would have to pump the atmo-
spheric resid back up to the stripper and then pump it
from the bottoms again. We think that with the proper
designed internals, you should get adequate stripping
inside the crude tower itself. One justification of putting
an external stripper on would be to take advantage of
some additional height for trays or internals that you
might be able to utilize in an existing crude fractionator.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Improving atmospheric column stripping section per-
formance has been used on several crude units to increase
distillate yields. A refiner operating a 60,000 bpd crude
unit processing Orienté crude increased the diesel and
marine production by over 4% based on crude. Improving
stripping section performance by increasing the number
of trays (reduced tray spacing) and improved tray design
can double or triple efficiency. If a refiner ‘‘blows’’ out
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
poorly designed stripping trays on start-up, the total atmo-
spheric distillate yield loss from damage will be approxi-
mately 10% of the atomospheric tower bottoms (ATB)
when operating at 8 lb/bbl of ATB stripping steam rate.
Simply keeping the trays intact through improved
mechanical design will increase diesel and atmospheric
gas oil product yields. Installing standard design trays
practically assures they will be damaged if there is any
unit upset such as high liquid level.
Question 26.
What operational measurements are being used to moni-
tor/detect flooding or foaming in a crude tower? What
actions can be taken to address the problem? With the
need to run ever higher crude rates, this is becoming a
more common problem.
FOSTER:
This question has to do with operational measurements
for monitoring and detecting foaming or flooding. The
traditional, but reactive approach is to determine where
your flood prone conditions are and then monitor the
differential pressure in that section.
Short term actions to address a flooding problem or
ranging from a modest increase in tower operating pres-
sure to shifting pumparound heat removal to limit the
traffic in the restricted sections. Since this is a bit reactive,
it is a better idea if you have an online capacity factor
demonstrated at the operator’s DCS console.
For our vacuum column, the C factor is continuously
calculated for the column loadings between the wash zone
and the heavy vacuum gas oil draw, since this is the section
in our particular tower with the highest loading. This
enables some proactive operation to remain below
flood conditions.
The best idea and the one that we intend to implement
is to encode these calculations and the tactical responses
into our advance control logic along with many other
crude capacity constraint calculations like heater firing
and so forth. Therefore, we are always running the crude
rate too, but not exceeding those constraints.
Longer term but a more expensive option is to look
at the high capacity packing of your tower. I think that
Mr. Henke has already covered that.
BINFORD:
Some of the other panelists are going to talk about
mechanical modifications, so I will concentrate on opera-
tional issues. Several refineries in the United States and
overseas have used high temperature defoamers as either
a shortterm solution to solving the problem or when a
mechanical or operating option could not be justified.
The products are silicone-based defoamers similar to
what is used in a coker. As opposed to the coker operation,
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
however, you typically do not get to high enough tempera-
tures to actually decompose the silicone. As a result, the
silicone product is going to end up going with bottoms
in both the crude tower and the vacuum tower. This
typically does not cause a problem unless, of course, you
are hydroprocessing or cracking resid. Then you would
have to look at silicone uptake on that catalyst.
Also, you do need to check for silicone level in the gas
oil draw and the bottom side cuts. Even though you are
not going to get any decomposition you could get some
entrainment up into that section and so you would want
to check to make sure this is not occurring in your system.
MALEK:
I would make a similar comment as I made yesterday
on heat exchangers in a crude unit. The process simulation
tools that are now available to your process engineers
are capable of predicting flooding in crude towers very
precisely. They all have fairly good rating calculations for
specific types of internals. So get to know your crude unit
by a process simulation before you make major operational
changes. As you change crude oils and change operating
conditions, you can anticipate flooding conditions well
before they occur.
ROMAN:
Jet flooding and system capacity flooding should be
distinguished from foaming. It is generally the preflash
tower which is most prone to foaming. Foaming takes
places in preflash towers due to the entrainment of vapor
into the liquid as it enters into the flash zone.
These bubbles have a characteristic rise velocity which
can be rather low due to the viscous nature of the crude
liquid. When the downward velocity of the crude liquid
exceeds the upward velocity of the vapor bubbles, a stable
foam results. The presence of sodium naphthenates creates
smaller bubbles and makes the situation more likely. Avail-
able solutions are to design the tower with a large enough
diameter below the feed tray to allow these bubbles to
disengage, minimize the amount of naphthenic crudes
in the mix, and inject an antifoam to improve bubble
disengagement. At one of our installations, we successfully
used Petrotech 1964 at 5 ppm to control this foaming.
We have also utilized standard laboratory foaming tests
to identify which crudes are most likely to foam.
SAMUELS:
We have historically seen foaming in our 165,000 bpd
preflash column in Robinson refinery. This spring we
expanded the unit to 185,000 barrels per day. To address
the foaming, we installed a drum upstream of the preflash
column as part of the retrofit. The drum has a seven
minute residence time and we have been able to run up
to 200,000 barrels a day with no foaming problems on
a variety of crudes.
27
TOC/INDEX
EDWARD F. JUNO (Pennzoil Products Company):
I would like to poll the panel to see if anyone has
used packing, either structured or random packing, in
the stripping section of a crude or crude vacuum column.
I have used structured packing in a vacuum tower in a lube
oil hydrotreating unit. I was just wondering if anybody has
applied this to crude distillation.
DONALD SCHNEIDER (Stratus Engineering, Inc.):
To respond to Mr. Juno, structure packing has been
installed in atmospheric stripping sections below the flash
zone and it is operating well in some cases.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services, Inc.):
I believe the first use of packing in stripping sections
of crude columns was reported by Guam Refining in the
1970s. They used random packing successfully in that
application. There have been quite a few applications of
packing and structured packing in that service with mixed
results over time. But in general, it can be successful.
The best operational measurement of flooding is by
pressure drop. Properly designed and installed differential
pressure transmitters allow operation very close to incipi-
ent tray flooding. Calculations do not accurately predict
the onset of flood. The various correlations from the
different vendors will calculate a 20% difference in flood
for the identical tray design. Additionally, trays flood
via vapor and downcomer flood. The downcomer flood
correlations are not very accurate. The differential pressure
transmitter should be installed above the top pressure
tap and impulse legs should be traced and insulated to
minimize condensation. The impulse leg tube diameter
is important. Small tubing can cause condensation and
siphoning effects which result in inaccurate readings.
Foaming in atmospheric crude columns is very rare.
Preflash drums and columns often foam. Foaming gives
a false level measurement. Foaming is indicated by split
levels in the sight glass.
STEPHEN LEE (Chevron Research & Technology):
We do have structured packing in a vacuum column.
The column is actually being used as a stripper behind
an Isodewaxer威. The entire column is structured packing
both above and below the flash zone. It is working
very well.
MICHAEL BOTHE (Tru-Tec Division of Koch Engineering):
A proactive scan of the active area in the downcomers
can give valuable baseline information. So if and when
rates on the crude tower are increased, additional scans
from that point can pinpoint the locations in the tower
where flooding or foaming occurs.
28 General Processing
Question 27.
What operating parameters of the desalter are critical
to ensure no salt laydown on the atmospheric tower inter-
nals?
BARLOEWEN:
This question deals with operating parameters of the
desalter to ensure no salt lay down in the atmospheric
crude tower. I would like to acknowledge the assistance
of Howe-Baker in preparing the answer.
The critical parameters have been touched on, operat-
ing temperature, mixing valve pressure drop, oil water
interface level control, demulsifier chemical type and rate
and wash water quality and rate.
Some typical operating temperatures for heavy crudes
(these would be crudes less than 25° API,) would be
280°F or higher; medium crudes, say 25-35°API, 260-
280°F; light crudes (higher than 35°API gravity 240-
260°F. So-called typical mixing valve delta P, are 10-15
PSU, wash water rates for the heavy crudes, six to eight
volume percent, medium crudes four to six, and light
crudes three to four percent.
I am not going to touch on demulsifer chemical types
and rates. I will leave that to one of our additive experts
on the panel. Wash water chloride level should be below
15 parts per million to ensure good desalting efficiency.
Another factor is type of desalter internals to minimize
the amount of salt deposition or carry through. Experience
has shown that distributing crude water emulsion below
the electro grids provides better dehydration and mini-
mizes salt carryover during abnormal operations such as
water slugs and upset conditions.
BINFORD:
Regarding chemical addition type and rate, the com-
ments would be so general because of the wide variety of
different crude types, I do not think that it would really
be worthwhile trying to go into that in this question.
There are a couple of things that I would take note
of, however. One is that if you have gotten all you can
out of your desalters and you are still having problems
with salt lay down in the atmospheric tower, feed caustic
into the desalted crude if possible. This will have more
impact on chloride hydrolysis than any other single thing
you can do. A good rule of thumb is if your overhead
chlorides are running 50 ppm or higher you could be a
good candidate for feeding caustic in the desalted crude.
Besides chloride carry through from the desalter, we
have also documented several cases of organic amines
coming in with the crude or the desalter washwater. I
will refer back to the discussions on amine units and care
of amine units relative to tramp amine getting into your
sour water stripper and then ultimately to your desalter.
You need to be looking at your amine units and make
sure that is not causing part of your problem.
TOC/INDEX
CAIN:
Mr. Barloewen and Mr. Binford covered pretty much
of what I had to add. We analyze our samples four times
a week for BS&W and salt. The preheat to the desalters
is maintained above 250°F and the mix valve differencial
pressure between 14 and 17 pounds.
FOSTER:
I agree with what has been said. If you are experiencing
poor desalter operation, sometimes it can be the reaction
to poor operation that really gets you in trouble. Let me
give you an example of what we did that further exacer-
bated a desalter problem. Some years ago we over treated
and used an excessive amount of neutralizing amine injec-
tion into the crude tower overhead. We did this as an
attempt to counteract chloride corrosion from poor
desalter operation.
What happened was when neutralizing amine con-
tacted the rising hydrogen chloride in the tower, it tended
to form amine chloride salts which, of course, precipitated
out and fouled the trays. We had to shutdown a crude
column some years ago just because of that overreaction
to poor operation of the desalter.
Most refiners, as Mr. Binford said, do inject a modest
amount of caustic into the desalter outlet at about one
to two pounds per thousand barrels. This normally serves
to neutralize hydrogen chloride when your desalter opera-
tion is less than perfect. It is a much better idea than
excessive use of neutralizing amine.
However, excessive caustic conditions sometimes
causes your problems with in coking in the vacuum heater
or in your coker heaters. So watch the sodium levels in
your coker feed. We get nervous when our sodium levels
get above 10 parts per million.
SAMUELS:
I agree with what has been said. For the young engineer
interested in desalting, section 17 of the Encyclopedia of
Chemical Processing and Design entitled ‘‘Drying Solids
to Electrostatic Hazards’’ provides a good overview of
desalting and desalter economics.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Apart from the need to properly desalt the crude, the
type of neutralizing amine (or ammonia), the operating
temperature in the top of the column, reflux temperature,
and the water content of the reflux all affect the salt
laydown in the column. Ammonium chloride will deposit
on the trays. The quantity of hydrogen chloride in the
top of the atmospheric crude column is related to the
desalter operation and the percent hydrolysis in the heater.
Some crudes contain compounds that hydrolyze more of
the remaining salt in the desalted crude better than others.
While corrosion in the crude column overhead system is
related to the chlorides, the salt laydown in the top of
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
the crude column is a stronger function of processing,
design, and chemical treating considerations. Wet reflux,
low reflux temperatures, and low overhead temperature
all affect tower salt deposition. The two most important
operating variables are reflux temperature which affects
localized water condensation and bulk water dewpoint
which is related to top temperature and water vapor con-
tent.
BILL FAHEY (Baker Petrolite):
The panel covered many of the parameters of desalter
operation which effect the deposition of amine hydrochlo-
ride or ammonium chloride salts on the tower internals.
We need to consider other sources on contamination
beside the desalter operation. The source of the desalter
wash water is critical as some process waters and/or
stripped sour water man contain ammonia or volatile
amines which can then be carried into the tower where
they will form amine salts deposits. The returning of wet
reflux containing salts to the tower can contribute to
fouling in the tower. Other sources are the use of volatile
amine corrosion inhibitors in the steam system. These
amines may react with the HCI generated in the furnace
and cause salt deposits. We have also observed cases where
purchases distillate feedstocks, which are rerun in the
crude tower, may contain salt forming contaminates.
The injection of neutralizing amine into the crude
tower for overhead condensate pH control has lead to
frequent salt deposition in crude towers. This practice
should be carefully considered prior to application as the
side effects often cause greater problems that the desired
pH control.
The application of a proprietary process simulation
based on a rigorous thermodynamic ionic model can help
identify the possibility of salt formation in the entire
crude tower and overhead system. This model uses system
parameters and will predict the salt deposition conditions
based on measured variables including all those discussed
by the panel.
Question 28.
Have refiners had kerosene color problems while pro-
cessing certain crudes (e.g., a refinery processing Qua
Iboe crude has experienced kerosene color that deterio-
rates in the presence of sunlight)? What methods are
available to overcome this problem?
BINFORD:
Color deterioration can be caused by oxidation of natu-
rally occurring compounds in the crude such as phenols,
aromatic nitrogen compounds that distill with the kero-
sene. Chemicals added to the kerosene can also undergo
oxidation resulting in color degradation.
For example, phenylenediamine is notorious for turn-
ing bright red when it oxidizes in the presence of sunlight.
29
TOC/INDEX
Just because the fuel color degrades due to the presence
of UV light, it does not mean it will necessary turn color
in dark storage. Most refiners either hydrotreat and/or
use clay filters to overcome color problems.
In some cases, an approved antioxidant or metal deacti-
vator will lessen color degradation in kerosene. Color
problems in kerosene may be crude related, but are most
often caused by compounds produced in conversion pro-
cesses in the refinery. Color degradation in the presence
of sunlight means that very reactive alpha olefins, acids,
or bases are present. These are typically formed in severe
conversion operations such as delayed coking, visbreaking,
or catalytic cracking.
Coker streams are highly reactive and seldom can be
stabilized with additives alone. The reason is that the
concentration of reactive molecules are so high and the
thermodynamics are so strong that the dosages of inhibitor
are prohibitive or cause problems at those high dosages.
The only practical way to stabilize these highly reactive
streams is to hydrotreat them immediately or blend them
down to a low concentration in a larger stream so that
chemical treatment can be effective.
Another initiator of color degradation is metal contami-
nation. Transition metals, noticeably nickel and copper
will catalyze degradation reactions. Metal deactivator,
which essentially coats the metals with an organically
protected film making them unable to catalyze the color
reactions, can be used to prevent color degradation.
Other mildly reactive kerosene streams that show
longer term stability problems as measured by an induc-
tion period or 300°F 90 minute test can be effectively
treated by antioxidants. Many chemistries are approved
by the military and ASTM for use in jet fuel. These and
others can be used in the refinery for nonjet streams as
well. Some crudes or crude derived streams will be more
affected by thermal or catalytic cracking than others. The
effect of crude charge changes on finished product specifi-
cations has not been compiled to our knowledge, probably
because it would require so many caveats that the process
might not be worthwhile.
JOSECK:
Our virgin kerosenes tend to discolor over time. We
hydrotreat and bauxite treat for special applications with
strict color specifications. The hydrotreated and bauxite
treated kerosenes tend to be more stable than the vir-
gin kerosenes.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
One of UOP’s guarantees is that the color deterioration
in the kerosene Merox does not exceed 10 (Saybolt). So,
practically with all types of crude we get color deteriora-
tion of about 6 to 8 between upstream and downstream
of the Merox reactor.
30 General Processing
JAMES MANN (Merichem Company):
Middle distillate color instability results from reactions
started by or involving one or more compounds including
nitrogen, diolefins, sulfur and naphthenic acids. The most
reliable method to eliminate color in stability is to hydro-
treat the distillate at pressures sufficiently high to render
these impurities nonreactive.
Another process which has been successfully applied
for color stabilization is sulfuric acid treating to remove
unsaturates and nitrogen compounds. This process can
be economical for refiners who operate sulfuric acid alky
units and already manage spent acid streams. FIBER
FILM娃 technology is an excellent option for acid treating.
E. Instrumentation
Question 29.
What are the status of and requirements for the approval
of NIR for gasoline blend (ASTM) certification?
ROMAN:
NIR spectrophotometry provides a fast, reliable, very
accurate means to measure motor and research octanes
online. Statistical methods are used to correlate the octanes
with the higher vibrational harmonics of benzyl, methyl,
methylene and methyne carbon- hydrogen bonds. Ash-
land holds 75 percent of the patents on this technology
and has proposed a standard to D.02.04 Section F on
absorption spectroscopy.
There has been some opposition to recommending this
standard due to disagreements over the statistical methods
and the accuracy and precision standards. There also is
a desire on the part of some of the subcommittee members
to have Ashland and British Petroleum, who holds the
remaining NIR patents, to release these methods into the
public domain. The subcommittee membership would
also like to see more than one vendor participate and
British Petroleum is working with Ashland to help get
this standard approved.
Question 30.
Many refiners are trying to optimize and more closely
control chemical additives (corrosion inhibitors, emul-
sion breakers, dyes, etc.). Are there more accurate meth-
ods of controlling the usage than with metering pumps?
BINFORD:
Regarding optimizing or closely controlling chemical
additives, two things that are becoming pretty common
are automatic stroke control or variable speed control on
pumps, driven by a 4-20 miliamp signal that is directly
tied to the refiner’s DCS system. The real key here is
tying these into the right control scheme and the rest of
the process, whether it is directly tied in or through the
use of an appropriate model.
TOC/INDEX
On water systems, especially boilers and cooling towers,
the use of our pacesetter technology has been very success-
ful in automatic feed control relative of water treatment
chemicals for those processes. The pacesetter technology
basically controls feed rate of many chemical pumps auto-
matically, up to six or eight pumps I believe. The feed rate
controls are verified by automatic draw down verification
from the tank. They are tied both to automatic analyses
of the different water streams as well as optimizers for
optimizing blow down of the boiler or cycles on the
cooling tower.
CAIN:
We do use metering pumps controlled by our blend
computer.
JOSECK:
We agree with everything that was said. The only thing
we would like to add is we do not have closed loop control
on corrosion control additives, gasoline or diesel dyes, or
emulsion breakers. Corrosion control additives are dosed
on a theoretical basis from corrosion history information.
Emulsion breakers are dosed on historical minimum dos-
age rates for effectiveness and dosed on an as needed basis
during upsets.
BILL FAHEY (Baker Petrolite):
I would like to reference a series of papers which were
given at NACE Corrosion ’96 on chemical injection sys-
tems sponsored by Subcommittee T-921. An additive
paper on hardware and pumps was given at the Fall
Committee week ’96. A partial list of references are:
W. L. Witzig et al., ‘‘The Design and Operation of
Process Chemical Treatment Facilities,’’ Corrosion 81-
64..’’
A. C. Gysbers, et al., ‘‘Results of Problematic Refinery
Plant Injection Point Survey,’’ Corrosion 96-585.
Lee Craig, et al., ‘‘ Documentation of Injection Points
in Refinery Piping: Corrosion,’’ 96-586.
C. Fort, et al., ‘‘Process Design of Injection Systems,’’
Corrosion 96-587.
R. Konet, et al., ‘‘Implementation Strategies for API
570 Injection Point Inspection Programs,’’ Corrosion
96-588.
C. Quinter, ‘‘Performance Verification of Injection
Systems,’’ Corrosion 96-590.
J. Gutzeit, ‘‘Problems with Injection Facilities for Pro-
cess Additive or Wash Water: Corrosion,’’ 96-591.
C. Ballance, et al., ‘‘Multipoint Injection System Con-
cepts,’’ Corrosion 96-592.
W. F. Fahey, ‘‘Chemical Injection System Hardware,’’
NACE Fall Committee Week T-8-21 minutes.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
F. Computer/Process Control.
Question 31.
How is data reconciliation being handled for plant infor-
mation systems, unit monitoring tools and unit optimiza-
tion? Has anyone integrated reconciled plant data
directly with business accounting systems?
CAIN:
We are currently implementing a data reconciliation
software to give us a single repository of reconciled data,
from which employees can draw upon and make effective
decisions. We are going with the Adviser package by ISIS
which will be maintained by our accounting department.
This package will provide the reconciled data on a next
day basis.
FLETCHER:
There is a broad spectrum here. Some facilities have
virtually no reconciliation, while others use on-line gravity
analyzers and automatically correct yield meters to flowing
conditions. The main issue is that there is some reconcilia-
tion of plant data into the key planning tools so that
plant economics and planning are maximized.
Unit monitoring can be achieved by simple spread
sheets or through the use of nonlinear models. The best
system will utilize unit monitoring with a good nonlinear
model which can also be used to optimize the unit opera-
tion. This provides for a consistent methodology between
performance history and optimization. One example of
such a system is KBC’s FCC CatOp model which is used
to monitor unit performance and forecast the operation
through the adjustment of operating variables or feed
quality.
This system can then be readily used to update the
refinery LP representation to more accurately match cur-
rent system performance.
HAHN:
In addition to what Mr. Cain said about the overall
plant balance adviser system that we are going to use
for accounting data reconciliation, we have done data
reconciliation as part of the advanced control package on
our process units. Usually they have a two-step method
where they attempt to catch gross errors automatically
from instrumentation. They then do both mass and energy
rigorous calculations to do data reconciliation more or
less right online. We found that to be very effective before
trying to do advanced process control.
HENKE:
We have recently commissioned KBC’s Sigmafine pro-
gram to assist with data reconciliation. We do not store
reconciled data. We use it to help improve the measured
31
TOC/INDEX
data which we use in unit monitoring tools and unit
optimization. We have not integrated the reconciled plant
data directly with business accounting systems at this time.
As an aside, we derived many unanticipated benefits from
implementing this program. The discipline required dur-
ing implementation uncovered several errors that had
crept into our internal material balances during the years.
JOSECK:
Pennzoil currently uses a SAP accounting system and
Signafine software data gathering system at the refinery
level for throughput and yields. Signafine recovers data
from the upper level Setpoint and PI systems. Setpoint
and PI are used as an upper level data gathering system,
trending, data historian, and optimization system for the
DCS. We are aware that Foxboro has an SAP interface.
The SAP interface requires a Foxboro 50 series or higher
hardware platform to run the software and provide the
ethernet connections.
All of our data reconciliations is at the Signafine level.
We have integrated Signafine to SAP using in-house soft-
ware. Currently, the facilities do not reconcile data back
to the historians for supporting data for optimization.
Reconciled data is used to validate the plant LP, schedul-
ing activities, and monthly or weekly tracking of key unit
data from the PI and Setpoint systems.
ROMAN:
The refinery’s yield accounting system uses a statistical
based reconciliation approach whereby balance errors are
distributed to flow meters which have the highest standard
deviation. More rigorous model development activities in
both inferential control and online optimization rely upon
either first principle model based reconciliation systems
or neural network based pattern reconciliation systems.
The first principle, fundamental based data reconcilia-
tion systems, as their name implies, use redundancies and
flows, temperatures and pressures, along with chemical
engineering based relationships such as material and
energy balances, flash calculations and heat exchange
equations to validate data and make alternative recom-
mendations on those points felt to be in error.
The neural network based approach establishes pattern
models across a set of related data points to establish
whether a data point deviates from the pattern the neural
network identifies for it.
If there is disagreement, the neural network recom-
mends an alternative value to cause the suspected data
point to better fit the pattern established for it. Neural
network based approaches have been found to accurately
perform steady state as well as dynamic data reconciliation.
The disadvantage of this approach is that a large set of
sample data of relatively good quality must be available
in order to train the models. Reconciled plant data is not
32 General Processing
yet being directly passed to the business accounting sys-
tems.
BRIAN HART (Aspen Technology, Inc.):
Aspen Technology has been working with data recon-
ciliation and balance resolution for the past six years in
refining and petrochemical plants. Our experience is that
reconciled data has value in optimization applications,
but resolved values are much more valuable to the business
systems. This is because reconciliation forces closure by
distributing error across all measurements in proportion
to their likely contribution to that error. Resolution on
the other hand uses available measurements and other
information to pinpoint likely sources of error and recom-
mend corrections which generally can be validated. It is
the latter case which has value to the business account-
ing function.
H.C. KLIESCH (Treiber Controls):
Data reconciliation and parameter update is an integral
part of our online optimization of a unit. Because an
open equation format is used for the model of the unit,
the same simultaneous equations are solved for data recon-
ciliation, only the objective functions are changed.
BEN WALKER (Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co.):
At our plant, we find that the reconciled data very
often provides a less accurate unit material balance on
many of our units. Most times we depend on metered
unit information to provide better closure on our unit
material balances and test runs.
Question 32.
LP Planning Systems continue to be the main vehicle to
determine overall refinery optimum operations. How do
refiners measure how well their LP in fact matches refin-
ery process capability? What data are collected and how
often? How is it compared to LP predictions? How closely
do they compare?
HAHN:
We do several different things to check our LP model.
Periodically, we conduct unit test runs to verify the indi-
vidual unit submodels, particularly whenever we make a
process or hardware change on the unit or when we have
a significant feedstock change.
We also conduct back cast or audits that we do after
the fact, taking a whole month’s run and back casting
that with actual crude input and rerunning the model
and see what the answer is, applying spot prices to those
volumetrics and seeing how close we came to what we
actually did as far as volumetrics go. We have been very
successful at this. Typically, our plant model is within a
cent a gallon profit on a gross basis based on those spot
prices for a typical month. We also check such critical
TOC/INDEX
parameters as exhaust benzene, i.e., what the model said
by calculation and what we actually experienced. Once
again, our model generally predicts that fairly accurately,
within about .1 milligrams per mile on exhaust benzene.
So we are satisfied with our model, but it does take
constant attention to keep up with the ever changing
process units and crudes.
CAIN:
We do a complete refinery backcast each month. Indi-
vidual units are backcast weekly by using a spreadsheet
submodel to compare actual vs. model yields for the actual
quality and volume of input. The individual submodels
are reviewed every three months for potential model revi-
sions. The complete refinery backcast is a supporting
tool for individual unit changes and may also point out
additional model revision requirements (i.e., blending,
volume gain, hydrogen balance, etc.).
FLETCHER:
I think the only thing I would add is that one of our
customers compares their LP yields to observed yields on
a monthly basis and then changes to the LP model are
made when a significant deviation reoccurs over a three
month period.
FUSSELL:
Earlier this year we purchased a new LP model which
was a lot more flexible than the model we had been using
previously. We set ourselves a very aggressive goal of
getting our new model up to speed as quickly as possible.
This year we have probably run more test runs than we
have ever done in the 15 years I have been at Fina and
our lab has felt that. We have integrated the information
from these test runs into our LP model. Once a month
we compare what we actually did to what the LP model
predicts. We find the areas where we are off the most
and we do more test runs and continue to try to fine
tune it. Right now our LP model is within plus or minus
five cents per barrel on our margin.
HENKE:
Our experience is similar to that described. Since it is
so labor intensive, we only perform detailed comparisons
of LP output with plant data when significant changes
occur. The time period is between monthly or quarterly.
SAMUELS:
As far as global analysis of the model, we have covered
that pretty well. I would like to say that getting the
individual units accurately represented ensures that incre-
mental processing decisions will be made correctly. The
key to improving LP accuracy is to get the unit engineers
to take responsibility for reviewing the individual unit
representations.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
To aid the unit engineers in this effort, we have devel-
oped spreadsheets and have been able to track actual yields
accurately against the LP for most of the major units. We
have a mass balance day every week, so that data are
generated automatically.
Additionally, we use KBC, UOP, Profimatics and other
kinetic models to enhance the measured data by establish-
ing better yield partials over a larger operating range.
We try to explain the differences between predicted
yields versus actuals in monthly or quarterly tech service
reports. The LP is updated on a semiannual basis.
In many cases, the predictions consistently match very
well, plus or minus five percent for individual product
yields. If the yields are generally over or under the pre-
dicted amount, but directional shifts are properly repre-
sented, the base yields can be adjusted. Consistently poor
correlations and response generally indicates that a reeval-
uation of the yield partials should be considered. Addi-
tional yield partials are also considered in some cases. But
having the unit engineers involved is the key.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
The accuracy of a refinery LP is measured by perform-
ing a ‘‘reconciliation.’’ A reconciliation compares actual
plant data to LP predictions for a given time period. A
reconciliation is a necessary step in maintaining a reason-
able LP representation of a refinery.
A reconciliation is conducted during a period that is
consistent with yield accounting and financial reporting.
These activities typically occur monthly. The close of the
accounting books will often produce a ‘‘charge and yield’’
report. This information is more accurate than the sum-
mation of many refinery flow meters. This report is pro-
duced with receipts from all custody transfer meters and
changes in tank inventories. It is a good practice to verify
tank levels at the beginning and end of the period. The
presence and amount of water is noted for each tank.
The LP model is constrained to match crude slate,
pricing data, and process unit charge rates for the period
of reconciliation. The crude slate is obtained from the
charge and yield report. The pricing data is obtained from
the financial reporting. The average process unit charge
rates are obtained from the plant data information sys-
tems.
The output from the constrained LP run is compared
to the actual yields to measure the accuracy of the LP
model. The gasoline, distillate, LPG, specialty chemical,
and residual volumes from the LP run are compared to
the actual yields for the period. The actual yields are
obtained from the charge and yield report.
This procedure is used to monitor the accuracy of the
LP. A large difference between the actual yield and the
predicted yields for any of the products is an indication of
a problem. Typical problems encountered are inaccurate
33
TOC/INDEX
crude oil outpoints, incorrect crude oil assays and process
unit representations in need of calibration in the LP.
The problems can be corrected with close work with
the unit process engineer. The solution often requires
unit test run data.
A well maintained LP with accurate crude oil assays
can match actual plant yields within 97%. For example,
gasoline and distillate predictions for a 100 mbpsd refinery
with total gasoline and distillate production of 50 mbpsd
and 45 mbpsd, respectively, can be Ⳮ/- 1500 bpd.
Question 33.
With the increased importance of alkylation units due to
gasoline regulation concerns, what is the experience
using both kinetic (rigorous) and statistical computer
models? What kind of unit performance improvements
have been realized with each model type?
BINFORD:
We know of several refiners that do have kinetic models
built for their alkylation units that are used as optimizers.
To our knowledge, there is no one that has a kinetic
model that would be what we would consider real time,
and certainly none that are being used for closed loop
control of the process, although we certainly think that
people are moving in that direction.
We use an in-house statistical model called PEAKS,
which stands for Process Emulation and Artificial Knowl-
edge Synthesis, that is based on the neural network tech-
nology. The model is developed from actual plant data
that we trained to be very accurate within the constraints
of the model that is built. Then we verify the model on
independent data sets to ensure that the model is valid.
In most cases we have gotten very good match between
our neural network base technology and refiners’ kinetic
models. There have been cases where we have seen the
two models diverge from each other. We have been able
to get to the root cause of that and correct it, but it
certainly involves a lot of work in doing so.
BRIAN HART (Aspen Technology, Inc.):
Aspen Technology has done successful online optimiza-
tion calculations using correlation based alkylation mod-
els. We are also currently working jointly with two clients
to develop more rigorous kinetic based models for their
alkylation processes. These will be used to do online opti-
mization applications.
Online constrained multivariable control, however, can
also provide significant benefits through empirical models.
Unit profitability is maximized by achieving the following
objectives: maximizing isobutane to olefin ratio, maximiz-
ing feed rate, maximizing propane removal, minimizing
isobutane losses to butane and propane streams, maintain-
ing alkylate RVP target, minimizing acid consumption
and losses and maintaining all systems inventories.
34
LEE TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
Profimatics, (the company name prior to acquisition
by Honeywell) put on the first closed loop alkylation
optimization and control with a kinetic model into service
in the late 1960’s. We have installed several real-time
optimization packages since then.
One post installation audit report showed benefits of
about $125/day on a 20,000 bpd HF alkylation unit. See
NPRA paper CC-93-139, ‘‘On-Line Optimization at El
Palito Refinery’’ for details.
H.C. KLIESCH (Treiber Controls):
Our real time optimization software CRO (Closed-
loop Reconciliation and Optimization), uses a first-princi-
ples, non-linear chemical engineering model of the entire
alkylation unit. We are calculating a new values for up
to 25 setpoints, which are sent to the controllers every
45 to 60 minutes. Among these setpoints are the isobutane
target for an OPC (Optimal Predictive Control) multi-
variable predictive constraint controller and unit olefin
rate. This results in an economically optimal retention of
isobutane in the plant and use of olefin feed to exploit
all available isobutane. The optimizer generally holds the
operation against 15 to 20 mechanical and quality con-
straints. Among other performance improvements, the
unit has run at 140 percent of design alkylate production
of sustained periods. The application has been running
continuously and profitably for over five years. The fol-
lowing is a reference on the application:
Treiber, S., R.S. McLeod, T. J. Boyle, G. Powley, &
S. Lee, ‘‘Closed-loop Plant Wide Optimization,’’ CPPA
Control Systems ‘92 Conference, Whistler, British
Columbia, September 29-October 1, 1992.
Question 34.
Taking an overall view, crude unit product properties
can be obtained from lab samples, on-line analyzers, or
inferential calculations. What percentage of your crude
side streams are controlled by each method?
FOSTER:
Right now we use 100 percent lab samples for control
of product properties on both of our large crude units.
With advanced control projects in progress, we plan to
have one crude unit on 100 percent inferred properties
by end of year and the other crude unit on 100 percent
inferred properties by this time next year. These inferential
calculations are intended to be bias updated by lab sam-
ples. The only area we see a need for an analyzer applica-
tion is for the heavy vacuum gas/oil in deep cut operation.
We expect to use a UV analyzer for color control in that
application.
FUSSELL:
We have two atmospheric columns in Port Arthur.
One is a 140,000 barrels a day unit. The other is 40,000
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
barrels a day. We have 100 percent inferential controls
on the product draws on both of these units. These are
reset with lab data as the lab data is received into the
system. We will be presenting a paper on our crude unit
control system next week at Aspen World in Boston.
HAHN:
On our crude unit, we are generally volumetrically
constrained or pushing that unit quite hard. So although
we have developed inferential qualities, we do not actually
use them in our closed loop control generally. However,
we do have 20 percent online analyzers on crude unit
side cuts and the rest of the 80 percent is with lab samples
at this time. On our vacuum tower, we are using 100
percent lab samples at this time.
CAIN:
We have 100 percent inferential and DMC controls
on crude stills in two plants.
We also have 100 percent inferential controls on our
crude units. The inferential estimators do a good job at
measuring distillation and flashpoints. However, particu-
larly in a changing crude environment, the inferential
calculations do not do a particularly good job on other
properties such as kerosene freeze point or diesel cloud
point.
SAMUELS:
We use both lab samples and inferential calculations
at our Robinson crude unit. Inferential controllers are
used to pull all light products, lighter than gasoils. Daily
lab samples are used mainly for checks and to make minor
adjustments to the inferential controllers.
BRIAN HART (Aspen Technology, Inc.):
I agree with the panel generally on the way inferentials
are used. I would also like to say from our experience we
would estimate that about 95 percent of the applications
we have done use product inferentials in some form.
Approximately 30 percent may have some analyzers that
are used for actually updating inferential calculations. The
remainder of them just use laboratory results for doing
those updates.
H.C. KLIESCH (Treiber Controls):
We always use inferential calculations for all our refin-
ery advanced control applications, including crude units.
We use inferential calculations with feedback from either
laboratory measurements or analyzers. Inferential calcula-
tions increase the on-line time of our control applications,
because they keep running even when analyzers fail or
are taken out of service for calibration, or when operators
forget to update laboratory feedback to the controls.
About 50% of our controlled crude unit product streams
have analyzers with inferential calculations while the rest
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
are controlled by laboratory feedback through inferential
calculations. This ranges from towers with no analyzers,
to towers with some analyzers, to towers with all analyzers.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
I observed from the comments of the panel that most
of them are using 100 percent inferential controls in the
crude unit. I would like to know what has been the
payback in cents per bbl.
CAIN:
The use of a calculated or inferred property in crude
unit control systems, particularly MVC, has yielded sub-
stantial benefits. These benefits are in the form of:
—improved volumetric yields.
—reduced off-spec production.
These control benefits have been measured directly in
the form of improved yields beyond previous record rates
(max naptha or max avjet) on the order of $0.02/ bbl
charge. Additionally there are less tangible benefits
believed to be of the same magnitude for times when we
are in a downstream limited mode of operation. During
these times correctly matching the downstream limitation
consistently yields optimum results. Total benefits are
$0.03-0.05/crude bbl charge. (Solomon Industry standard
benefits are $0.050-07/crude bbl charge.).
These benefits are because of the consistency the infer-
ential prediction provides. As unit constraints are pushed
inferred properties are important to assure the important
property quality specifications are not violated. Inferred
properties can be constructed to account for multiple
effects to a specific property beyond the primary influence.
This enhances the ability of the control scheme to adjust
for disturbances which might not have been corrected for
by an operator.
In conjunction with an automated update to the infer-
ential bias against a lab result a systematic response to
deviations in lab results can be accomplished. This system-
atic response imparts consistency beyond individual oper-
ator estimates of appropriate responses to lab data
fluctuations which may be the result of a change in the
process or a result of natural variation in lab accuracy.
Question 35.
Significant savings are possible through the use of refin-
ery scheduling programs. Please poll the panel as to
their experience in using these software tools and indi-
cate what the benefits have been.
JOSECK:
One of our refineries is currently using an in-house
scheduling model. The other uses Trios to schedule the
lube plants and WKBLEND娃 to schedule pipeline ship-
ments and gasoline blending. We have estimated that the
WKBLEND娃 software has reduced octane giveaway by
35
TOC/INDEX
0.2 to 0.3 and RVP by 0.2 to 0.3 numbers. We also see
an added benefit of simplifying a complex scheduling
problem including pipeline shipments with
WKBLEND娃.
ROMAN:
We utilize Wright Killen’s Trios scheduler at all of our
refineries. We find it to be a valuable tool to allow control
of both finished and intermediate product inventories, and
to accommodate changes in crude deliveries and product
pipeline and barge shipments.
The refinery LP determines the optimum mode of
operation and the scheduling spreadsheet is utilized to
try to translate these targets into a daily and weekly plan
of operations. We recently tried to implement an exten-
sion of this basic scheduling tool whereby we assign prices
to the various products and intermediates. This was sup-
posed to allow the scheduler to modify the spreadsheets
to take advantage of economic opportunities.
This proved to be of little or no value due to the
complexity of the refinery and the multitude of options
available.
HENKE:
We also use Trios for overall refinery scheduling and
we are very pleased with this product. In general, it has
helped us to significantly smooth out crude transfers,
stabilize the crude unit operation, and reduce inter-tank
transfers. It has helped us have the right ships and people
at the right place, at the right time. It has also helped us
balance other transfers at our loading docks and reduce
that amount of time spent waiting around. In general,
there are a lot fewer surprises.
CAIN:
We also use Trios. The major benefits realized are
inventory control, feedstock optimization, unit charge
consistency and extended batch runs.
BRIAN HART (Aspen Technology, Inc.):
Aspen Tech has extensive experience in scheduling
applications in refining. Recent developments in opti-
mized schedules which drive toward meeting overall eco-
nomic objectives are a new technology that has come
about. A key technology which has also recently been
developed is a link between scheduling and rigorous online
unit optimization to drive a plant appropriately as operat-
ing conditions change throughout the course of a produc-
tion day.
Question 36.
Most refiners have made significant strides in imple-
menting computer process control. Please poll the panel
with respect to a) installation of DCS instrumentation,
36
b) regulatory control, c) advance control, d) closed-loop
unit optimization, and e) overall plant optimization.
FOSTER:
This relates to implementing computer process control.
We have about 80 percent of the refinery on DCS for
unit control, including all crude and conversion units.
We are upgrading the refinery to standard TDC3000
standard with scheduled completion in the year 2000.
We have just commissioned a few months ago our multi-
variable controller on the fluid unit. We are starting up
the closed loop optimizer this month. We too will be
presenting a paper at Aspen World.
By year end, we will have one coker and one crude
still on multivariable control with plans to complete the
other coker and crude still by third quarter ’98. Those
projects have been approved. Closed looped optimization
will then be done subsequent to multivariable control on
both crude stills. We also have projects in the works for
our FCC feed hydrotreaters and low sulfur diesel units
on multivariable control, third quarter ’98.
FUSSELL:
In Port Arthur, all of our process units are on Honey-
well distributive control systems. We are in the process
of converting all of those over to the 3000 system from
the 2000. We have quite a few supervisory controls from
our computer system on various units where we feel they
are justified. We have a lot of these on distillation towers
as well as charge ramps and things like that. We have
recently installed multivariable optimizer on our crude
units. Last year we installed the same type of system on
our FCCU.
HAHN:
We also are 100 percent DCS controls. We also have
some form of advanced control on all of our processes.
These can include things all the way from simple ratio
controls to multivariable controllers to unit wide multi-
variable controllers and unit wide multi-constraint con-
trollers.
At some of our facilities we have done advance closed
loop optimization across whole units such as crude units
and vacuum units. These are based on very rigorous multi-
variable controllers. But we do not yet know exactly
whether or not these are economically justifiable in all
cases. But they are definitely technically feasible and are
in operation at one of our facilities.
CAIN:
Basically, in all three of our plants, we have some form
of advance controls on all major units. We have a closed
loop unit optimizer on the vacuum pipe still at Louisiana
plant and also at Port Arthur Plant. We also have a
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
project in place to put an optimizer on the FCCU at the
Louisiana Plant.
HENKE:
Our refineries are almost 100 percent DCS. Approxi-
mately 20 percent of the control loops are on some type
of advance control. At the present time, our FCCUs are
the only units utilizing closed loop optimization. We are
not using any overall plant optimization control systems
at this time.
JOSECK:
The lube refineries have all the process units on DCS
control, with some advanced process control on various
units. The units were either converted from pneumatic or
built with DCS controls. We are continuously converting
from pneumatic to DCS based on lower installation costs,
improved accuracy, lower maintenance, and improved
information flow. Some of the units have simple closed
loop optimization, no upper plant optimization is
employed.
ROMAN:
DCS instrumentation and regulatory controls were
installed at nearly 100 percent of the installations across
all of Ashland sites with Honeywell’s TDC 3000 being
the predominant system. We have 100 percent installation
of advanced controls at our Canton and St. Paul refineries,
with a current installed base of nearly 75 percent at our
Catlettsburg refinery. Projects are underway for the
remainder of the installations at Catlettsburg.
Advanced controls range from lower level, feed forward
and ratio controls all the way to the multivariable control-
lers in more difficult applications. Utilizations are good,
particularly in those areas where operations has embraced
the concept. With the exception of online preheat
exchanger optimization which are closed loop, the concept
of unit online optimization at Ashland is fairly new.
Online optimization development began just over one
year ago. FCC unit optimizers and isomerization unit
optimizers have been developed and released into the field.
Currently, unit support engineers run these optimizers
on a daily basis and relay the results to operations for
consideration. These optimizers are just beginning to
impact the way we operate our plants. The initial results
have been good.
DANIEL HARTLEY (Haverly Systems, Inc.):
This is a topic of high interest to refiners. In this regard,
I would like to share a couple of study reports on this
subject that I found in my files. In the first one, the study
showed that historically at this particular location, there
were on average about five major and ten minor
unplanned events each month that caused deviations from
the optimal plan. The refinery LP is a long term planning
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
system using average conditions, capabilities, and con-
straints. However, a short term opportunities on a daily
or weekly basis, can be exploited to an advantage by
using a refinery operational scheduling and optimization
program. Use of such a tool can take advantage of spot sit-
uations.
Some of the unplanned situations brought up are unit
upsets, unit emergency shutdowns, ships are late, surprise
shipments, customer goes down at peak inventory, equip-
ment repairs, etc.
The study also says that in general about four or five
options to take care of each of the above mentioned
situations. In the past, decisions were based on experience,
history, gut feel, etc., but with a refinery scheduling and
optimization program, the operator/scheduler can reach
the optimal solution and do it quicker.
Some of the benefits cited are smoother operations, no
jerking of the units, less off spec products, less demurrage
charges or shipping delays and identified holes in planning
strategies. The study claims that at least one poor decision
a month is saved and incentives are calculated at about
$5-$10 million a year. So that is a significant amount
of money.
The other study that I found relates to crude blending
scheduling and optimization. In that particular case the
benefits calculated from use of the same type of program
were about $3-$4 million a year.
G. Safety and Reliability
Question 37.
What safety precautions are taken to prevent a sour water
tank rupture? What secondary containment is used? Are
there any vapor suppressing systems in place?
JOSECK:
On one sour water tank, we scrubbed the vent with
fresh water to reduce vapors. We also held a hydrocarbon
layer in the top of the tank. A later Hazop review brought
to light significant areas for future review, both from
employee exposure and fire hazards and recommended
review of the tank’s location. During the tank’s citing
review and part of the Hazop study, the tank was consid-
ered as a tank in flammable, combustible liquid service.
We considered adding a floating roof, caustic scrubbing
the vent, and an impregnated carbon filters as enhance-
ments to the vapor and safety hazards.
ROMAN:
Ashland protects sour water tanks against rupture from
over pressure with the pressure relief valve that vents to
the atmosphere. Protection against damage from vacuum
is accomplished with a gas blanketing system that makes
up gas, either refiner fuel gas or nitrogen, to the tank on
37
TOC/INDEX
low pressure and vents excess gas on pressure control when
the tank pressure begins to build. The excess gas is routed
either to the SRU incinerator or to flare. One sour water
tank also protects against vacuum damage with a combina-
tion of pressure relief vacuum breaker valve. The tanks
are enclosed in the dike for secondary containment, but
there is no vapor suppression system.
STEVEN M. FISCHER (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
In March of 1997, API revised their Recommended
Practice 521 which relates to the design of relief systems.
In this revision, they inserted a new section which appears
to have changed their past philosophy of not allowing
the taking of credits for instrumentation to reduce relief
loads for individual pieces of equipment, not just common
flare headers under two significant conditions. One of
those conditions is that you have to show that your control
system is at least as reliable as the relief valve installation.
The second is where the application of the relief devices
alone would be impractical.
I have two questions for the panel. Who is changing
their design practices to allow this new practice of relying
on instrumentation to reduce a relief load, and therefore,
allow smaller relief valves to protect equipment and what
has been your interpretation of when relief valves alone
are impractical to provide the relief protection?
JOSECK:
We have not applied that anywhere in our plant.
H. Miscellaneous
Question 38.
There seems to be a trend toward longer turnaround
intervals on most units. Is this due to a) new maintenance
technology, b) catalyst improvements, c) changing eco-
nomic environments, or d) other?
SAMUELS:
Turnarounds are immensely expensive. Just calculate
the present worth of removing one plant turnaround out
of five in a 20 year period by going from four year to
five year cycles. It is not hard to do the math.
Yes, maintenance technology has changed, with better
inspection tools available and more emphasis on equip-
ment inspection. There is a greater understanding of fail-
ure mechanisms. Understanding failure mechanisms
allows you to set turnaround times based on maximum
safe run lengths for equipment versus simply using histori-
cal intervals such as three, four or five years.
Additionally, root cause analysis and management of
change procedures along with better process monitoring
and troubleshooting are improving onstream reliability
for process units. The root cause analysis of a failure not
38
only leads to the proper corrective action to ensure that
the particular failure does not occur again, but the lesson
often applies plant-wide and company-wide.
Management of change ensures that we do not ‘‘build
in’’ unreliability. The fewer times that you have to crash
a unit, the longer it is going to operate between turn-
arounds.
Fixed bed catalyst technology improvements along with
better feedstock quality and operating controls have led
to longer run lengths without some of the steeper end-
of-run yield decline penalties we have seen in the past.
As a simple example at Robinson on our hydrocracker,
two years used to be a long run. Today we are able to
achieve four to five years with this hydrocracker. Looking
at total catalyst life cycle cost has changed a lot of the
traditional decisions we have made relative to feedstock
balancing between units and operating severities.
HENKE:
The increase in turnaround intervals is clearly being
driven by the marketplace. Margins have been very slim
the last couple of years which has driven refiners to take
a hard look at their businesses to find ways to improve
their profitability. If the units are not running, they are
not making money.
Recent advances in reliability centered maintenance,
catalyst systems, process control, and training have played
a role in the trend to longer turnaround intervals. How-
ever, I look at these as more facilitating the change rather
than driving it.
JOSECK:
We are using inspection software programs to predict
equipment life, identify future turnaround dates and iden-
tify equipment requirement inspection and replacement
to meet the next turnaround target date. We are continu-
ously improving regeneration procedures to extend cata-
lyst life and catalyst systems to reduce pressure drop.
As an added note, we view the turnaround planning
as a quality process which can be improved for reducing
turnaround costs, improving execution, and extending
turnaround intervals.
CAIN:
There is not much else to add except that there is
increasing pressure to do as much maintenance on-line
and to minimize the scope during the turnarounds.
HAHN:
In addition to what has been said already, the lost
opportunity cost that you experience whenever you are
down has had an increasing impact lately. People are
finally starting to actually quantify that. That cost is so
much more than any maintenance cost during a shutdown
that it is one of the big new drivers that we are finally
General Processing
TOC/INDEX
able to realize. We use this opportunity to do a lot of
more sophisticated predictive type maintenance and pre-
ventative maintenance, because the payout really is there.
Question 39.
With reorganization of refinery work processes, has any-
one: a) converted operations to totally self-directed work
teams; or b) scheduled operator time to do specific tasks,
similar to scheduling a craftsman’s time?
HAHN:
We do not have totally self-directed work teams, but
we have been successful at gaining union buy in to what
we refer to as MMO or Minor Maintenance by Operators.
We train our operators in some of the basic craft skills such
as steam trap repairs, threaded pipe work and insulation.
The operators are provided the materials for the jobs
and a list of the work that is suitable to be interrupted
if it needs to be. That is the only type of work they can
do because they may have an upset and have to drop
that maintenance work and get back to their primary
operating job.
The operators are encouraged to work on the items
on the work list as time permits during their regular
operating shifts. We have had fairly good success with
this without actually having to schedule the work.
We track our backlog and we have seen the backlog
come down significantly after implementation of this pro-
gram. We are considering further training of operators
in routine vibration monitoring and other predictive type
analysis on rotating equipment so that we can free up
our machinists and technicians for more advanced work
while the operators gather the data.
JOSECK:
At one refinery, we use a five crew work schedule. One
week out of five, the operators are either filling in for
vacations or working on specific projects including
Hazops, training, procedure development, procedure
updating, maintenance or specifically assigned projects.
Operators routinely work in teams under the direction
of the unit leader, such as turnaround planning. I am not
sure that we would classify this as a self-directed work
team, but we were able to eliminate the shift supervision
with the five crew schedule.
We also see benefits and improvements in operator
selection hiring, improvements in training and education,
wide distribution of information and heightened expecta-
tions and accountability. The operators actually aid in
the hiring process.
SAMUELS:
Empowering employees to reduce supervisory decision
making is a good goal for today’s business environment.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
But because of all the safety and environmental responsi-
bilities and requirements, eliminating operating supervi-
sion is not something that Marathon is considering. We
certainly are doing as much as possible like everyone else
to empower our operators. In fact, at the 1995 NPRA
Q&A, I described our five shift schedule which is similar
to what Mr. Joscek just mentioned. We rotate operators
through maintenance every fifth shift where they gain
maintenance skills and then apply these skills on shift.
They actually maintain an ‘‘operator’’ backlog and this
has contributed to bringing the maintenance backlogs
down. We have eliminated routine maintenance contrac-
tors completely.
With the business unit/area team concept, each area
team is responsible for maintenance costs. One way to
bring their costs down is to assign operators out of their
area into another area or into a construction group.
Also as was described, I think a key factor in having
your operators do work around the clock is making sure
that they do have the proper training, and that you do
provide them with the necessary tools and supplies.
Another key focus has been to train operators in the
basic economics of the refinery. They are not just thinking
in terms of barrels, but understand the economic drivers
for their units.
Question 40.
How are refiners training their operators to take advan-
tage of new process control systems that provide access
to process and business information?
FOSTER:
This relates to the training of operators. We do have
standard training for DCS. The key for us has been to
have top notch process control engineers on the unit.
These people have been our key knowledge transfer agents
throughout all stages of the process control development.
These are not system types. These are process engineers
trained to be process control minded.
They need to be able to think about the dynamics of
the unit operation and not all process engineers can make
that leap from a static mind to a dynamic mind type of
thinking. They also need extensive and expensive training
themselves. Further, they must be willing to log a lot of
time on the unit and be willing to and able to communi-
cate with the operators about the problems that the opera-
tors were having and so forth.
Let us go over the typical stages of a typical project
and how we do training. It is really primarily on the unit
training. We do have some classroom training, but a lot
of our training is on the unit training with the process
control engineer as the key learning transfer agent.
They talk about base regulatory problems during the
DCS implementation stage. They implement a log book
to help collect concerns. The operators have the engineer’s
39
TOC/INDEX
home phone number and they call them with questions
and suggestions on the system. We also help the operators
establish alarm management. We just put on several brand
new units. These brand new units have numerous alarms
and they all go off at once sometimes. They are not priori-
tized.
When we get finished with the initial project, we had
a lot of alarm management to do in order to bring the
operators to where they could maintain sanity on the unit
during even a normal operating data. Operators appreci-
ated this and they gained respect for the process control
engineer in the process.
The second stage of multivariable control building is
during the step tests on the unit which is where we gather
data about the responses that a unit will make. We held
non-stop discussion with them about the unit’s dynamic
responses to change. After model development and build-
ing, we had discussions on how the multivariable control-
ler is different than single loop systems. We also held
some classroom instruction in this area.
Finally, during implementation and cutover of the
multivariable controller, engineers continued to monitor
the operation daily, review it and fine tune it. They are
putting together constraint reports for both hourly and
supervision to look at and learn from. In other words,
you want to know what constraints are constraining your
unit at rate and conversion all the time and why. They
are interested in not only which constraints they are but
how much they are costing you.
This is a learning process for the engineer, the operators,
supervision and management too. Some of the old
assumptions that we had about rate versus conversion
have gone out the window when you really have the built-
in knowledge of the advanced controller.
Finally, as we put these systems in, we are displaying
more and more economic information to the console
operators about things such as constraint costs. The engi-
neer on the application typically spends a fair amount of
time working with the operators not only to understand
the constraints, but also what it is going to take to remove
the constraint and what is the value of removing the con-
straint.
ROMAN:
Ashland has just begun deploying Windows NT sta-
tions with an interface to the control room board opera-
tors. It is planned that these systems will include higher
level programs for assessing plant operations such as opti-
mization, expert based troubleshooting guides and statisti-
cal process control. Several plans for operator training are
also being evaluated.
Both navigational issues and interpretation of results
are important. Ashland has found that as with all automa-
tion systems, while some degree of generalized classroom
40 General Processing
training is necessary, nothing can replace real time opera-
tor response to the process. Operation of these systems
must be well documented so that operators will have a
resource available to them on shifts when the support
engineer is not readily available.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We installed a training simulator before the start up
of the refinery. We have trained the operators and engi-
neers on it with very good results.
Question 41.
What are typical problems associated with processing
natural gasoline, natural gas condensates? What is being
done to alleviate the problems?
SAMUELS:
This answer addresses problems associated with pro-
cessing natural gasoline at our Robinson refinery. One
major problem encountered is the highly corrosive, erosive
nature of natural gasoline. Dissolved salts coupled with
entrained water cause highly accelerated rates of corrosion
in the overhead systems in the feed fractionation section.
We take the natural gasoline and split out the C5s and
C6s for isomerization. To combat this corrosion, a filming
corrosion inhibitor is added to the overhead system to
reduce the corrosion potential in these towers.
Another problem which we have encountered is high
fouling rates in the Penex hydrotreater feed effluent
exchangers which has been linked to the contaminants
such as cyclic and dicyclic diolefins in the incoming natu-
ral gasoline shipments. Ethers such as MTBE and associ-
ated peroxides along with dissolved oxygen have also been
detected in the incoming natural gasoline. The diolefins
begin a Diels-Alder type polymerization which is some-
times accompanied by a free radical polymerization initi-
ated by the ethers and peroxide species. These reactions
form a high molecular weight polymer which lays down
on the exchanger tubes in the vaporization zone, basically
the hottest, or last two exchangers in the train.
To alleviate this problem, more rigorous controls have
been placed on the natural gasoline shipments. We are
doing quite a bit of sampling throughout the system.
That in itself has helped the problem. I think people
that may be dumping material are backing off of that to
some degree.
The best solution to the problem obviously is to elimi-
nate the source of the contaminates. But even though
this appears to be happening, I do not think that we can
count on this on a regular basis.
We evaluated an oxygen stripper, adsorption beds and
chemical treatments. There is no chemical treatment that
we found for the Diels-Alder reaction. The oxygen stripper
is expensive and only addresses part of the problem. The
TOC/INDEX
adsorption beds and their associated regeneration equip-
ment would be costly and we question their effectiveness.
The solution that is being implemented is the installa-
tion of a second set of the hottest feed/effluent exchangers
that can be switched ‘‘online’’ to clean the exchangers.
At its worst point, we were only able to operate the
unit for three months at a time. The installation of the
new exchangers will keep the unit online as we continue
to try to eliminate the source of the contaminants to
extend the run length between cleanings.
PETERSON:
We ran into a problem with elemental sulfur formation
in our saturated gas unit running natural gasoline. The
apparent cause of this was oxygen that got into the trans-
portation trucks that were bringing the natural gasoline
to our refinery. The natural gasoline was charged to a
saturated gas debutanizer. In the overhead system, the
H2S and the oxygen reacted and made the sulfur. This
resulted in 4 A copper strip corrosive normal butane,
which after fractionation, is where the sulfur ended up.
This was a problem discovered on a Friday afternoon, so
we had to solve it pretty quickly. We tried everything we
could that afternoon. We were just starting to sell butane
seasonally instead of blend it all into the gasoline pool.
We switched it over to the naphtha hydrotreater and
we have not had any of the problems that Mr. Samuels
has alluded to with natural gasoline going through the
hydrotreater. We must have a cleaner source of natural
gasoline than he has.
BINFORD:
We worked with Marathon Research on the problem
that Mr. Samuels was referring to. A couple of interesting
things really came out of that. One of them was that the
standard analytical characterization of the natural gasoline
streams did not show a propensity to foul significantly
since the natural gas condensates were low in unsaturates.
Therefore, bromine number did not tell us anything. The
streams also had low existence gums content and they did
not form gums by oxidation in a potential gum test either.
As a result, many of the reaction mechanisms and
reaction precursors that Mr. Samuels talked about were
discovered through more sophisticated analytical tech-
niques. I wish that I could report that it was a BetzDearb-
orn chemical that solved the problem. Obviously, he did
not refer to one. We did try chemistry there and found
that the polymerization was just too aggressive and the
contaminants in that particular stream were too high to
be solved by a chemical antifoulant program.
However, I think it was a very worthwhile project
because it did lead us to some new analytical techniques
and some new logic trees to be able to evaluate the impact
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
of natural gasolines, especially as related to feed to hydro-
treaters. We have been able to use those analytical tech-
niques to solve some other problems.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Processing significant amounts of natural gas conden-
sate through a refinery typically loads the atmospheric
crude column condensers and the saturate gas plant.
Depending on the quantity and composition of the con-
densate the effects can be significant. When processing
condensate the atmospheric column flash zone pressure
will rise. In some cases the pressure change can be as high
as 15-20 psi. This lowers atmospheric column cutpoint
and loads the vacuum unit heater and column. If the
condensers are designed for the condensate the impact
is negligible.
DONALD BIGGS (Silver Eagle Refining, Inc.):
Mr. Samuels, was this corrosion on the deisopentanizer
overhead system?
SAMUELS:
That is correct. The natural gasoline is first debutanized
and then deisopentanized. Both columns exhibit overhead
corrosion problems, not reboiler problems.
Question 42.
What are the experiences and/or new developments with
the use of cloud point depressants?
PETERSON:
The Alma refinery has a big market for low cloud
point materials since they market in an area where the
temperature gets down to 40 below zero in the wintertime.
They also do not want to use a lot of their No. 1 fuel
oil in No. 2 as blendstock. They have put in an MDDW
(Mobile Distillate Dewaxing) process several years ago
and they have just in the last year been working with
BetzDearborn on cloud point depressants. The depression
that we have seen has ranged from 3 to 6°F depending
on what streams are going into the pool at the time.
Experimentation is still continuing at this time.
BINFORD:
Yesterday there was a question asked about economics
in the diesel pool and I deferred that to this question. I
will try to answer it here today as well as talk a little bit
about some of the fungibility issues with using cloud
point depressants. I know this has been a real key issue
in the refining sector this year in downstream marketing
as well.
We have used cloud point depressants at dosages
between 25 and 100 ppm and therefore have had less
impact on other cold flow additives as opposed to tradi-
tional cloud point depressants that are used at much
higher dosages.
41
TOC/INDEX
Traditional cloud point depressants are nucleators that
cause many sites to initiate crystal formation, making each
site smaller than additized at the cloud point. That is
what gives you the depression. When the wax is crystallized
in great numbers at the pour point, the amount of nucle-
ation sites cause an increase in the crystal formation and
propagation. Thus the traditional cloud point additive
can effectively raise the pour point. To offset this problem,
traditionally much more pour point depressant has been
needed versus the normal or base case without cloud
point depression.
As a result, the use of cloud point depressants in the
past have not been economical in most cases. New, more
effective cloud additives have been developed in the last
two years that are effective at much lower treatment rates.
The lower treatment rates solve many of the incompatibil-
ity problems between cloud and pour.
Regarding economics, the main economic driver that
we see justifying cloud point depressant programs is the
reduction of jet kerosene blend into the diesel to meet the
cloud point specification. Many refiners use jet blending at
the tank farm as a trim input to manage the cloud point
spec or to make different batches of distillate products
with different cold flow specifications using the same
diesel base stock.
We have noticed that there are not systems or people
in place in many refineries to economically capture jet
diesel margins that appear in the winter season. In most
cases, the complete amount of kerosene blended into the
diesel cannot be eliminated, so an optimal amount of
kerosene relative to chemical is needed. The optimum
will change depending on the overall reduction needed
in the economic margin between kerosene and diesel.
For many refiners, the jet or kerosene market is not
compelling enough or available enough to pursue. These
refiners blend all of their kerosene range product into
distillate fuels because there is no other disposition or
they do not produce any kerosene range cut to start
with from their crude fractionation towers. In most cases,
however, these same refiners limit the endpoint of their
distillate fuels due to cloud point.
ASTM sets the 90 percent distillation point of No. 2
diesel at 640°F and some pipelines set the endpoint spec
at about 690°F. Very few refiners actually meet these
specifications. Most will limit their 90° or endpoint
because they cannot meet their cloud point specifications
at the same time. As a result, the tail end of the diesel
range product gets downgraded into gas oil. I use that term
down grade loosely because there was a lot of discussion
previously about whether or not diesel is a good thing or
a bad thing to put in your FCC. Obviously that is very
situation and refinery specific.
If there is a benefit to pulling the tail end of the AGO
up into the diesel pool, the economic spread between
those two cuts can be typically very large. Therefore, the
42 General Processing
use of cloud point depressant in these cases is justified
on the diesel uplift value. The downgrade of diesel range
product also has consequences on downstream conversion
units as was discussed previously.
If you can pull the tail end of the AGO out, usually
a compelling reason to do so is the fact that you can
purchase AGO to back fill the FCCU and still maximize
your charge rate to the FCCU. Obviously, some people
have the capability or the means to do that by purchasing
gas oil, while for others the economics may not drive it
that way.
Regarding fungibility, the last issue that I will cover,
one question that continually arises is the fungibility of
cloud point additives with other refinery additives and
downstream terminal additives. As a result of the concerns
raised by several refiners and pipeline companies last win-
ter, we tested the compatibility of our additive in many
environments. We performed testing using dosages of
cloud additives that represent ten times the normal refin-
ery treatment. This is to show the worst case overdose situ-
ation.
The overdose fuel we tested were subjected to NACE
corrosion tests and 300°F 90 minute stability tests with
no impacts on either of those tests and no degradation
from the level of base fuel. The overdosed fuels were then
dosed with acidic based corrosion inhibitors and distillate
inhibitor additives. In these cases, the overdosed additive
did not affect the responses of the other two additives.
We have also seen that the cloud point additive is
viable in a fungible cloud/pour environment. Early this
winter we collected fuels from three different regions of
the country: northwest, Gulf Coast and East Coast. In
each region, at least one untreated fuel was obtained as
well as two others that were treated with pour point
depressant at the refinery. The untreated fuel was treated
with cloud depressant until the fungible pipeline spec was
met and then it was blended into each of the other regional
fuels to mimic transportation in the pipeline.
In each case, the untreated fuel caused no product
harm. The fuel started on spec and after mixing they
ended on spec. This data not only showed that the cloud
additive was responsive to a broad range of fuels, but also
that it posed no risk to cloud/pour fungibility.
HAHN:
We independently verified that the newer cloud depres-
sants can be economically attractive and are planning a
full scale field trial this fall when the economics change
in favor of jet fuel. There are farther pipeline and terminal
issues to resolve before these additives can be used at
our facility.
THOMAS SOPKO (Lubrizol Corporation):
The experience of our customers using Lubrizol’s cloud
point depressants has been very positive as stated by the
TOC/INDEX
previous speaker. By depressing cloud point with an addi-
tive, refiners were able to increase their operational effi-
ciency and profitability in three ways:
1. pulling kerosene out for jet;
2. upgrading heavier stocks to diesel; and
3. running at higher end points.
These refiners are achieving 4 to 8°F cloud point
depression along with getting pour point depression with
the same additive and at modest treat rates. Simple returns
on investment in excess of 100 percent are very common.
To further answer this question, we have a two minute
video introducing and documenting the performance of
Lubrizol’s cloud point depressant and it has been recently
sent to each oil movement manager at each refinery in
North America. Additional videos and case histories in
literature are available from the Lubrizol Corporation.
LINAS JOKUBAITIS (The Lubrizol Corporation):
In Lubrizol’s development of new cloud point depres-
sants, we found it important to match wax characteristics
to additive selection.
To address a broad range of fuel qualities, we developed
products around four distinctively different chemistries.
This allows the refiner to achieve cloud point by matching
the right additive to their fuel. Our customers are using
these additives in continuous as well as batch operations.
They experience treat rates of 50 to 250 ppm giving a
nominal 4 to 8°F cloud depression, which exceeds the
two degree of test reproducibility. They also see pour
point reduction from the same additive.
In the video that was recently sent to each refinery, we
document that our cloud point additives are not masking
agents, but truly modify the thermodynamics of wax crys-
tal formation.
Question 43.
Are you experiencing pilot problems on your flares, incin-
erators, air heaters, boilers, etc.? Explain the problems,
and, if you have solved them, please explain how.
FUSSELL:
We have a lot of problems with our pilots at our Port
Arthur refinery. Most of these problems are caused by a
variety of contaminants in our refinery fuel gas system.
We are slowly converting all of our pilots over to natural
gas. We started out with the most critical ones which
would include the flares, the incinerator on our sulfur
units as well as our thermal reactors on our sulfur units.
FOSTER:
Our main problems with flare pilots come down to
four basic causes. One is plugged pilot gas filters. To
correct this, we have replaced carbon steel. A lot of our
carbon steel gas lines on our older flares have stainless
damaged flare tips. The damaged flare tips cause an erratic
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
flame pattern which sometimes blows out the pilot. That
problem is an easy one to solve, you just do a better job
of inspecting your flares.
For inappropriately remanufactured or reconditioned
pilots, one of the things that we are doing right now is
revamping our engineering standards for flares to ensure
that only the appropriate placement parts or equipment
are purchased for the pilots.
Finally, for thermocouple failures, we are testing Stack-
match igniters, retractable thermocouples to see if these
offer a better solution.
JOSECK:
At one refinery, all the pilots have been targeted, includ-
ing flare, boilers and process heaters for conversion to
natural gas due to fouling. A significant number of the
pilots have been converted.
Although the expense is large to use natural gas versus
refinery gas, the reduction of lost production time due
to a total process heater shutdown versus a single burner
shutdown is not insignificant.
The reliability of the burners in process heaters have
beeing improved, resulting in an opinion of safer opera-
tions. A second refinery has switched the flares and the
sulfur incinerator pilots to natural gas to eliminate fouling.
Question 44.
Has anyone had success in improving refinery loss
accounting by measuring mass directly with mass flow
meters on key input and output streams?
ROMAN:
Ashland installed coriolis based mass flow meters on
two crude units with the goal of improving the weight
balance at one of its refineries. They proved to be of very
little use and are not used by the yield department. The
overall refinery balance is still based on pipeline deliveries
and changes in crude oil inventory. The density meters
which came with them, however, have been very reliable
and have become very valuable in determining and
responding to crude oil switches.
Question 45.
Do you employ any non-destructive testing techniques
to check blockage of lines at high temperature, when
radiography can not be done?
CAIN:
We use infrared imaging equipment which has been
successful to check for blockages of lines that have high
temperature.
HENKE:
We have successfully employed gamma ray techniques
to check for blockage in lines operating at high tempera-
ture in our refineries. Tru-Tec tells us that they are fre-
quently asked to use neutron back scanner and gamma
43
TOC/INDEX
ray devices to detect polymer plugging in flare lines and
tank transfer lines in chemical plants.
PETERSON:
We used, with proper thermal shielding, ultrasonic
means where we can go up and down the line to see
where the velocity is higher to see if there was plugging.
We also use thermal scans to see where a line might be
cold due to the insulating effect of the blockage.
Apparently, the questioner had problems in doing high
temperature radiation scanning, but we have successfully
x-rayed an FCC regenerator slide valve at 1400°F and
got very adequate resolution.
SAMUELS:
We recently purchased an Infametrics’ Infrared camera
that has been successful in identifying deposits in hot
piping. It offers all the benefits of radiography ( records
retention and sensitivity). It provides a faster analysis and
allows you to cover a broader area more quickly than
x-raying.
This particular camera is extremely sensitive and accu-
rate and has been successfully used in scanning towers.
We have used it on furnace tubes and accurately measured
against skin TIs. We have also used it to monitor electrical
equipment.
Our particular camera is an Infametric PM200 that
has been upgraded to a PM350. We used the Thermonitor
95 software. It is highly recommended that the inspector
or reliability engineer who will be using this camera receive
the several levels of training and certification offered by
Inframetrics. We believe this training is critical if you
want to have confidence in the decisions that you make
based on the data you obtain by this method.
Question 46.
What arrangements are available from vendors to share
crude assay information?
HAHN:
We are aware of several companies that offer this service
on crude assay libraries. However, the costs still appear
quite high, particularly on an individual refinery basis
where the subset of possible or likely crudes is much
smaller than the whole assay database that is available.
Also, there are considerable differences in assays and the
quality of those assays or at least the perceived quality of
the assays.
Until there can be agreement on consistent tests and
the test methods themselves, it will probably be a while
before there is a lot of activity in this area. However, it
would seem that it would be a cost effective method once
we can all agree on standards.
44 General Processing
BINFORD:
There are several operating companies that have their
own internal assay databases. Ms. Hahn has already
referred to many of the other ones that are now being
marketed and licensed. As far as we know, all of these
assay databases capture crude properties only.
Processing experiences regarding crude slate and diffi-
culties that are incurred are not documented.
We have an internal crude experiential database that
we call ENVISION. It does contain crude assays, but
these are mostly from public sources, government sources.
It also contains crude unit experiential data relative to
running different crude slates.
We actually built this a couple of years ago and now
use summer interns and engineering coop students to
work with our field engineering force to populate the
database on a regular basis.
CAIN:
We use the Texaco/Star Enterprise crude assay library.
HENKE:
Although it has appeal, we have no direct experience
with the type of arrangement described in this question.
We have purchased crude assay libraries and indirectly
we are sharing in the cost of the crude assay.
Overall, we are very pleased with the assay libraries
that we have purchased.
JOSECK:
We are currently not purchasing assays. We have an
extended technology center with the capability to generate
assays including drum side samples for testing. The Wood-
land Technology Center actually offers their services for
sale to outside customers.
MICHAEL J. ZETLMEISL (Baker Petrolite):
We also have a crude database which is available to all
existing and perspective clients.
DANIEL HARTLEY (Haverly Systems, Inc.):
I just wanted to mention that Haverly Systems clients
who have licensed their crude assay management library
and software have the option to share new crude assay
information and costs within the user group.
TOC/INDEX
II. HEAVY OIL PROCESSING
A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking
1. Mechanical Reliability
Question 1.
What factors, including catalyst properties, affect the
formation of deposits on FCC power recovery expander
inlet vanes and blades? Does injecting water to cool the
flue gas stream increase the rate of deposition?
FLETCHER:
The primary catalyst property is not attrition per se,
but how fine the catalyst particle is when it breaks. The
finer the catalyst particle, the higher the likelihood to
deposit in the low flow regions on the internal areas of
the expander such as the shaft and the blades. The rate
of deposition will be a function of localized velocity, the
sticky nature of the catalyst, and obviously water tends
to increase this tendency.
Some guidelines to minimize the likelihood of deposit
formation on inlet vanes and blades when adding water
to control flue gas temperature include the efficiency of
dispersion and water quality, good quality boiler feed
water with low ion content (Na, K, Cl, Ca, and Mg).
In addition, good droplet dispersion is essential. A total
residence time of less than two seconds from point of
injection to the expander exists for many units depending
on the injection location and the unit configuration. Cases
of incomplete vaporation exist which have resulted in
plugging the third stage separator and formation of depos-
its on the expander blades even though the temperatures
in the flue gas at the injection point are extremely high.
CAIN:
At our Louisiana plant, we inject steam condensate in
our regenerator overhead line and we have not seen any
significant problems with catalyst deposits.
TASKER:
We have an expander on one of the units in Japan.
There is no report or mention of catalyst deposits on the
blades. There is no water injection on this unit and there
is no after burner. We feel with good temperature control,
there is no need for water injection.
JOSEPH McLEAN (Engelhard Corporation):
With respect to the catalyst properties that affect this,
we have done some analysis on deposit samples looking
for what might make them sticky. I would agree with
what Mr. Fletcher said about the fine particle size being
important. We have seen that the composition of the
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
deposits is primarily composed of materials about a half
a micron of particle size. In terms of what makes them
sticky, we have seen elevated levels of contaminants, espe-
cially calcium that is not found in either the catalyst or
the feed. It is clearly coming from somewhere else.
Being in the flue gas stream, the calcium is very easily
sulfated by the presence of the SOx and the calcium
sulfate does have pretty good binding properties. So we
think that is really a key to what makes these things stick
together and stick to the blades. The source of the calcium
could point to the use of water injection as the culprit.
It is quite likely that there is a relationship there.
Question 2.
What has been the experience with third stage catalyst
separators that do not use a continuous underflow? Have
these separators provided adequate protection to power
recovery expanders? Are there any data on the relative
performance versus third stage separators with continu-
ous underflow systems?
FLETCHER:
We supply a European refiner with a third stage separa-
tor without continuous underflow. This refiner is operat-
ing well over its design rate and is experiencing fines
content in the flue gas downstream of the separator of
approximately 200 to 250 mg/m3. At design rates, the
fines content is approximately 100 to 150 mg/m3. A
quote for a properly sized underflow separator indicated
that they could achieve 50 mg/m3 or less on fines content.
This refiner operates with three year run lengths on the
expander by thermal shocking or applying walnut shells
to remove deposits every two to three months.
Question 3.
What has been the experience with the addition of a
vent tube in the catalyst standpipe to improve catalyst
circulation? Please comment on the respective vent tube
and standpipe diameters, angle of the standpipe, before
and after flux rates, and mechanical features to ensure
a 3ⴐ year run.
FLETCHER:
I think this question refers to what are termed hybrid
angle standpipes which are configured with both a vertical
and angled section and generally operate with lower mass
flux rates, than vertical standpipes or angled standpipes
without a dogleg. This has been determined to be the
result of two phase flow with catalyst and steam flowing
downwards, and with steam bubbles flowing upward
counter current to the catalyst flow. What develops is a
45
TOC/INDEX
flow of bubbles traveling against the catalyst flow. They
reach the dogleg and due to the momentum of the down-
ward flowing catalyst are blocked. The bubbles tend to
increase in size which becomes an obstruction to catalyst
flow. Then you have a choked flow regime at the dogleg.
The bubble continues to increase in size until the slide
valve differential begins to decay and becomes erratic.
Often times this forces a refiner to cut back on charge
to eliminate the problem.
Eventually, the catalyst bubble is swept down and then
there is a return to a normal pressure drop across the
slide valve. This observation is confirmed by cold flow
modeling studies done by Particulate Solids Research
Institute, PSRI. Studies by PSRI indicate that a hybrid
angled standpipe will operate at significantly lower mass
flux rates than a vertical standpipe at constant aeration.
If the standpipe is equipped with a vent line, the mass
flux in the hybrid angled standpipe can be increased by
a factor of two. This work was done in a model with the
angled section being at 60° off the horizontal. I would
recommend two journal articles for further reading. One
is ‘‘Increasing Solid Flow Rates Through A Hybrid Angled
Standpipe By Using A Bypass Line.’’ The second is compari-
son of Geldart Group, ‘‘A Solid Flow and Hybrid Angle
and Vertical Standpipes.’’ Both papers were written by
Reddy Kari and Ted Knowlton of PSRI.
Some recommendations for refiners operating hybrid
angled standpipes without vent lines to maximize catalyst
circulation, first, select a catalyst with a low ABD.
Second, keep the minus 40 micron fraction in the
circulating inventory as high as possible. These two recom-
mendations by the way are in agreement with the work
of Abramson and Geldart on fluidization.
Third, we recommend adjusting the aeration rates in
the angled section of the standpipe with little or no aera-
tion being delivered at the top of the angled section and
with increasing aeration flow rates as you go down the
length of the standpipe.
We have two refiners that followed these guidelines
and were able to nearly eliminate the periods of unstable
slide valve differential pressures and saw an increase in
the circulation rates.
Two operational problems have been noted with refin-
ers using internal vent lines. The first problem was
mechanical and was related to thermal expansion of the
vent line which caused the line to loosen and slip into
the standpipe, causing obstruction to flow and brought
the unit down.
The second was due to operation where the vent line
emptied into the dense bed. As the bed level increased,
the back pressure on the vent line reduced the degassing
efficiency and resulted in reduced catalyst flow rate
through the standpipe. The same effect was observed that
the regenerator pressure was increased too much.
46 Heavy Oil Processing
ROMAN:
Ashland’s general design guidelines for standpipe sizing
are 500,000 pounds per hour per square foot for new
standpipes and 750,000 per hour per square foot for
existing standpipes which are being reused for a revamp.
Compliance with these catalyst flux guidelines in both
vertical and slanted pipes has provided successful stand-
pipe operation and circulation capabilities without the
need for standpipe venting in units ranging in capacity
from 22,000 barrels a day to 62,000 barrels a day.
In some cases, operating fluxes have exceeded these
guidelines and circulation rate limitations have been
observed at catalyst flux rates of around 900,000 pounds
per hour per square foot.
In a small demonstration unit, we found that these
guidelines would not work and we were forced to install
a vent in this standpipe to improve standpipe delta P and
increase catalyst circulation.
TASKER:
Vent tubes are used on sloped standpipes where the
gas tends to accumulate along the top of the tube and
block catalyst flow. We feel this is a rare situation since
only a few units have those slope standpipes.
Two alternatives can be used, an internal or an external
tube, either of which vents to the regenerated dilute phase.
The danger of the vent system is that it will de-aerate the
standpipe too much and actually impede the smooth flow
of the cracker. This happened on a 45 degree standpipe
where an internal tube was used. A better solution in this
case is to aerate the catalyst better before it enters the
standpipe and this has really stabilized the operation.
In regard to catalyst flux in the transfer line, this should
be around three to four hundred kilograms per square
meter per second. In the standpipe, it should be between
500 to 700 kilograms per square meter per second.
In regard to the withdrawal of catalysts, this depends
on the position of the withdrawal line. Bubbles of flue
gas can be withdrawn which can lead to erratic operation
of the slide valve.
Question 4.
Has anyone achieved uninterrupted 4 or 5 year FCCU
runs, excluding power failures? Which equipment or
mechanical items have determined the maximum run
length? Has anyone found shorter run lengths to be more
desirable or economical?
FOSTER:
We typically target 4-5 years between turnarounds.
What typically drives us to a turnaround is the combina-
tion of technology upgrade opportunity coupled with a
major crude unit shutdown. Partly due to the amount of
time it takes to shutdown, work and startup a FCCU,
and partly due to the fact that VGO conversion is so
TOC/INDEX
highly economical, it is difficult to justify shorter cycles,
no matter how painful the last year of operation is.
The major problems we typically see at cycle end is
poor main fractionator performance due to coke buildup
in the packing, and slurry exchanger pluggage from coke
buildup in the bottom of the main fractionator. We also
see refractory damage in the risers, flange leaks around
slidevalves, and cracks on riser weld seams.
CAIN:
We normally achieve four years between turnarounds
on FCC units at Star. Some of the mechanical problems
that we have had at the Delaware City plant were regenera-
tor cyclone damage, spent riser plug valve damage and
main air blower shaft damage.
At Port Arthur, we had various hot spots, but I am
pleased to report that our Louisiana plant FCCU has
been on line 22 months without any interruptions.
FLETCHER:
We have observed a few refiners that have achieved
uninterrupted five year cycles. As a catalyst suppler, we
observe varying run lengths among our customers. A com-
mon area of concern is with both the reactor and the
regenerator cyclones. Cyclones must be designed for mod-
erate velocities in order to limit erosion. Good air distribu-
tion, sufficient transport disengaging height and properly
designed cyclone diplegs all contribute to good cyclone
efficiency with minimum cyclone erosion.
HENKE:
We have achieved four year runs. In our case, the
performance of the regenerator cyclones, as Mr. Fletcher
said, plays a significant role in determining the ultimate
run length. The current focus in our refineries is to stretch
runs out as much as possible by increasing the mechanical
availability of the FCCU and other units. Plans are in
place to achieve 99% mechanical availability within the
next two years. We have not found shorter run lengths
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
to be more desirable or economical. The only development
that would change our view here is significant acceleration
in the rate of FCC technology development.
SAMUELS:
Marathon has not achieved uninterrupted four to five
year runs, but we have achieved over five year cycles
between turnarounds on at least one FCCU.
Generally, what shuts down the FCCU intermittently
are power failures, air blower bearing problems, weld
failures, heat exchanger bundle leaks and cyclone erosion.
Currently, the longest uninterrupted run that we have
going is 19 months with no feed outage.
Marathon’s philosophy is to maximize run length
between turnarounds. I think a key to maximizing those
run lengths is to keep the unit online. Every time you
shutdown quickly or ‘‘thermally cycle’’ the unit, you are
asking for trouble.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
You mentioned moderate velocities through cyclones.
I think something else that is important is also moderate
velocities through flue gas steam generators. I am familiar
with an FCCU in the Los Angeles basin that pushes that
velocity. Typically about a year and a half to two years
into a run they are down for 10 days plugging tubes, and
maybe a year later down again for a similar period to
plug more tubes. At the turnarounds, which are usually
about every three years, they replace the bundles.
Question 5.
Assuming good quality control during application, and
in order to avoid unscheduled shutdowns, what replace-
ment frequency can be expected for refractory in a cold
wall FCCU reactor (typically processing 2.7 Concarbon
atmospheric resid)? Is useful service life related to
refractory density and/or porosity? Can silica bonded
refractories be expected to exhibit improved service life
through reduced susceptibility to infusion of coke precur-
sors? Is there a satisfactory technique for analyzing
refractory samples in order to assess remaining useful
life?
ROMAN:
The life expectancy of refractory within cold wall reac-
tors varies widely from unit to unit. It is primarily a
function of the degree of carbon impregnation and the
number of startup and shutdown cycles that the unit
experiences. Increasing the density of the refractory will
reduce the porosity and reduce coke impregnation. This
has to be balanced against the increased weight of the
system and a higher thermal conductivity which can cause
increased external thermal stresses.
Materials containing fussed silica should be considered
where coking is extensive due to their extremely low coeffi-
cient of thermal expansion. It is the difference between
47
TOC/INDEX
thermal expansion of the coke and the refractory which
causes the spalling during the temperature cycles.
We assess remaining useful life by taking core samples
during shutdowns and by online thermography to observe
thinning or failure.
TASKER:
I agree with what Mr. Roman has said. In regard to
the second section of this question, we have had good
experience in Japan with double layered refractory. How-
ever, when cracks do occur, you can get coke migration.
The coke between the layers of refractory is what leads
you into spalling tendency. Some operators have had very
bad experiences in that regard.
We have used hexmesh for the upper layer abrasion
protection, but the experience has not been very good.
It is best to limit the use of hexmesh to the internals.
With single layered refractors, there are less problems; use
of the Resco RS9 has been good.
In relation to the next question coming up, use of
Resco AA-22 or its equivalent has also been good. This
is a very hard abrasive resistant refractory. Typically, we
see that patching is performed every second turnaround
and complete replacement is very infrequent.
PETERSON:
Our original reactor refractory lasted about 15 years
in the Ardmore refinery. There was some cracking and
some spalling problems over the last few years. It was a
two component system comprising AR400 and LW80.
The Arkansas City refinery installed new reactor refractory
in 1992 which held up well until the refinery was shut
down last year. We put the same system, which is a
six inch single layer of thermex ES, in the reactor. The
anchoring system uses steerhorn and stainless steel wire
screen. Details can be included in the transcript.
We used periodic thermographic surveys to look for
the hot spots and we have not been inside this reactor
yet. We hope to not get into it until late 1999.
Question 6.
Due to unit expansions, we have experienced wear of
the AA-22 refractory cyclone lining. What new types of
refractory, ceramics, or installation technology (e.g.,
vibracasting) are refineries using to extend cyclone life?
ROMAN:
Ashland has not used AA-22 in our cyclones for several
years. We are currently using a fine grain 85 percent
aluminum phosphate bonded plastic ramming refractory
which provides excellent service with abrasion loss per
ASTM-704 of around four ccs. The added benefit with
the use of plastic is the ease with which the material can
be placed. The material is moldable up to the initial
phosphate reaction temperature of 450°F. This allows the
48
material to be properly squeezed back behind the hexmesh
anchor to provide maximum holding power. As far as
vibracasting is concerned, most refractory manufacturers
do not recommend installing vibration cast materials if
the requirement is less than three inches thick. For
cyclones, the overall weight of the cyclones, complexity
of the forms, and the cost of the installation would be
prohibitive.
SAMUELS:
In Marathon’s experience refractory wear in cyclones
is due to a number of factors: improper refractory prepara-
tion or installation, improper refractory anchoring systems
and exceeding design conditions on cyclones.
We are probably going to be the odd man out here,
but AA-22 remains our current choice of refractory lin-
ings. We would agree though that regenerator cyclones
are good candidates for ceramics and plastics, due to
ease of dry out and some of the things that Mr. Roman
mentioned. But we have little experience with this. I think
iron content can be very important in your refractory
selection in the regenerator due to the presence of CO.
Refractory anchoring and workmanship is critical to
the long life of refractory linings. For repair work, S bars
are good anchors for small areas. Original construction
is hexmesh. Flexmetal is also starting to be used, but
Marathon does not have a lot of experience with this.
Weld patterns of hexmesh are critical in getting long
anchor life as well as working with the proper metallurgy
in your welding rods.
REZA SADEGHBEIGI (RMS Engineering, Inc.):
If the cyclones are properly designed, a typical one
inch thick refractory lining using AA-22S or a plastic
should be adequate for long cyclone life.
Premature failure of this refractory is often related to
the following three factors. The first is, excessive catalyst
loading into the first stage cyclone and the ability of the
first stage cone and diplegs to get rid of the catalyst.
We normally recommend that the design of the primary
diplegs should be so that the mass flux through the primary
diplegs would not exceed 125 pounds per second per
square foot.
If the loading gets too high in the primary dipleg, the
secondary cyclone are not normally designed to handle
that additional catalyst loading. Therefore, you may see
extensive erosion in the primary cyclone inlet and primary
cyclone outlet.
The second parameter is, as the panelists stated, high
cyclone inlet and outlet velocities. We would recommend
that these velocities be maintained less than 60 feet per
second for the inlet and definitely less than 100 feet per
second for the second stage outlet.
Many FCCUs, especially in regenerators, are running
cyclone outlet velocities as high as 250 feet per second.
Heavy Oil Processing
TOC/INDEX
No wonder, when they come down, they see a lot of
problems with the refractory erosion.
The third parameter, that affects the erosion and pre-
mature wear of the refractory lining, is the thermocycling
that happens in the regenerator. As you change the tem-
perature even plus or minus 20 degrees, those biscuits
will come off. Also, if you have after burn taking place
in those cyclones, you may see premature failure of the
refractory.
All the refractory produced these days can provide a
good quality refractory lining. We have recently had some
excellent positive feedback about a Premier product. They
have a product called ACTCHEM娃 and our understand-
ing is that this product produces an abrasion loss
(ASTMC-704) on the order of two to three cc’s versus
a conventional four to ten cc’s for most of the other
refractories. It also costs slightly more money than AA-
22S.
2. Safety and Environmental
Question 7.
What are the typical phenol levels in the wastewater
from the FCCU? What are the sources of these phenols,
and what design or operational modifications can be
made to reduce them?
CAIN:
At our Louisiana plant, we analyze our FCC wastewater
sewer for phenols three times a day. Phenol content is
usually 0 to 5 milligrams per liter which is well below our
specification maximum limit of 50 milligrams per liter.
BINFORD:
We have seen phenol levels in FCC waters of 20 to
500 ppm. A level of 200 ppm would be what we would
consider typical. Many plants will route their sour water
stripper bottoms to the crude unit desalters to absorb
the phenols in the crude unit. The 1992 NPRA Q&A
Transcript indicates that one plant reported 95 to 98
percent removal through the desalter.
As far as production of phenols, the 1993 NPRA Q&A
Transcript reports that feedstock is the primary variable
for cyanide production. Higher levels of phenols are
reported with an increase of resid processing. This is
probably due to higher levels of oxygen containing com-
pounds in those resids.
PETERSON:
We have seen a qualitative association between how
much air or oxygen is brought in with the aerated catalyst
back to the reactor. I do not have an exact correlation,
but it is the kind of an association that we have seen. If
we are running higher phenols, we will take a good look
at how we are aerating the catalyst coming back in.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
TASKER:
I agree with that. The phenols are related to the carry-
over of oxygen from the regenerator. Levels of 100 to
200 ppm are fairly typical and it is difficult to avoid
phenol production. Water appears in the heavy gasoline
cut and playing with a cut point will impact on where
the phenol is removed. If the heavy gasoline is removed
in the main fractionator, then there would be less tendency
for the phenols to go to the water system. By raising the
cut point of the gasoline, the severity of the phenol prob-
lem will be lowered. So much depends on the stripper
operation.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
I would like to know what is the panel’s experience in
recycling the waste water stripper to crude desalting.
HENKE:
We have good success with taking the stripped sour
water to the crude unit desalters.
FUSSELL:
At our refinery in Port Arthur, we routinely feed sour
water stripper product to the desalters. We have also done
what Mr. Binford described with water that has a high
phenol content. We feed the high phenol water back to
the desalters as a result of a recommendation from our
Betz process chemical representatives and that is
extremely successful.
BINFORD:
Regarding feeding water back from the sour water
strippers back to the desalters, there are a couple of things
you need to watch for. One of them is the ammonia level
in the stripper bottoms. You need to be able to strip the
ammonia down to less than 20 ppm. If you are running
naphthenic based crude, ammonia can cause problems by
reacting with the naphthenic acids and forming saponifi-
cation species (ammonia-naphthenate).
49
TOC/INDEX
Also, if you are recycling water back through the strip-
per to the desalter, you need to be careful that your not
losing amine from the gas treating system into the refinery
sour water system. Amines coming back through the
desalter with the stripped sour water can not only cause
problems in the desalter itself, but some of those amines
can form salts in the crude tower depending on the type
of amine and tower operating conditions
3. Regeneration
Question 8.
What can be done to reduce NOx emissions?
FLETCHER:
Reduction of NOx can be achieved by (1) minimizing
flue gas excess oxygen levels or operation in partial burn
mode, (2) minimizing promoter usage, (3) using additives
such as NOx, SOx or De-SOx, and (4) hydrotreating
the feed.
Regarding minimizing oxygen in the flue gas, NOx
reductions can be achieved by operating at partial burn
or with as close to zero excess oxygen as is feasible. One
pilot riser study undertaken to demonstrate the advantage
of switching from a full combustion to a partial combus-
tion operation observed a drop in NOx from 85 to 20
ppm.
For the full burn operation, operating at or below 0.5%
excess O2 reduced NOx about 20 percent when compared
to the same operation at one to two percent excess O2.
One of our customers which operates in full combustion
mode measured 370 ppm NOx with nearly zero excess
O2; 430 ppm NOx with 0.5% excess O2, and 540 ppm
NOx with 2.0% excess O2.
This data indicates a 25 percent and 45 percent increase
in NOx for increasing the excess oxygen from zero to a
half a percent and then from a half a percent to two
percent, respectively. So there are some advantages in
minimizing O2.
Regarding the NOx-SOx type additives, these have
been shown to reduce NOx in both pilot plant risers and
commercial units. One pilot riser test demonstrated that
adding 0.5 wt% DeSOx produced a 20% reduction in
NOx, while additions at 1.0 wt% reduced NOx by 30-
35%.
Regarding the use of combustion promoters, it has
been demonstrated that they increase NOx formation.
Pilot riser work has shown that the addition of 0.5 wt%
loose promoter increases NOx four-fold. One alternative
promoter technology for those refiners that are forced to
use the combustion promoter is Akzo Nobel’s In Situ Pro
technology. This approach impregnates the platinum on
the catalyst itself rather than having a loose additive which
results in better dispersion of the platinum crystals.
50 Heavy Oil Processing
The result is that per gram of platinum the In Situ
Pro has been demonstrated commercially to be two to four
times as effective as the separate combustion promoter
additives. So with the more effective platinum, you would
expect that the NOx would go up and that is true. How-
ever, this technology allows you to use a much lower level
of platinum and also allows you in many instances to
reduce the excess O2 significantly without after burn.
I have one commercial example to illustrate this. This
customer had a UOP high efficiency regenerator design
running in total combustion prior to the use of In Situ
Pro catalyst. They were using bag promoter. The platinum
averaged 0.5-1.0 ppm on the Ecat, and they had occasional
problems with after burn.
Using the In Situ Pro they were able to stepwise lower
the level of platinum to 0.3 ppm with no trace of after
burn. The steady addition of promoter with the fresh
catalyst led to noticeably smoother temperatures in the
regenerator which allowed them to operate at significantly
lower flue gas oxygen levels, less than 1.0%. Besides reduc-
ing the promoter cost by about $30,000 a year, they
measured significantly lower NOx emissions.
One very excellent reference that I would recommend
is a paper written by Alan Peters entitled ‘‘Origin of NOx
in the FCCU Regenerator’’. This paper was published in
the May/June, 1995 issue of Fuel Reformulation.
MALEK:
Currently, there is not a lot of control of NOx down-
stream of FCC regenerators. However, there are available
technologies, and refiners are preparing to implement
these as the need arises. As one example of this on partial
burn units, the Cohen Corporation has demonstrated
commercially the ability to control NOx significantly by
staged combustion in the CO incinerator. They do this
by controlling the addition of air to the combustion zone
in a secondary location. This allows two temperature zones
inside the combuster.
Another approach is to use ammonia based compounds
in CO boiler on a partial burn type of unit. Urea solutions
or other forms of ammonia can be used. Generally, this
requires operation in the 1,500 degree range for the use
of additives to be effective.
Another technology that is offered by Belco Technolog-
ies, and this operates at a much lower temperature. They
provide in their design of wet gas scrubbers for the addi-
tion of a proprietary catalyst which is added into the
system ahead of the wet scrubber. While operating in the
range of about 600°F, they get very effective control of
NOx using this technique.
ROMAN:
NOx can be reduced by operating the regenerator in
partial burn, using selective reduction with ammonia or
area and by hydrotreating the feed. Our work has shown
TOC/INDEX
that approximately seven percent of the nitrogen in the
coke leaves the regenerator as NOx. Even though hydro-
treating of FCC feeds is performed primarily to lower
sulfur in cracked products, it will also lower contaminant
nitrogen. Feed nitrogen and consequently coke nitrogen
can be decreased by up to 90 percent.
Temperatures in the regenerator are too low to form
thermal NOx from nitrogen, but this can take place if
you have a CO boiler downstream in the regenerator. We
have looked at additives to reduce NOx. Blending FCC
catalyst with copper ZSM-5 at levels above one weight
percent reduced NOx by 50 percent, but unfortunately
resulted in substantial losses in gasoline selectivity and
increased coke and hydrogen production.
The loss in gasoline selectivity was mainly a result of
the ZSM-5 component.
Taking a regenerator from partial burn to complete
burn results in an increase in NOx of between 35 and
135 percent. We usually see the NOx increased by at
least 100 percent across the CO boiler due to the thermal
fixation of nitrogen from the combustion air.
Use of combustion promoters or de-SOx additives can
also increase NOx. In one test, the presence of one ppm
platinum on the catalyst doubled the NOx. We have also
seen NOx increases as high as 50 percent caused by the
presence of de-SOx additives.
TASKER:
In addition to all of that, we think part of the problem
associated with NOx is that ammonia is used in the
catalyst manufacturing for leaching the catalyst and this
remains with the catalyst or some of it does. This is released
during the regeneration leading to NOx production. It
can be avoided by double stripping of the catalyst, but
this tends to be somewhat expensive.
Also, as mentioned, if the feed is deeply hydrotreated,
then the nitrogen is reduced and therefore NOx emissions
are also reduced. We feel that NOx emissions from a
cracker should be in the range of 50 to 150 ppm depending
on the nitrogen in the feed. If values are much higher
than this, the unit is probably using a CO promoter
and there will be excess oxygen. One of the newer non-
platinum promoters can be used or the excess oxygen can
be reduced.
Catalytic reduction of the NOx emissions produced
can be used as an extreme case though the normal amount
of NOx leaving the FCC does not warrant implementa-
tion of such technology unless regulations require that.
JIM STONE (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality):
One of the reasons that we control NOx is to control
ozone. In Louisiana, we are kind of lucky because we
have a model which shows us when we are likely to have
an ozone problem; it comes over from Texas and then
over Beaumont towards our area.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
One of the ways we have cooperatively gotten people
to reduce NOx is to simply reduce throughput for four
to six hours which will shave the ozone peak off ozone
high for the day and hopefully keep us out of exceedences.
I do not know if it would work in other parts of the
country or not, but reducing emissions four to six hours,
two or three days a year is sure a lot cheaper than some
of the other NOx control systems.
REZA SADEGHBEIGI (RMS Engineering, Inc.):
I would like to clarify what was said by the panel about
the partial combustion. Although partial combustion has
many benefits, the total NOx leaving the CO boiler is
going to be higher in partial combustion than in full
combustion. Oxygen enrichment and urea injection are
two of the methods used to reduce NOx emissions from
a partial combustion operation.
LAWRENCE J. LACIJAN (UOP):
In addition to the comments already made about oxy-
gen, we believe that minimizing platinum is really one
of the keys for reducing NOx. In the combustor style
regenerator that we use where we mix the spent and the
regenerator catalyst before combustion, we operate in full
combustion without any platinum. We believe that we
can get down in most cases with reasonable feed nitrogens
to less than 50 ppm NOx.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
Using INTERCAT’s low platinum promoters with our
patented injection system, we have been able to reduce
NOx emissions in full burn units by as much as 50%.
We believe this is an excellent way to address this problem
with minimum cost.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
What is the NOx and SOx testing frequency and the
method to measure them?
ROMAN:
It depends on our facilities. Most of our operating
permits require annual testing. Heaters which have trig-
gered NSPS usually have continuous emission monitors.
DAVID SAMS (Grace Davison):
As many of the panelists have mentioned, it is well
known that platinum based promoters contribute to the
formation of NOx. To address this, Grace Davison has
developed a new promoter called Ex-NOx which has a
unique chemistry.
Earlier this year, a West Coast refiner conducted a trial
where they replaced their platinum based promoter with
Ex-NOx. Following the transition period, the NOx level
lined out at about 50 percent of the base level with compa-
rable CO after burn control. They considered it a success
51
TOC/INDEX
and also a clear demonstration of the contribution that
platinum makes to the formation of NOx.
R.C. SKOCPOL (Akzo Nobel Catalysts, FCC):
I believe it was Mr. Tasker who mentioned the ammo-
nia in the fresh catalyst might possibly lead to NOx. I
disagree. Look at the other ammonia that is around in
the system, all the nitrogen in the coke, which is like
almost half of the nitrogen in the feed. According to the
literature, all the nitrogen is in coke gas through a cyanide
or an ammonia intermediate before it winds up being
either NOx or N2. Luckily most of it winds up as N2.
Any traces of ammonia added with the catalyst might
even react with NOx to get rid of it and turn it into N2.
All in all, if you look at all the sources of nitrogen and
ammonia that are present, any good or bad effects of a
little bit of ammonia coming in from another source such
as fresh catalyst would be pretty negligible.
RAGHU MENON (BOC Gases):
In general terms, FCC-related NOx can be reduced
by four types of approaches:
1. feed nitrogen reduction by hydrotreating;
2. choice of suitable FCC operations modes;
3. hardware/unit-design based approaches; and
4. flue gas treatment.
Because it has now been established that FCC-related
NOx originates from feedstock nitrogen, the first
approach can be very effective. Removal of the types of
feed nitrogen, which principally go to FCC coke, require
medium to high severity hydrotreating, which is very
expensive. A number of process variable manipulations
are known to effect NOx. For example, for complete
combustion operation, NOx can be reduced by lowering
the level of excess oxygen in regenerator flue gas and
decreasing the level of Pt promoter addition. Operation
using oxygen-enriched air can also be expected to lower
NOx due to higher coke and carbon monoxide levels for
certain types of operations. Other approaches reported in
literature include injection of NOx reducing gases into
the regenerator vessel or downstream sections, and the
addition of Pt promoter for NOx reduction in partial
combustion operation. The use of catalyst additives for
NOx reduction is not yet widespread. A number of the
hardware approaches are based on the contact characteris-
tics between the coke-laden catalyst and flue gas. Examples
of flue gas treatment include selective noncatalytic reduc-
tion approaches involving the addition of compounds
such as ammonia and urea, standard and novel types of
flue gas scrubbing approaches, and SCR (selective catalytic
reduction). The scrubbing and SCR approaches may be
used for reduction of NOx to very low levels, but are
both expensive and involve waste disposition require-
ments.
52 Heavy Oil Processing
UMA SHANKER (Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India):
NOx emission from FCC regenerator flue gas can be
controlled within acceptable limits by the controlled use
of oxidation promoters and air. DeSOx additives are also
known to catalyze the union of CO/coke and NOx to
form molecular nitrogen and CO2 thereby diminishing
NOx emissions. Refineries having electrostatic precipita-
tors and CO boilers using both CO-oxidation promoter
and DeSOx additive are using selective reduction of NOx
by injecting NH3 into cooled regenerator flue gas. Devel-
opment of DeNOx additive is still in research stages.
Question 9.
Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
operating in partial burn versus operating in complete
burn with heat removal devices, such as catalyst coolers,
when processing resid.
ROMAN:
As you increase the concarbon, you will have to go to
partial burn, add a catalyst cooler or both in order to
heat balance the unit. It is certainly cheaper to install a
catalyst cooler than a CO boiler and that would be our
first choice.
As the vanadium increases, catalyst activity will decline
and consideration should be given of going to partial burn
with a CO boiler. Operation in partial burn keeps the
vanadium in a plus four valence state and renders it rela-
tively immobile. This reduces the loss in catalyst activity
at high loadings.
This benefit is somewhat offset by the higher carbon
on catalyst levels that most partial burn units experience.
Most resid catalysts have an active matrix which distributes
the carbon over the whole catalyst particle and the effect
of increasing carbon on regenerated catalyst is not as
pronounced as it used to be.
Ashland also operates a two stage regeneration system
which requires both a catalyst cooler and a CO boiler. This
allows most of the carbon to be burned off in reducing
atmosphere while still attaining complete removal of car-
bon from the catalyst.
The second stage section is maintained in a completely
oxidizing atmosphere, but the residence time is quite low
to minimize the redistribution of vanadium.
TASKER:
The two philosophies that we have are the complete
regeneration and the partial burn. We typically use the
two stages to burn most of the hydrogen off the soft coke
in the first regenerator. Most of the water is removed
at that stage. This represents about 60 percent of the
combustion.
Now, the catalyst deactivates as you know mostly due
to vanadium contamination. The vanadium attacks the
zeolite by first forming V2O2 which then forms a vanadic
TOC/INDEX
acid in the presence of water. So if the water is removed
early, there is less chance that the catalyst will be attacked.
In addition with the partial burn, oxygen will be less and,
of course, oxygen is required to form V2O2.
In the first burn stage, CO is formed since there is a
lack of oxygen, therefore, vanadium oxidation will be
minimized. In the second stage since most of the water
has already been removed, there is less tendency to make
vanadic acid. This gives more protection of the catalyst
and results in better operation. But, of course, there are
differing opinions on this mechanism.
JOSECK:
For the RCC in Shreveport, the new unit, by running
a 4.4 mole percent CO in the off gas, the regenerator
heat load is reduced by 30.5mm Btu/hr. The catalyst
cooler is designed to remove an additional by design
52mm Btu/hr. Both are independent ways to adjust the
heat balance. Since going from full burn into partial burn
involves an unstable region, we maintain the regenerator
in partial burn and use the catalyst cooler to adjust regener-
ator temperatures. The unit has a capacity of 10,600
barrels a day running at 80 percent conversion and pro-
cesses feedstocks with gravity of 19° API. The feed con-
tains lube extracts and vacuum resids with a Conradson
carbons between 6 and 7%.
FLETCHER:
For the complete burn operation, catalyst coolers allow
the reduction of carbon on regenerated catalysts but pay
a penalty in coke yield and blower capacity. Producing
steam in a catalyst cooler requires heat and thereby
increases coke yield. The complete combustion mode is
easier to operate and provides a distinct operating benefit
for a refiner whose regenerator is subject to maldistribu-
tion of catalyst and air.
A risk observed with a complete combustion operation
is that of the catalyst cooler or bed coil failure which
will damage the catalyst inventory and potentially limit
throughput.
For the partial burn operation, there are also several
benefits. The metals benefit has been covered. The partial
burn operation allows control of the regenerator tempera-
ture without the additional coke make and thereby reduces
blower capacity. The key to good partial combustion
operation is air distribution which allows the carbon on
the catalyst (CRC) to be kept within reasonable limits.
With the partial burn operation, you also have the benefit
of operating with a lower regenerator superficial velocity.
DAVID MCCAFFREY (Exxon Research & Engineering Company):
We have experience running feeds in the three to four
concarbon range with partial burn regenerators and feel
that this approach offers design, operating and yield
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
advantages. Partial burn regenerators have lower gas vol-
ume in the regenerator vessel allowing smaller vessels and
cyclones and lower cyclone velocities.
Another design consideration is that the balance of the
combustion air can be put into the CO boiler at lower
pressure, so that the blower operates against lower head.
Operating advantages include lower catalyst additions as
a result of the lower oxidation state of vanadium and also
lower afterburning. High pressure super heated steam can
be produced in the CO boiler.
Finally, there is lower hydrogen yield achieved in partial
burn as a result of lower nickel activity and this frees up
some compressor capacity.
RAGHU MENON (BOC Gases):
Partial combustion mode operation enables better tem-
perature control, but requires a flue gas boiler for CO
post-combustion, and can result in high CRC (carbon-
on- regenerated catalyst) levels. The use of catalyst coolers
for complete combustion operation enables temperature
mitigation from a regenerator/flue gas hardware perspec-
tive, and allows for the catalyst-to-oil (C/O) ratio to be
maintained at reasonable levels. Complementing a catalyst
cooler with increased coke burn capability and efficiency
using oxygen enrichment or other means can enable
exploitation of higher C/O (higher conversion) and a
wider operating range, while simultaneously maintaining
CRC levels. Ability to control CRC enables better reactor
product selectivity.
UMA SHANKER (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
In partial combustion mode some of the carbon on
the spent catalyst is incompletely burned to carbon mon-
oxide but regenerator temperature is limited and con-
trolled by regulating flow of air. The full combustion
mode of regenerator utilizes excess oxygen for complete
CO combustion and reduction of carbon on the regener-
ated catalyst to less than 0.1% wt increasing the catalyst
activity and selectivity.
Advantages and disadvantages of full combustion are:
Advantages:
● higher catalyst selectivity because of lower carbon
on the regenerated catalyst;
● lower CO content of flue gas, allowing it to be
released to the atmosphere; and
● higher heat release in the regenerator beneficial for
processing hydrotreated stocks not producing suffi-
cient coke for heat balance.
Disadvantages:
● lower catalyst/oil ratio because of higher regenerator
temperature;
● harder impact on catalyst activity due to thermal/
hydrothermal deactivation;
● greater requirement of air; and
53
TOC/INDEX
● more expensive metallurgy in the regenerator for
higher temperature operation.
4. Reactor
Question 10.
Over the past several years, many new catalyst and pro-
cess technologies and passivation agents were devel-
oped to handle nickel, vanadium, and sodium
contamination of FCC catalysts.
—What are recent experiences?
—What methods are being used to show the benefit of
the various products?
—Do any of the new passivation agents have detrimental
effects on SOx and NOx reduction additives and CO pro-
moters?
FLETCHER:
I plan on covering the technology portion of this
answer. Akzo Nobel has begun marketing a new line of
catalysts for resid processing called Centurion. The nickel
resistance of this catalyst has been exceptional. Nickel
levels up to 25,000 ppm have been handled without the
use of antimony. This technology involves the formation
of nickel silicates and encapsulation of the nickel within
the alumina which drastically reduces nickel activity.
The benefits of the nickel passivating ability of this
catalyst is clearly visible by monitoring hydrogen produc-
tion and regenerator temperatures. Some operations have
observed a 50°F reduction in regenerator temperature as
a result.
Sophisticated methods of unit monitoring have not
been required to measure the benefit. Several refiners were
air blower limited prior to the Centurion and have been
able to increase charge rate by over ten percent.
The vanadium passivation is achieved through use of
metal trapping components or sacrificial activity compo-
nents. The use of sacrificial components is often found
to be more cost effective than the use of some high cost
metal trapping components. Vanadium traps are usually
more difficult to justify. The cost savings observed through
the reduction in catalyst additions must exceed the cost
of the vanadium passivation additive.
The use of a highly selective matrix component will
always enhance metals tolerance. The technology included
in the Centurion line does not negatively affect the effi-
ciency of SOx or CO promotion additives. In fact, the
reduction in regenerator temperature as a result of the
nickel passivation and enhanced coke selectivity may posi-
tively impact the SOx additive efficiency.
Antimony injection deactivates CO promoter. There-
fore, increased promoter additions are required when anti-
mony is being added to passivate nickel. Antimony can
therefore be added to a unit that is suffering from over
promotion.
54 Heavy Oil Processing
BINFORD:
I am going to try to cover the passivator portion of
this question and the monitoring around passivator use.
We think the best method to monitor passivator effective-
ness is by tracking the hydrogen to methane ratio and
the contaminate metal to passivator ratio on the FCC
equilibrium catalyst.
We have also developed a number of different modeling
techniques which not only show the impact of contami-
nant metals in regard to yield and byproduct production,
but can also more effectively optimize the passivator addi-
tion rate with total unit economics. We typically use these
models to do more sophisticated analysis. Simply looking
at the ratios can give you a pretty good idea of where
your passivator feed rate needs to be and whether or not
it is working. Our in-house models use either regression
technology or neural network technology, depending on
how sophisticated we need to build them and also depend-
ing on data availability.
We have recently concluded field trials, one last year
in Australia, one just concluded here on the Texas Gulf
Coast, comparing standard water based antimony disper-
sions and oil soluble antimony with our new Dimetallic
ultra small particle size antimony product.
In field tests, we have seen up to a 30 percent decrease
in antimony required to achieve the same benefit com-
pared to the standard water based product. We have seen
equal performance at significantly lower cost with the
new product compared to the oil based antimony.
The ultra small particle size also eliminates a lot of the
problems that you have with feeding and storing antimony
dispersions. This new product eliminates the line plugging
and feeding problems that commonly plague traditional
antimony passivator applications. We are also working
on a freeze protected version of this same product and
hope to have it out early next year. We expect to be able
to use this product in cold climates without heat traced
and insulated tanks and lines.
Traditional nickel passivator agents are known to have
some impact on the use of CO promoters. However,
it has also been known that some of the nonantimony
products, particularly serium, may have a positive effect
in regard to SOx and NOx reduction.
There has also been some reportings of antimony actu-
ally causing increases in SOx and NOx. Antimony fed at
tremendously high feed rates has caused this problem,
but at normal feed rates you should not see any increase
in SOx or NOx.
ROMAN:
We have used various passivating agents in the past
and have discontinued them in favor of magnetic particle
separation. Ashland Refining Process Services and M.W.
Kellogg have developed and offer for license the Magnicat
TOC/INDEX
process which has been proven to upgrade the FCC cata-
lyst inventory through magnetic separation and removal
of the oldest most metal laden, least active and least
selective FCC catalyst particles.
Removal of these particles leads to improved gasoline
selectivity as well as lower coke and gas selectivity. Test
runs at our first commercial unit at our Canton Refinery
showed significant profitability improvements, primarily
due to increased alkylation charge and gasoline yields at
lowered fresh catalyst addition rates. The FCC unit
showed conversion increases from 75 to 82 percent and
gasoline yields increased from 62 to 65 percent. Hydrogen
yields decreased as did coke by material balance, regenera-
tor temperature and air blower demand. The clearest
example of this effect was shown in the MAT analysis of
the FCC catalyst inventory, even though the fresh catalyst
addition rate had been reduced by one-third to maintain
inventory and unit activity in the proper range. The key
parameter changes at constant MAT were:
Base Case 100% Magnacat
Mat Conversion (vol%) 71.0 70.3
H2 Yield (wt%) 0.22 0.16
H2/C1 Ratio 0.56 0.38
Gasoline Yield (vol%) 59.4 63.3
Gasoline Selectivity (v/v) 85 91
Coke Yield (wt%) 3.9 2.7
For further details, please refer to our 1997 NPRA
paper, AM-97-32.
R.C. SKOCPOL (Akzo Nobel Catalysts):
I thought I would offer a quick and easy check that
we found for catalyst based nickel trapping effects. If you
are also using antimony, and you begin using a catalyst
which traps nickel such as Akzo Nobel’s ‘‘i’’-technology,
you will see that the retention of the antimony goes down.
For example, it might be 15 to 20 percent of the nickel
by weight as opposed to the usual 30 or 40. You can see
clearly that something is going on.
Something is encapsulating or reacting with the nickel
making it unavailable to react with the antimony. This
suggests that the nickel is also unavailable to make coke
and hydrogen, which is, of course, what we measure both
in the lab and in commercial FCCU’s.
LANA CULLON (Wynnewood Refining Company):
We use antimony to passivate nickel and have had
good success. We have also tried a trial run with Nalco’s
product for vanadium passivation. We saw passivation of
the vanadium with no drastic effects on our CO promoter.
We chose not to continue the passivation of vanadium,
because the results were less than what we expected.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
Monitoring the hydrogen-to-methane ratio works well
with antimony, an EPA listed hazardous chemical, and
bismuth, a chemical that is not listed by the EPA as
hazardous. However, with bismuth less methane is pro-
duced resulting in higher ratios with the same hydrogen
production.
Unless these additives are over used, the impact on
CO Oxidation promoter is minimum.
Solid vanadium traps offer additional benefits over
liquid programs with no impact on the CO Oxidation.
INTERCAT has not observed negative impacts with
the use of liquid vanadium or nickel passivators on our
SOx reduction additives.
RAY MOTT (Grace Davison):
It is important to recognize that most modern catalyst
designs use multiple methods of passivating and trapping
the metals, things like RAM and OCM matrix, SAM
matrix, RV technologies, etc. They are all complementary.
They are all built into your catalyst systems already. That
is why the industry has made a lot of progress in the
amount of metal levels they can process and the reductions
in the amount of hydrogen produced.
I also wanted to comment on the effect of the reduced
retention of antimony in modern catalysts. What we think
is going on there is when the catalyst matrix has already
reacted with nickel or taken it out of service, what you
see is that the antimony does not have anything remaining
to adhere to because it adheres primarily to the nickel.
When you see very low antimony retentions on modern
catalysts, that is indicating that the catalyst has already
passivated the existing nickel level in the inventory.
DAVID B. BARTHOLIC (BARCO):
One of the process technologies available for passivating
metals is the design feature incorporated into the Milli-
Second Catalytic Cracking (MSCC) Process available
from UOP. The ultra short contact time reactor design
feature incorporated into the MSCC process results in
passivating the metals so that one can greatly reduce the
catalyst consumption as compared to conventional resid-
ual oil FCC technology. As regards to SOx additives, the
dual reaction system design feature that can be incorpo-
rated into the MSCC reactor can result in a significant
reduction in SOx additive usage. These MSCC design
features will significantly reduce the catalyst costs and
SOx additive costs as compared to conventional residual
oil FCC technology.
FRANK ELVIN (Coastal Catalyst Technology):
Coastal’s new Demet process removes contaminant
metals from the FCC catalyst. What it does is increase
catalyst activity and reduce the catalyst deactivation rate.
But the most important thing it does is it reduces the
55
TOC/INDEX
catalytic coke at a fixed conversion, by at least 50 percent.
If you use Demet, your regenerator CO2 emissions will
go down and you will probably get a plaque from Green-
peace for encouraging ‘‘global cooling.’’
MIKE ZETLMEISL (Baker Petrolite):
In addition to the traditional passivators, we have one
developmental product which has shown some real prom-
ise against vanadium. After several series of MAT type
tests working with one of the oil companies, this company
also tested the product in their FCC pilot unit and based
on the observed increases in gasoline yield and decreases
in hydrogen and dry gas as well as coke, they are about
to trial the product in an actual operating unit.
DAVID STONECIPHER (Nalco/Exxon):
Nalco/Exxon has been involved with the injection of
liquid feed additives to combat contaminant metals in
the FCC since 1980. Our most recent experience is with
a vanadium passivation technology marketed under the
trade name MVP. It is described in the 1997 NPRA paper
AM-97-29.
Over a dozen field applications and half dozen indepen-
dent laboratory studies have proven the viability of the
technology. We have generally seen up to a 50 percent
reduction in the vanadium effect on the FCC catalyst.
The benefits have included improved catalyst activity and
surface area, and this translates into higher gasoline and
light olefin yields, more resid processing capabilities and/
or an ability to cut back on fresh catalyst addition rates.
Proving vanadium passivation commercially can be a
difficult subject due to the time required to flush out the
deactivated catalyst from the unit, which can take two or
three months in some cases. We have gone with several
different techniques to prove the viability of the technol-
ogy in a commercial unit.
The first technique is simple trending of unit operating
data. Secondly, we will do point-to-point comparisons of
mass balanced operations. Third, we will perform some
off-line catalyst analysis, coupled with kinetic modeling to
smooth any feedstock differences. Reaction Mix Sampling
(RMS) may be employed here as well. Fourth and finally,
a new technique we are employing is to use more sophisti-
cated statistical modeling techniques. MVP has not been
shown to have any negative impact on NOx, SOx or CO
promoter additives.
WARREN S. LETZSCH, (Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation):
Regarding sodium passivation, some past catalysts that
contain special aluminas would form a sodium aluminate
that was very stable. I have seen a number of units that
could run with sodium levels about .8 up to 1.2 weight
percent and not suffer any real activity loss. Refiners might
want to consider such a catalyst. It may not be prudent
56 Heavy Oil Processing
to operate a single stage regenerator at high temperatures
with such high sodium levels.
Two stage regeneration is very effective for metals pas-
sivation. We have data from a number of our resid crackers
around the world, and many are typically running 10,000
to 12,000 ppm metals. Vanadium levels of 7,000 to 8,000
ppm are being run on several of the units with no serious
catalyst deactivation. Regenerator temperatures are run-
ning from 1,300 to 1,400°F in the second stage so this
is certainly an alternative. Two stage, independent regen-
erators give the partial burn benefits without the problems
of trying to control the carbon on catalyst.
All of the catalysts that we have used have had the
various metal traps that the catalyst suppliers are making.
Their products are continually improving and make resid
cracking the preferred cracking mode for the future.
Question 11.
What is industry experience with external reactor
cyclones? Have there been any problems with leaks or
coking?
CAIN:
Our Delaware City refinery tried one of these external
reactor cyclones on the fluid coker and it coked up rapidly
and developed leaks.
GEORGE QUINN (Amoco):
With regard to external rough cut cyclones, we have
installed rough cut cyclones on three units. Two of them
have been in place for 11 and 9 years. We have experienced
no coking whatsoever in those rough cut cyclones, very
minimal refractory repair over that ten year period time,
and no leaks on the bodies of the cyclones. I am aware
of a small leak on one unit which was rapidly repaired
on the rectangular crossover duct into the rough cut
cyclone. So our experience with external rough cut
cyclones has been excellent.
DAVID B. BARTHOLIC (BARCO):
The Milli-Second Catalytic Cracking (MSCC) standard
reactor design contains external cyclones to clean up the
reactor vapors upstream of the main fractionator. These
systems have been in operation for more than three years
and there have been no problems.
Question 12.
Refiners may increase FCC unit pressure to expand
capacity. Increased reactor pressure is known to increase
delta coke in gas oil FCCUs. Is the effect of pressure
different when processing residual feeds? What yield
and product shifts might be expected?
ROMAN:
Ashland’s RCC technology utilizes both low reactor
pressure and lift gas to reduce hydrocarbon partial pressure
TOC/INDEX
to minimize selectivity to coke. We ran some recent cases
with our RCC and FCC kinetic models to evaluate coke
sensitivity. These models use neural nets to reconcile input
data and a generalized reduced gradient solver to parame-
terize the rate constants. Finite difference methods are
used to integrate the differential equations along the riser.
A five psi increase in FCC reactor pressure resulted in a
.36 percent increase in coke. The same five psi increase
on an RCC reactor resulted in a .98 percent or almost
three times as much coke.
These values are feedstock catalyst dependent and are
specific to two of our units. We also ran an RCC case
at constant residence time and constant conversion and
found that the same five psi increase in RCC pressure
resulted in only a .3 percent increase in coke.
FLETCHER:
I would add that coke producing reactions like hydro-
gen transfer are pseudo second order and proportional to
the square of the partial pressure of the reactants. So you
expect the coke to go up as the pressure increases.
The effect of pressure on an FCC processing resid
should be greater. Coke producing reactions are the only
reactions in the FCCU which result in a reduction of
volume. Since most resid feedstocks contain more coke
precursors, it is reasonable to expect an increase in coke
production over that level observed in a gas oil cracker.
The pressure effect is clearly observed in laboratory test
units.
The effect of increasing pressure on metallic coke is
strong. Therefore, the coke component from nickel will
increase as pressure increases.
PETERSON:
We have done some recent work to increase the con-
densing capacity of our main column. However, instead
of lowering the pressure in the unit, we took advantage
of this to get higher catalyst-to-oil ratio and higher charge
rate through the unit which are two other variables to
look at in conjunction with lower pressure. Directionally,
we think lower pressure would be fairly important on
resid. We are considering doing some test runs on this.
PAUL MINTON (Stone & Webster):
One other point on increasing system pressures will
be the impact on feed vaporization. Obviously higher
pressures make it more difficult to vaporize the heavy ends.
You can get around this through feed nozzle design.
Steam rate itself is quite an important variable for partial
pressure impacts. Our mix temperature control systems
are able to elevate the temperature at that part of the
cracking system.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
5. Optimization/Design
Question 13.
How do you maximize light olefins production, mainly
propylene? Please explain developments such as:
—Process technology,
—High levels of ZSM-5 or other additives,
—Operating variables, and
—Operational changes to maximize light ends recovery.
Question 14.
In conjunction with the previous questions, please com-
ment on maximizing propylene with limited C4 han-
dling capacity.
ROMAN:
During the winter months, we will increase our reactor
temperatures as the value of fuel gas and butanes goes
up. This increases propylene as we crack naphtha into C3
and C4 product.
Decreasing rare earth on a catalyst will decrease hydro-
gen transfer reactions and also increase olefins in the wet
gas. This is usually limited by concerns over MAT stability
of the catalyst at low rare earth levels. We did some pilot
plant work with ZSM-5 which showed that 60 percent
of the increase in wet gas yield was propylene and had a
short commercial trial of the ZSM-5 additive which was
unsuccessful.
All three of the above methods result in over cracking
of the naphtha into wet gas. We have recently licensed
riser quench technology which allows us to operate at
higher mix zone temperatures without generating exces-
sive dry gas due to thermal cracking in the disengaging
vessel. This is expected to substantially increase our pro-
pylene yields without the associated reduction in naph-
tha yield.
We plan to install this technology in both our FCC
and RCC units. The RCC installation has just been com-
pleted and we are evaluating the results.
SAMUELS:
I have some operating data I would like to share. Our
Texas City refinery recently upgraded to close couple
cyclone technology and the documented operating data
from this refinery reinforces that reactor temperatures
strongly influences light olefin production. A 20°F
increase in reactor temperature produced a 20 percent
relative increase in propylene production.
At our Robinson FCC which has a riser T using 2.3
weight percent rare earth catalyst, a 10°F increase in reac-
tor temperature increased the propylene production by
five percent and the butylene production by four percent.
This illustrates the better yield performance with the
closed couple cyclone and not over cracking, at higher
temperatures.
57
TOC/INDEX
Recently, we lowered the rare earth on the Robinson
FCC catalyst from 2.3 to 1.5 weight percent. C3 and C4
olefin yields both increased by a relative seven vol% at
constant reactor temperature. For this rare earth decrease,
40 percent of the butylene shift was to isobutylene.
Just some general comments under operating changes
to maximize recoveries, you can improve propylene recov-
ery by not over stripping in your de-ethanizer, increasing
your absorber pressure, and increasing the cooling of the
lean oil and the lean oil circulation rates. Also, hydrogen
impairs recoveries and can be minimized through a metals
passivation program. In all cases you have to keep the
ethane out of the debutanizer.
We think that the easiest way to dramatically increase
propylene yield relative to butylene yield is choosing the
correct ZSM-5 additive. Varying the silica to alumina
ratio in the ZSM will substantially vary the ratios of
butylene produced per volume of propylene. We recom-
mend that you work with your vendor to optimize your
propylene production.
TASKER:
The deep catalytic cracking process is designed to max-
imize propylene for either petrochemicals or RFG produc-
tion. We have four units operating and four more in
engineering. This technology uses reactor temperatures,
hydrocarbon partial pressures and contact time to maxim-
ize propylene along with high levels of pentocil type zeo-
lites. Cryogenics or chillers can be used to maximize
propylene recovery. Propylene yields approaching 25
weight percent have been obtained commercially with the
DCC process, though this is feedstock dependent. More
typical yields are in the range of 17 to 21 weight percent.
Recycling naphtha is another option that can be used
to maximize propylene. If it is used upstream of the feed
nozzles, it will also increase dry gas yield. The effectiveness
of this variable diminishes as the naphtha becomes
more aromatic.
Another procedure is to boost the riser outlet tempera-
ture to around 530 to 535°C and add ZSM-5 to the
extent of about three to five percent. This results in a
propylene yield increase.
HENKE:
Several things can be done to maximize light ends
recovery and unit capacity. These include maximizing
the operating pressure, removing hydraulic constraints,
improving heat transfer capability, and improving separa-
tion efficiency.
Mechanical modifications that we plan to incorporate
into our light ends recovery units include: (1) installing
UNIFIN motor coolers on the wet gas compressor electric
drivers. This will allow us to fully utilize the motor service
factor with confidence; (2) improving the design of the
exchanger bundles in absorber intercoolers, reboilers and
58 Heavy Oil Processing
condensers; and (3) installing new high capacity tray tech-
nology in the fractionators and the absorbers.
CAIN:
One thing I would like to add is the use of advance
controls. We have that in our Louisiana plant using DMC
technology and we achieve above 94 percent propylene
recovery.
FLETCHER:
It is often best to maximize light olefins production
by making operational adjustments to lower light ends
yield and then adding ZSM-5. Lowering reactor tempera-
ture or increasing rare earth on catalyst will lower light
ends yield. The propylene and butylene yield can then
be increased by the addition of ZSM-5. In this way the
dry gas and LPG saturates yields will be limited while
maximizing C3 and C4 olefins.
A high reactor temperature should be used if there is
no limitation on dry gas yield. A proper riser termination
device is essential if very high reactor temperatures are to
be run to minimize the degree of thermal cracking in the
reactor vessel.
It is also important to optimize rare earth levels on the
catalyst when maximizing light olefins yields. The ZSM-
5 response or effectiveness is improved with low rare earth
levels with zero rare earth levels providing the greatest
response.
The following rules of thumb are offered for maximiz-
ing light olefins.
Z/M Rare
Ratio Earth Activity ZSM5 Riser T
Propylene High High High Yes High
Normal
Butylenes Low Low High No Moderate
Isobutylene Low Low Moderate No Moderate
In order to maximize propylene yield while minimizing
butane yields, it is best to run a high rare earth level on
a low zeolite-to-matrix ratio catalyst and then operate at
high temperatures using ZSM-5. The high rare earth,
low z/m catalyst will minimize overall LPG production.
Increased riser temperature reduces the butylene produced
through catalytic cracking and increases the propylene
production. And finally, the ZSM-5 will produce propyl-
ene at a ratio of approximately 2:1 over butylene. The
end result is maximum propylene production with limited
C4 handling capacity.
HAHN:
In regard to the previous mention about injecting naph-
tha, we have demonstrated that to be a very effective
technique at our El Dorado facility. Texaco now has a
patent on this and there are some tricks to this process.
Properly done, it can be very successful.
TOC/INDEX
DAVID B. BARTHOLIC (BARCO):
In addition to catalyst and operating variable changes,
the Milli-Second Catalytic Cracking (MSCC) Process
incorporates ultra short contact time to minimize the
hydrogen transfer reactions. This MSCC design feature
will increase the olefin concentration in the LPG which
can result, when compared to the same total LPG yield
from a conventional FCC process, in a 10-25 vol%
increase in LPG olefins. Another process feature that is
incorporated into the MSCC reactor design is a dual
reaction system that can be operated to preferentially
increase propylene or LPG olefin production.
TIM DOUGAN (Grace Davison):
With regard to the ZSM-5 additive, I would like to
recommend that you use the highest ZSM-5 containing
additive you can find. Grace Davison introduced a mate-
rial, olefins max, about a year ago to help refiners get as
much ZSM-5 into the circulating inventory as possible
without diluting the FCC catalyst.
REZA SADEGHBEIGI (RMS Engineering, Inc.):
Operationally, the best way to maximize the light olefin
is to increase the mix zone temperature in the riser. That
can be done by maximizing the feed preheat temperature.
The other thing, as the panel indicated, is to inject
some sort of quench. The quench can be naphtha, coker
naphtha, heavy cycle oil further up in the riser. That will
increase the mix temperature and create what we call
‘‘selective overcracking’’ of the feed.
The third thing you can do is to split the feed injection
points actually. Take for example, one-third of your regu-
lar fresh feed and inject it further up in the riser. That also
increases the catalyst-to-oil ratio in the bottom portion,
consequently selective overcracking and generating C3
and C4.
In summary, maximizing the feed preheat and adding
some sort of a quench and splitting the feed will give you
maximum LPG production. This assumes that you have
wet gas compressor capacity.
H. C. KLIESCH (Treiber Controls):
Light ends recovery is one of our typical advanced
control applications in a FCCU Unsat Gas plant using our
multivariable predictive control software, OPC (Optimal
Predictive Control), to develop set points for the opera-
tional variables. In maximizing C3 recovery in a recent
application, we exceeded the capacity of the olefin treating
unit to remove H2S carried under with the increased
propylene recovery. You have to ensure that you have
enough capacity in your olefin product treating facilities
to remove the H2S, which will accompany the increased
propylene recovery. The refinery is adding H2S to their
olefin product analyzer and H2S level will be added as a
constraint in the OPC controller.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
KEN PECCATIELLO (Grace Davison):
While the reactor temperature is an effective means
of raising propylene, it also dramatically increases the
production of dienes, particularly butadiene. For those
refiners who are operating an HF alkylation unit, dienes
produce ASO. ASO is very difficult to dispose of. It also
dramatically increases the consumption of sulfuric acid.
So if you are running into an area where you are
worried about your alkylation, reactor temperature is not
the way to go. The production of diene goes up very
dramatically with reactor temperature. The formula for
that is:
wt%
C
TC4 冤
⳱ 10** 14.57 ⳮ
(2.11 * 104)
TRRX Ⳮ 460 冥
HEROS DERGREGORIAN (Valero Refining & Marketing
Company):
In the panel, somebody mentioned that they recycle
naphtha to the riser for improving unsaturate production.
Has anybody experienced in conjunction with that also
enhancement in octane?
REZA SADEGHBEIGI (RMS Engineering):
The total octane of the FCC gasoline will go up as
you inject naphtha either at the base of the riser or further
up in the riser. Depending where the naphtha comes
from, octane could be anywhere from 75 to 92 plus,
depending on the source.
Directionally overall octane, if you do an octane bal-
ance, it will go up because you are increasing the mix zone
temperature. When you do that you have to overcrack and
you have to produce more olefins. You will also produce
more aromatics, and those are the octane precursors.
Total octane will go up, assuming you have wet gas
compressor capacity. We do not normally recommend to
inject any kind of a quench if you can put the feed to
the unit. That usually makes more money than to run
any kind of a quench. Any quench that they use is going
to take up room on a wet gas compressor as well as the
air blower. So you need to kind of pay attention to that
before you decide to put in a quench.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
INTERCAT agrees that sometimes a particle contain-
ing high levels of ZSM-5 can make sense when a unit is
truly suffering from a dilution effect, generally above 15%
additive levels. However, to maximize propylene produc-
tion from ZSM requires the largest number of fresh crack-
ing sites which results when a lower concentration particle
is used at higher additive levels. This is one of the reasons
for INTERCAT marketing a family of additives with 3
levels of zeolite. Currently, INTERCAT’s newest LPG
olefin producing additive will offer propylene yields as
59
TOC/INDEX
high as 75%, and this product should be readily available
during the first quarter of 1998.
JIM STONE (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality):
When you make mechanical changes in your plant,
change the injection point where you actually have to go
out and do something or you change catalysts, you may
have an event that triggers a change in your permit. When
you do these things, review it and make sure that you do
not trip into something that could get you into trouble.
Question 15.
Stripping of hydrocarbon from spent FCC catalyst is criti-
cal for optimized operation of an FCC unit. Could the
panel describe their stripper design, critical operating
parameters and actual performance achieved? What per-
formance improvements have been seen following strip-
per revamps? How is performance being evaluated?
JOSECK:
As a benchmark the new Shreveport RCC unit is of
the new UOP design with annular flow baffles. The design
stripping steam rate is 1.9 lbs of steam per 1,000 lbs of
catalyst with a hydrogen content in the coke of 6.5 per-
cent. After performing stripping steam tests and optimiza-
tion, we are using 1.5 lbs of steam and getting to the
design hydrogen content in the coke.
PETERSON:
We had an annular stripper in our original design with
no internals other than just two steam rings. The bottom
one worked and the top one was not effective, so we did
not use it. In our 1996 turnaround, we went to a struc-
tured packing in our FCC stripper which seemed to do
some good on hydrogen in coke. We have seen a calculated
hydrogen coke drop from 9.3 to 6.8 weight percent. But
our delta coke has not dropped very much at all. One
factor in that may be that the residence time of the stripper
has gone from one minute to 2.6 minutes.
60 Heavy Oil Processing
The external evidence of whether or not the stripping
worked is coupled to the CO boiler. Prior to the stripper
revamp, we could not fit all of the flue gas through the
CO boiler. We had to use an incinerator on the side and
it was energy inefficient from not making steam plus
having to put auxiliary fuel gas in to incinerate the CO.
Since the stripper revamp, we have been able to put
all the flue gas through the CO boiler. There may have
been another past problem in that our diverter valves did
not seat all that well before.
Directionally, we think it was a good idea, but we have
not been able to come up with really concrete evidence
that says this is the perfect way to do it.
ROMAN:
Ashland operates several different spent catalyst stripper
designs including a three tray side-to-side baffle external
stripper with the steam chest distributor, a seven disk and
doughnut tray external stripper with dual level ring steam
distributors, a four chevron tray internal stripper with a
pipe steam distributor, and a seven disk and doughnut
tray internal annual stripper with a pipe steam distributor.
The critical operating parameters are considered to be
the catalyst flux rates and the stripping steam flow ratio
to catalyst flow. Ashland’s catalyst flux design criteria for
new strippers is 50,000 lb/hr-ft2, and 75,000 lb/hr-ft2 for
existing strippers being reused in a revamp. Ashland’s
design criteria for stripping steam rates is 2.0 lb of steam/
1,000 lb of catalyst circulation, but actual operation has
covered a range of 0.8-2.0 lb/1,000 lb of catalyst. Spent
catalyst stripping effectiveness is measured by the calcu-
lated hydrogen content of coke derived from a material
balance of the regenerator. The strippers generally achieve
a hydrogen content in the coke of 8.4% to 9.5%, with
lower coke hydrogen contents indicating more effective
stripping. A revamp that was installed primarily to reduce
catalyst fluxes did not yield a notable change in stripping
performance. A revamp that was installed to increase the
number of contacting trays apparently did improve strip-
ping effectiveness, but work has not yet been conducted
to define and document the change in performance. That
same revamp eliminated a steam chest distributor in favor
of dual level ring steam distributors, which did result in
a significant improvement in the retention of catalyst
static head pressure across the stripper and spent catalyst
standpipe. The improved retention of static head pressure
from that revamp resulted in increased spent catalyst slide
valve differential pressure and hence better operating flexi-
bility.
SAMUELS:
Getting down to a 5.5 to 6 weight percent hydrogen in
coke is possible. The cost to reach this is heavily dependent
upon the current stripper configuration. Revamps are
costly on units with annual strippers where incremental
TOC/INDEX
diameter is desired. If only stripper internal modifications
are required, these types of revamps show tremendous
rates of return in the order of 1.5 year simple payouts.
The critical operating parameters are somewhat design
specific, but include stripping steam to catalyst ratios,
typically 2 to 2.5 pounds of steam per thousand pounds
of catalyst, a one minute residence time, and a catalyst
flux rate typically of 900 to 1,000 pounds per foot squared
per minute.
Improvements in stripper operation can readily be seen
in regenerator dense bed temperature as was seen in our
Robinson refinery FCCU. With an older single stage shed
tray design, a one minute catalyst residence time and a
catalyst flux rate of 790, increasing the stripping steam
rate from 2.6 to 3.5 pounds per 1,000 pounds of catalyst
circulation cooled the regenerator dense bed temperature
by 20°F. On this unit the hydrogen content in the coke
typically runs in the 6 to 7 percent range.
I have an excellent revamp case study from our Gary-
ville FCCU. The Garyville refinery provides a case study
on the effects of revamping a stripper as FCCU design
capacity is increased. The Garyville FCCU is an Exxon
Flexicracker II commissioned in 1979. It was originally
designed for 75,000 bpd charge, 42 tons/minute catalyst
circulation rate (CCR), and 3.5 lb reactor stripping steam/
mlb catalyst. Steam entered the reactor stripper at a single
elevation below the lowest row of sheds.
In 1992, coincident with installation of M.W. Kellogg’s
Close Coupled Cyclone technology, the reactor stripper
was modified to include M.W. Kellogg’s two stage strip-
ping. Approximately half of the existing shed rows were
removed and two new stripping steam distributors were
installed—one below and one above the remaining shed
rows. The 1992 revamp design basis was 95,000 bpd
charge, 45 tons/minute CCR, and 2.5 lb steam/mlb cata-
lyst. The reactor stripper was designed to operate with
total stripping steam divided 40/60% between the upper
and lower distributors, respectively. The upper stream is
intended to eliminate most of the hydrocarbon vapors
entrained with the catalyst flow. The lower steam is
intended to recover hydrocarbon vapors from within the
catalyst pores.
The Marathon Garyville FCCU currently operates at
100,000 bpd charge, 65 tons/minute CCR, and 3.0 lb
steam/mlb catalyst. By flue gas analysis, the calculated
hydrogen in coke at current rates varies from 6.0-7.0
wt%. Operating data have confirmed the 40/60% distri-
bution of stripping steam to be effective. Stripping effi-
ciency and hydrogen in coke are especially sensitive to
changes in the lower steam rate. Stripping efficiency begins
to decline above 65 tons/minute CCR as indicated by
increased hydrogen in coke (8.0-9.0 wt%) despite
increases in stripping steam ratio.
This revamp has allowed the Garyville FCCU to
increase catalyst circulation by 55%, while the charge rate
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
was increased by 25,000 b/d, and maintain a low level
of hydrogen in the coke due to effective hydrocarbon strip-
ping.
TASKER:
Stripper design is effective if it is multi-stage and has
good contacting capability. The key parameters are strip-
per temperature, total pressure, catalyst mass flux rate and
catalyst residence time. It helps if dilute phase stripping
precedes the dense phase. Hydrogen in coke should be
about six percent or less with a steam consumption of
between 2 to 3 pounds of steam per thousand pounds of
catalyst circulation. What we have seen is that after
revamps lower hydrogen coke contents have been observed
as well as a reduction in regenerated temperature.
HENKE:
We have seen a 2 weight percent improvement in
hydrogen on coke after revamp of one of our strippers.
I would like to point out that riser terminators have a
big impact on stripper performance and design. A properly
designed riser terminator can significantly unload the
stripper.
We evaluate performance of our strippers by first mea-
suring hydrogen on coke. This is easiest to watch; however,
the results can be somewhat misleading in a partial burn
unit. Unburned hydrocarbons leaving with the flue gas
do not get counted. This error can be corrected by using
a chromatograph to measure the hydrocarbon content of
the flue gas. Second, we evaluate by direct measurement
of the stripped catalyst hydrocarbon content; third, by
direct measurement of the interstitial vapor hydrocarbon
content; fourth, comparing the actual performance of the
stripper to the performance predicted by the technology
licensor; and last using Tru-Tec gamma scans and tracer
techniques. Tracers are used to measure the steam distribu-
tion, catalyst residence time, backmixing, and hydrocar-
bon behavior in the stripper. Gamma ray scans are used
to measure density at selected cords through the stripper.
CAIN:
Our Louisiana plant reactor stripper contains alternat-
ing hat and doughnut baffles and it has two steam rings.
We generally average about 6 weight percent hydrogen
on coke and our current steam rate is a little high. It is
4.9 pounds steam per 1,000 pounds of catalyst circulation,
but we are working to get that down some.
FLETCHER:
From a catalytic standpoint, we believe the two most
significant variables related to stripping hydrocarbon from
the catalyst particle in the stripper are the surface charac-
teristics and porosity. With respect to surface characteris-
tics, the proper balance of strong acid sites is critical. This
becomes important as the quality of the feed deteriorates
61
TOC/INDEX
becoming increasingly polar. Chemisorption of polar mol-
ecules occur on the strongest acid sites. Subsequent crack-
ing leads to production of dry gas leaving behind hydrogen
deficient hydrocarbons. Chemisorption leads to coke for-
mation and pore blockage. An additional characteristic
required for optimal stripping is good catalyst porosity.
We recommend high catalyst pore volumes with a large
percentage of meso porosity.
In addition, Akzo Nobel has developed two state of
the art test methods designed to aid proper catalyst selec-
tion for units that are running highly polar feeds with
H2-on-coke values. These include a thermal extraction
unit followed by a gas chromatograph and a mass spec-
trometer. This allows identification of the types of mole-
cules undergoing chemisorption on the stripped catalyst
and gives characterization of soft and hard coke. A second
method is used, a fixed fluidized bed reactor with the
capability of burning coke in situ. This allows time, tem-
perature and nitrogen rate trials with various formulations
for tough polar feeds. This unit is especially useful in the
study of stripper hot soak reactions.
The type of molecules undergoing chemisorption and
differences in chemisorption between different formula-
tions is readily possible. The combination of these two
methods presents the refiner an option for optimizing
catalyst formulations for a given unit design and feed
quality.
FUSSELL:
At our Port Arthur refinery, we have a UOP FCCU
that we started up in 1991. The reactor riser is internal
to the stripper. We have 11 shed decks. We have a steam
ring at the base of these decks and another steam ring at
the base of the stripper. Our flux rate is 850 pounds per
minute per square foot. We have discovered that we really
have to stay above the 2 pound per thousand pounds of
catalyst circulation on our steam. When our catalyst aver-
age particle size gets above 80, we start having some
pretty major circulation problems if we are not above
that number.
PATRICIA SPARRELL (Mobil Technology Company):
Mobil currently has a variety of commercial stripper
designs in operation which include both UOP annual
strippers and Kellogg internal strippers. Key performance
indicators, as a number of you have indicated, include
the percentage of steam upflow and upstream hydrocarbon
as a percent of total coke.
In good strippers, about 70 to 80 percent of the steam
added to the bottom of the stripper flows upward to the
reactor and unstripped hydrocarbon accounts for less than
6 percent of the total coke. In poor strippers, unstripped
hydrocarbon can account for more than 15 percent of
the total coke load and less than 20 percent of the steam
62 Heavy Oil Processing
added to the bottom of the stripper actually flows upward
to the reactor.
Mobil and Kellogg have developed and commercialized
flux tube stripper technology which can significantly
improve stripper performance and extend the range of
acceptable stripper operation. This stripper technology
which to date has been commercialized at four Mobil
refineries and in one non-Mobil unit can allow a refiner
to increase conversion by as much as two vol% and profits
by more than $1 million per year for a 50,000 barrel a
day capacity unit.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
The FCCU in Los Angeles that I am familiar with had
a Kellogg revamp five years ago. The annular stripper was
converted to two-stage stripping. We did see immediate
benefits from that. I do not know whether that was just
because we could get more steam in, because we also had
changed from 60 psi steam to 150 psi steam for stripping
steam, or whether it was the two-stage stripping. I suspect
it was a combination of the two.
Recently we ran an eight run, seven factor design opera-
ting experiment that was advocated by our statistical pro-
cess control consultant, QualPro. That experiment
indicated that although the lower steam ring was very
important, the upper steam ring also had a significant
impact on the stripping operation. The experiment also
showed that one of the most significant items affecting
stripper performance is temperature. The higher the tem-
perature, the better the stripping. Unfortunately, if you
have an FCCU that is limited by other things, you cannot
always increase the reactor temperature to improve the
efficiency of the stripper.
SIDNEY ANDERSON (Saudi Aramco):
For stripper designs that contain two stripping rings
at different elevations, I would like to poll the panelists
to what proportion of the total stripping steam is allocated
to each ring.
PETERSON:
When we tried to run with two steam rings, the uppr
ring received less than 25% of the steam. It was not very
effective on the top.
CAIN:
25-30% of the stripper steam is routed to the upper
ring.
SAMUELS:
In the Garyville stripper, 40 percent of the steam is
injected in the top, 60 percent in the bottom and I think
that is where we are currently running. That is the most
effective operation. The upper steam is intended to elimi-
nate most of the hydrocarbon vapors entrained in the
TOC/INDEX
catalyst flow. The lower steam is intended to recover
hydrocarbon vapors from within the catalyst pores.
LAWRENCE A. LACIJAN (UOP):
We would agree with a lot of the comments made
about the prime parameters in the design of a stripper,
i.e., residence time, flux rate, steam distribution are very
critical. Our experience is that most units do not stay at
the design condition very long. The Fina unit started out
at about 45,000 bpd and they are not at 100,000 yet,
but they are on their way.
It is very difficult to evaluate a stripper performance
on unit that is been in operation for a long time and is
running a higher flux because the heat balance is so inti-
mately involved. When you reduce the hydrocarbon and
the coke on the spent catalyst going to the regenerator,
the regenerator cools off, which is the desired benefit.
The catalyst-to-oil ratio increases and the conversion goes
up, and you have replaced that unwanted entrained cata-
lyst to oil coke with catalytic coke. You wind up with
the same coke yield because the unit is heat balanced,
but hopefully you have more conversion as a result.
Some people focus on the weight percent hydrogen in
the coke as the key variable in that whole picture, but I
do not think that is complete enough to use as a guideline
because there is a lot more involved. You really have to
look at the whole unit. You have to look at the conversion
increase as a result of the improved stripper performance
to really see what the true economic benefit is. Remember
that as the H2 in coke decreases, the heat of combustion
decreases also. This means more pounds per hour of coke
must be produced and burned to provide the same amount
of heat to the reactor.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
Responding to Sidney Anderson’s question on distribu-
tion, I think we were first set up to run with 55% of the
total steam in the lower steam ring and 45% in the upper
steam ring. The total steam rate was at the normally
accepted industry standard of two pounds of steam per
thousand pounds of catalyst. As a result of the statistical
analysis experiment that we ran, I think the proper distri-
bution was determined to be about two-thirds of the
steam to the lower steam ring and one-third to the upper
steam ring. However, at this point I need to caution you
when altering the distribution of the steam not to let the
steam velocity through the holes in the lower steam ring
exceed 250 ft/sec. Around this velocity, the steam will
erode the holes and you will lose the advantage of using
more steam in the lower steam distributor.
STEVE PAVEL (Coastal Catalyst Technology):
As far as the catalyst, it is well-published and easy to
determine pore sizes by nitrogen and mercury. But I am
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
not familiar with the test methods and good published
results on acidity. Could you respond to that, please?
PAUL MINTON (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation):
In some ways I think this question on stripping also
relates to the question on feed injection. If we look at
stripping design, it is often very easy to displace the emul-
sion phase gas from around the catalyst particles. But we
do have a distinct problem in terms of trying to displace
the non-volatile heavy components.
In many cases, the non-volatile heavy components are
there at the stripper because they have not been properly
vaporized at the feed injection stage. I would just warn
people to avoid looking at the stripper as being their first
port of call when they think they have too much coke.
It may come back to the fact that the feed is improperly
vaporized and injected in the first place.
LANA CULLON (Wynnewood Refining Company):
Two years ago we put in a Kellogg stripper and saw
immediate results. We are now able to feed at least two
to three percent more DAO to our unit and have seen
dramatic decreases in our regenerator temperatures. We
run about 5,000 to 5,400 pounds of steam per hour to
the stripper and we have a catalyst to oil ratio of 6 to
6.5. Our feed rate is 16,000 to 18,000 bpd.
PETERSON:
In response to the Stone & Webster comment, we
changed feed nozzle design at the same time we did the
structured packing stripper. So that is another factor that
clouds how we evaluate how our stripper worked.
Question 16.
How have people used cold flow modeling or computa-
tional fluid dynamics to improve FCCU performance?
What types of problems have been modeled? How well
did the model relate to the commercial unit?
SAMUELS:
One unit in the Marathon system had cold flow model-
ing performed on its riser termination system to determine
if a distribution problem existed with direct connected
riser cyclones. Excessive catalyst loss was being experienced
while design data did not indicate a problem should have
been present.
The model clearly showed that a problem did exist
with a catalyst and vapor maldistribution. Essentially,
most of the catalyst went through one-half of the termina-
tion system while most of the vapor was going up through
the other half. A prominent EPC company was involved
with assisting the refinery and solving this problem along
with a consultant. I believe it was Zenz who actually built
the model.
63
TOC/INDEX
TASKER:
Zenz is a pretty good organization. Models are used
in many ways these days, for example, they are used
to study new pieces of equipment. Catalyst circulation
problems and specific designs can be modeled and various
solutions tried. One example of this is the vent tube on
the sloped standpipe. Several different configurations can
be studied for a revamp to improve operability.
The models can be useful, but the model has to reflect
the actual situation in increments small enough to get
meaningful answers. A feeling is the models are useful
and that they identified both opportunities to improve a
design of potential problems with a proposed design. But
since they are not perfect models, the results may require
some interpretation and judgment.
JOSECK:
For the Shreveport upgrade project completed in Feb-
ruary of this year, we used a dynamic model to simulate
the operation of the RCC and the alkylation units. These
models were primarily used in training the operators in
the refinery who would be starting up the units, most of
whom had no RCC or alkylation experience.
In addition, these models allowed us to test out the
control schemes and graphics that would be used on the
DCS system and to determine where rate limits were so
that unit rates could be increased shortly after startup.
The models are very accurate in most respects and allowed
our operators to gain valuable experience which greatly
enhanced the startup.
A side benefit was that in developing the model it was
discovered that three key control valves in the RCC CO
boiler were grossly over sized. The problem was easily
corrected during construction. However, had this problem
not been caught until after startup, it would have resulted
in a significant delay. The models were so successful for
the new units, the refinery is now having several other
key units modeled to enhance operator training.
ROMAN:
In the past, we have relied on cold flow modeling of
risers and beds to either develop new designs or evaluate
existing problems. This work is costly and time consum-
ing, but its biggest shortcoming is scale up. We have had
some notable successes such as the RCC vented riser and
also a notable failure in an ART unit combuster design.
The standard scale up approach has always been to
either ratio up the equipment dimensions or pick an
appropriate dimensionless number and try to keep it con-
stant as the dimensions are changed. Computational fluid
dynamics offers an alternate solution to this problem.
There are now available a number of CFD applications
which allow the solution of Navier Stokes equations by
numerical methods. They can be applied to the study of
64 Heavy Oil Processing
flows in bubbling beds, risers, cyclones or even fired heat-
ers. All commercially available software treats the catalyst
as a particulate phase which is immiscible with a gas phase.
Effective viscosities are calculated from the kinetic energy
and energy dissipation rates of the turbulent flow field.
These methods allow calculation of both average and
instantaneous bed and riser pressure drops which can be
compared with measured values on commercial units.
There have been some recent advances which attempt to
treat the solid phase as discrete particles. These models
have more predictive power and are able to predict such
phenomenon as hysteresis effects in fluid beds. Time
dependent solutions are extremely calculation intensive
with CPU times as high as several days being required
to simulate a few seconds of real time flow.
LAWRENCE A. LACIJAN (UOP):
We have also use in our development a lot of cold
flow modeling. It is probably not a very practical thing
for a refiner to do; it is pretty costly and takes a lot of
time. But it can be successful. Mr. Roman mentioned
the problem of the scale up. That is something that we
do worry about.
For CFD, we have started using an in-house developed
application for looking at two and three phase flows for
catalyst and vapor and for riser situation where you have
liquid catalyst and vapor. We find that they provide a
good guide. They are still a model. We do not believe
them absolutely, but we find that they are showing us
some interesting things.
One of the questions asked was if we believed that the
model showed what was really going on. We think that
they are pretty good, but I must confess that I have never
been inside the unit while it has been operating. So it is
a bit hard to say for sure.
6. Feed and Product Quality
Question 17.
What is the typical distribution of mercaptans (methyl,
ethyl, etc.) in FCC LPG? Is there an advantage to fraction-
ating the C3’s from the C4’s before sulfur removal?
JOSECK:
C3’s will have a significant level of H2S along with a
small amount of methyl mercaptan. But, most of the
methyl mercaptan and the higher molecular weight mer-
captans will go with the C4Ⳮ fraction. If the C3’s are
fractionated out, they can be treated with amine in a
liquid/liquid contactor which will eliminate the H2S in
a very cost-effective way.
The C4’s can then be treated using a standard mercap-
tan oxide technology such as UOP’s Merox or Merichem’s
Mericat or in our case in a depentanizer using CD Tech’s
TOC/INDEX
reactive distillation technology. C3’s need to be fraction-
ated out due to arsenic which will poison the catalyst. If
H2S carries over into the mercaptan oxidation system, it
will form sodium thiosulfate which is not regenerable and
causes a high caustic consumption.
MALEK:
The fractionation of the propylene stream in U.S. refin-
eries is becoming almost the norm, because such a large
percentage is going into chemical sales. It is more practical
from a hydraulic and cost standpoint to fractionate before
the treating. This also will tend to debottleneck the amine
contactor. H2S removal from the C3 stream is generally
sufficient in to allow the sale of that propane/ propylene
stream directly to your customer. The treating of the C4
residue stream from the C3 splitter column will hydraulicly
unload the Merox treater ahead of the alkylation unit.
PETERSON:
In one of our refineries, we do the fractionation before
we do the treating and the mercaptans would stay with
the C4’s and only H2S would go with the C3’s. This has
kind of been born out in another one of our refineries
where we severely hydrotreat the FCC feed to the point
where we no longer run the Merox on the LPGs. When
we have an upset in the FCC feed treater, we do not see
mercaptan sulfur in the propylene.
The advantages to doing fractionation first would be
that you can really reduce the liquid rate to the contactors,
both the Merox and the amine contactor that were
designed for the full rate. You can withstand capacity
creep, expansion of the unit, using ZSM-5 catalysts or
changes in feed quality from hydrotreating the feed.
Disadvantages are potentially wet propylene stream,
which used to be dry if fractionated after you did all the
treating, going to the alkylation unit. That would only
occur if you had to do Merox treating. Again, if your
feed sulfur is clean enough to the FCC you may not even
have to do that.
One other thing you would want to look at is you
now introduce a lot of H2S to your splitter tower that
did not use to be there, you may want to check the
metallurgy of your design.
ROMAN:
The H2S content is so large that it masks the mercaptans
if analyzed before the MDEA scrubber. We have obtained
samples after the amine treating and analyzed the sulfur
species by flame photometric gas chromatography. For
the FCC unit, the sulfur compounds measured were 69
ppm methyl mercaptan, 25 ppm ethyl mercaptan, 35
ppm dimethyl disulfide and 49 ppm ethyl propyl disulfide.
As would be expected, the sulfur levels are much higher
in our RCC unit. After amine treating, the values ranged
from 160 to 300 ppm methyl mercaptan, 160 to 240
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
ethyl mercaptan, 50 to 110 ppm dimethyl sulfide, and
140 to 190 dimethyl disulfide and 10 to 20 methyl
ethyl disulfide.
TASKER:
Total amount of mercaptans is very much a function
of the feed sulfur. Based on some test results from various
samples taken from different refineries, we found the
following distribution is typical. In the FCC LPG, the
mercaptans would be 85 to 95 percent methyl mercaptans
and 5 to 15 percent ethyl mercaptans. The C3 stream
contains mainly CoS and the methyl mercaptans and the
ethyl mercaptans are predominately in the C4 stream.
Depending upon the downstream processing units, it is
difficult to comment on whether or not there is an advan-
tage fractionating the C3’s from the C4’s before sulfur
is removed.
CAIN:
We do treat our C3’s and C4’s before we fractionate
them due to our current configuration. In our combined
C3/C4 stream after DGA treating, we have 30 ppm by
weight H2S, 256 ppm methyl mercaptans and 23 ppm
ethyl mercaptans.
HENKE:
All I wish to add is that we find it economical in our
Corpus Christi refinery to fractionate before we treat. At
our Minnesota refinery it is just the reverse, we treat
before we fractionate.
Question 18.
What impact on yields have refiners observed when
including diesel range material in the FCC feed? Is this
impact different than would be expected based on crack-
ing diesel range material alone in a pilot plant? If so,
why?
FLETCHER:
In general, conversion increases when the 650 minus
material is supplied to the FCC due to increased cat-to-
oil ratios resulting from lower delta coke. The effect of
decreased delta coke overwhelms the effect of the lower
crackability of the diesel range molecules to smaller gaso-
line and LPG molecules. The increased catalyst to oil ratio
results in deeper conversion of the 650°F plus fraction of
the feedstock.
The commercial unit being a dynamic system, is diffi-
cult to isolate heat balance effects cat-to-oil, from molecu-
lar yield shifts (conversion). Therefore, a pilot plant
investigation is usually initiated to define the effects.
Before and after yields are generally compared at specific
conditions such as constant conversion or catalyst-to-oil.
Unfortunately, pilot plants are not heat balanced opera-
tions, nor are they as dynamic as a commercial unit.
65
TOC/INDEX
Therefore, very different yield slates may be observed on
a pilot plant when compared to a commercial unit.
Conversion improvements on the commercial unit may
be attributed to any or all of the following effects: (1)
lower nozzle viscosity-oil droplet size may be reduced
improving catalyst and oil mixing. This is particularly
true on some heavy oil crackers. (2) The lower boiling
range feedstocks (⬍500°F), being nearly inert in the FCC,
increases the catalyst-to-oil ratio which reduces the degree
of thermal cracking in the mix zone of the base of the
riser. This will result in lower regenerator temperatures
with corresponding increases in catalyst-to-oil. (3) Diesel
in the feed typically increases total charge to the unit.
Overall riser resident time drops which results in lower
coke yield and in increased cat-to-oil ratios.
Diesel boiling range paraffins, do not generally crack
except under high severity operations. Therefore, these
waxy molecules typically result in high cloud point LCO.
Heavy naptha and light diesel in the feed generally display
low crackability. This tends to reduce heavy gasoline aro-
matics due to a dilution effect which typically results in
a lower octanes. The bottom line is that much of the
unrealized clean diesel ends up as low quality middle
distillate in the FCCU.
CAIN:
We found the diesel swing cut which is in the 600 to
650°F range appeared to crack in the range of 70 to 74
percent conversion which is lower than virgin gas oil
which cracks in the 78 to 80 percent conversion range.
SAMUELS:
I would agree with the comments made.
TASKER:
In a gas oil operation, the lighter feed is harder to
crack, but this also lowers the delta coke and increases
the catalyst-to-oil ratio. Higher reactor severity can be
effective in cracking this material as well as high concentra-
tion as forward site in the catalyst. Yield increases of
gasoline and propylene usually result. Presumably this
mode of operation would only be practical in a maximum
gasoline scenario since the straight run middle distillate
would have a high value as diesel. When residue is pro-
cessed, the middle distillate has a bigger effect on feed
properties. It lowers the Conradson carbon and metals
by dilution and it is also a hydrogen donor. The increased
catalyst-to-oil ratio can have a significant impact on yields,
particularly when the starting catalyst to oil ratio is less
than six. High gasoline yields would be expected along
with higher overall C3 plus liquid yields.
R.C. SKOCPOL (Akzo Nobel Catalysts):
The question also asked why diesel might behave differ-
ently in a real world FCCU feed mixture, compared to
66 Heavy Oil Processing
cracked pure in a pilot plant? I think I have a simple
explanation for this.
Studies have shown that heavy material cracks a lot
faster than light . Also, the heavy material makes a lot of
coke which deactivates the catalyst. If you put a mix of
heavy and light feeds together into an FCCU, the heavy
stuff is going to crack fast, coke everything up, and you
are left with few active sites to crack the light material.
I think that explains the things that people see, i.e.,
that the diesel cracks worse in a real world FCCU feed
mixture compared to what it might pure in a pilot riser.
That might be especially important if you are mixing
diesel it with resid as Mr. Tasker mentioned because the
resid is going to crack very fast and make a lot of coke
quickly and not leave much activity left over for the
slower-cracking diesel.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
From the panel it would sound like the best thing in
the world is to run all the diesel back up the riser in order
to increase the catalyst-to-oil ratio and conversion. The
FCC I referenced in Los Angeles tended to show the
contrary, but maybe for several reasons.
One was that with higher catalyst-to-oil ratio we made
more gas. This particular FCCU is often limited by the
refinery fuel gas balance. At times whenever we made
more gas, we would have to back off on the reactor
temperature. That had two negative effects on the opera-
tion of the FCCU. First, the performance of the catalyst
stripper would decrease, as I mentioned in my response
to question 15. As the stripping efficiency decreased, the
regenerator cyclones would get hotter. Second, taken to
extremes, this sometimes meant backing off on the charge
rate to the FCCU to keep the cyclones from overheating.
All things considered, our conclusion was that including
diesel in the feed to the FCCU was not a very good thing
to do.
Having said all that, I can now respond to the gentle-
man that inquired: ‘‘If increasing diesel in the feed
increases the octane of the FCC gasoline?’’ Not if it results
in having to lower the reactor temperature to do so.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
Going back to Fletcher’s comment, could I understand
that running the diesel would not be a good idea, even
if we have a CN over CP high enough to encourage
running it through the riser?
FLETCHER:
If I have understood the question properly, if you have
limited capacity in your unit for catalyst circulation, then
putting diesel in the unit would probably not be as eco-
nomical or profitable as putting in fresh feed. We would
always recommend to put in fresh feed first. If you are
operating a unit in which you are running all the feed
TOC/INDEX

that is being produced and you still have catalyst circula- Upgrade values seen on the slurry product can be signifi-
tion room, then it is worth doing a trial to see where the cant.
economics come out for your particular unit. Ash levels in our untreated slurry are typically around
0.1 weight percent. During occasional high conversion
LEE E. TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions): operation on this FCCU, deashing becomes difficult due
The following table was prepared using the FCC-SIM to the low gravity and viscosity; we are talking about a
kinetic model, and shows the yield pattern as diesel is minus 6° API gravity slurry and high viscosity. Product
added to FCC feed. The base feed was a mixed gas oil run down temperatures are raised to about 300°F. Steam
with the following inspection: coils are utilized in the tanks, and the chemical dosage
23.1 API, 10/50/90 D1160 of 723/831/953°F. The rates are increased from about 150 ppm to 250 ppm.
diesel used had the following inspection: 32.4 API, 10/ In Marathon’s experience, the most economical
50/90 D2887 of 441/551/649°F. The feed was increased method of disposal for the clarified slurry oil sediments
in three steps to show the shift in yield pattern as the when you are cleaning your tanks is to process the material
diesel in the feed was increased. through thermal desorption units or TDUs. The TDU
Case 1 2 3 4
removes hydrocarbons from the sediment for recycling.
Base Feed-bpd 58987 58987 58987 58987
The remaining sediments are then land filled.
Diesel Feed-bpd 0 5000 10000 15000
The U.S. EPA issued a proposed rule to list clarified
Total Feed-bpd 58989 63988 68988 73988
slurry oil sediments as hazardous waste. This means that
Riser Temp-°F 450 450 450 450
in the future clarified slurry oil sediments will have to be
FCCU Circulation Ton/Min 47 51 56 61
stored, treated and disposed of as a hazardous waste.
Riser Outlet Temp-°F 1011 1011 1011 1011
Processing the slurry sediments through a TDU provides
Wet Gas Rate-MSCFH 2538 2712 2884 3054
an opportunity to allow the remaining sediments to be
Conversion-wt% 70.49 69.68 68.92 68.19
delisted as a non-hazardous waste which would dramati-
H2ⳭC1ⳭC2ⳭC2e-Vol%Feed 4.90 4.87 4.84 4.81
cally reduce the disposal cost once the agencies proposed
Total C3-Vol%Feed 11.26 10.98 10.74 10.53
listing becomes effective.
Total C4-Vol%Feed 13.70 13.46 13.26 13.08
I would like to recommend an outstanding information
Total C5-Vol%Feed 12.98 12.79 12.62 12.48
source on this entitled ‘‘Listing Background Document
C5Ⳮ Naphtha-Vol%Feed 54.79 54.05 53.34 52.65
for the 1992 to 1996 Petroleum Refining Listing Determi-
C6Ⳮ Naphtha-Vol%Feed 41.81 41.26 40.72 40.17
nation.’’ It was prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of
Total C4e-Vol%Feed 7.98 7.85 7.73 7.63
Solid Waste Characterization and Assessment Division by
Total C5e-Vol%Feed 4.15 4.08 4.03 3.98
Science Applications International Corporation, October,
C3eⳭC4e-Vol%Feed 14.94 14.63 14.36 14.13
1995. The paper discusses in detail how clarified slurry oil
C3eⳭC4eⳭC5e-Vol%Feed 19.08 18.71 18.39 18.11
is handled by a large segment of the U.S. refining industry.
C3 ⳭLiquid-Vol%Feed 107.6 107.3 107.0 106.8
BINFORD:
Standard Naphtha-Vol%Feed 57.69 56.92 56.17 55.45
Well, again I agree with most of Mr. Samuels’ com-
Question 19. ments. I want to provide a little information about
What techniques are used to improve catalyst settling upstream effects and then go to downstream. There are
from slurry oils in tankage? How are catalyst fines techniques upstream of tankage to reduce solids in the
removed from slurry oil tankage, and what methods are clarified slurry oil. Those include filtration, centrifugation,
currently employed for disposal? hydrocyclones, and electrostatic precipitators for separa-
tion. These have all been used successfully.
SAMUELS: In our experience, however, our customers have been
Catalyst settling storage is a strong function of slurry plagued with mechanical unreliability with these systems
oil viscosity and settling time. Marathon data indicate and have expressed a lot of frustration. This has really
that minimum settling temperatures should be 125°F, been the ‘‘catalyst’’ (pun intended) for chemical settling
but higher temperatures are often of benefit as oil viscos- aids in the clarified slurry oil tanks themselves.
ity increases. Mr. Samuels mentioned that the outlet for their clari-
Settling time is typically five to eight days. So you are fied slurry is carbon black feedstock rather than blending
probably going to need a couple of tanks in this service. it into the No. 6 fuel oil pool. Some refineries also get
Chemical deashing or settling aids can dramatically an upgrade for selling low ash content, premium fuel oil
improve solid separation. At the Robinson refinery, FCC as a higher grade of essentially a No. 6 fuel oil product, and
settling agent, Nalco/Exxon, EC 3040A, is used to reduce a few sell their slurry as feedstock for anode grade cokers.
slurry ash levels in tankage below .05 weight percent which There are slurry oils containing between 0.1 and 0.4
is typical of carbon black feedstock quality specifications. weight percent ash which might not settle further in a

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 67
TOC/INDEX
storage tank operating even at elevated temperatures, (even
above 200°F). Many of these slurries can be successfully
chemically treated to reduce ash to as little as .01 weight
percent. The rate and type of settling aid will vary directly
with the initial ash concentration and the physical charac-
teristics of both the slurry oil and the catalyst fines them-
selves.
The variability in the slurry oil characteristics can be
attributed to variations in the gas oil charge the unit, the
catalyst type, the degree and type of metals loadings on
the catalyst and the operating conditions such as reactor
temperature and catalyst-to-oil ratio. The effect of these
variables on the physical characteristics of the slurry deter-
mines the selection of the most effective chemical set-
tling aid.
We have six commercially proven settling aids, five of
which are covered under individual U.S. and international
patents for each of those products. We typically see a
greater than 90 percent success rate in providing a payout
for the refiner. That is pretty substantial as Mr. Samuels
had indicated previously.
CAIN:
We have good luck with settling aids as well. We have
a different situation at our Louisiana plant. Our heavy
cycle gas oil is routed to our H-Oil unit and any sediment
or catalyst fines that remain go out with the fuel oil.
FLETCHER:
One of our customers reports that they recycle the
bottoms from their slurry storage tank back to the FCCU
on an annual basis. They point out that this procedure
is only possible for those units with some kind of capturing
technology such as an ESP or which are not faced with
opacity limitations since in their operation a fair percent-
age of the fines may be passed through the regenerator
into the stack.
THIERRY DARDE (Pall Corporation):
Gas assist self cleanable filters designed and manufac-
tured by Pall Corporation have been installed in more
than 10 FCCUs worldwide. For instance, all the slurry
oil filters currently running in Korea have been installed
by Pall Corporation. These filters deliver consistently
extremely low level of particles normally in the range of
20 ppm or even below. When compared to the other
technology available on the market, Pall slurry oil filters
features an ability to deal with extremely high slurry load-
ing, 5,000, 8,000 ppm or even higher. They also have
the ability to remove extremely small particles fine in the
range of a few microns. Finally, they require extremely
low volume of backwash to be reprocessed, typically below
one percent of filtered slurry stream.
68 Heavy Oil Processing
HEROS DERGREGORIAN (Valero Refining & Marketing
Company):
Has anybody been able to justify installing a system
to remove catalyst from the slurry product by recycling
it back to the unit?
HIGGINS:
No response.
BINFORD:
I would like to make one other real quick comment
on slurry settling aids. One of the key questions we always
get is ‘‘am I going to fill up my slurry tanks faster and
am I going to have more solids to dispose of?’’ Obviously,
you are going to have more solids to dispose of. There
is no doubt about that. A couple of methods have been
used for disposal. One is to install a sparging system in
the bottom of the tank where so you can periodically stir
up the catalyst fines in the bottom of the tank and then
sell (on a periodic basis) a tank of low quality fuel oil.
Obviously you would think you would fill up your
tank a lot faster using a chemical additive with settling
rates being higher. Surprisingly, we really do not see a
drastic increase in the catalyst fine fill rate in the tank.
We believe this is the effect of better agglomeration of
the solids and better compaction in the tank. We have a
higher solids level of sludge in the tank with less oil
trapped in the pores. These conclusions are a result of
our experience in several sytems. I certainly would not
say we have the hard data to support this statement.
7. Catalysts
Question 20.
What is the maximum ZSM-5 additive level in the circu-
lating inventory being used commercially? At what opera-
ting conditions? What are the effects on yields,
specifically light olefins, coke and BTX? Is there any
practical limit on the level of ZSM-5 used?
FLETCHER:
The dilution effect of ZSM-5 depends upon the con-
centration of the ZSM-5 crystal in the additive. Pilot
plant data shows that the dilution effect is evident at
approximately 20 wt%. No loss in activity is seen up to
approximately 20 wt%. The loss in activity from 20 wt%
to 40 wt% is gradual with a loss of approximately 0.2 wt%
conversion for every 1.0 wt% ZSM-5 in the circulating
inventory. At concentrations greater than 40 wt% the loss
in activity is critical to minimize this dilution effect. We
know of three refiners whose ZSM-5 additive levels are
at approximately 15%. Most refiners, however, operate
at ZSM-5 levels of less than 10 wt%.
Operating conditions vary with each operation due
to market economics. Units supplying chemical plants
TOC/INDEX
generally operate with riser outlet temperatures in excess
of 1000°F while gasoline operations generally operate with
riser outlet temperatures less than 1000°F.
Light olefin yields benefit primarily from increased
propylene yield. Propylene olefinicities approach 80%.
Maximum light olefin yield occurs at approximately 45-
50 wt% ZSM-5 concentration in the inventory. Gasoline
yield is reduced as the light olefin yield increases. BTX
yields increase slightly due to the concentration effect.
Coke yields are unaffected by ZSM-5 since this is a
medium pore zeolite. A large pore zeolite is needed to
produce coke precursors. Yields may vary substantially
between suppliers due to the concentration of zeolite in
the additives supplied.
ZSM-5 response is a strong function the rare earth
level in the circulating inventory. Light olefin yield and
octane response drops as the rare earth concentration
increases. The greatest ZSM-5 response occurs on a zero
rare earth catalyst. The response can be correlated against
the hydrogen transfer index (iC4/Total C4).
PETERSON:
I agree with what Mr. Fletcher has just said. I would
like to add specific numbers from one of our refineries.
We added ZSM-5 at 6 percent in the past. We increased
to 10 percent when propylene prices were a little bit
higher. We saw a yield of about one to two liquid vol%
higher propylene yield and it is about 75 to 78 percent
olefin in the C3 stream. There are some extraneous pro-
pane streams that we recover in the FCCU. So the actual
olefinicity is probably a little over 80 percent. We do not
measure BTX components in our gasoline. The effect on
coke make is not noticeable and the economic tradeoff
that each refinery has to look at is lower gasoline yield,
less real catalyst in the FCCU to go after the other crack-
ing, and gasoline octane.
TASKER:
Well, my response is very much the same. The highest
levels of octane as generally reported for commercial oper-
ations are about 12 to 15 percent. This translates to a 2
to 3 percent pentasol zeolite. Gasoline yield is reduced
and LPG is increased along with gasoline octane. There
is a paper by Buchanan and a gentleman whose name I
cannot attempt to pronounce reporting data containing
about 25 percent of ZSM-5.
At a high severity operation with a USY FCC catalyst,
we have the following yield changes. Gasoline went from
41.4 down to 33.35 percent. The C3 olefins went from
4.59 to 10.02 weight percent. The C4 olefins went from
5.14 to 8.05 percent, and the RON went from 93.3 to
95.1. Again, the coke make was essentially unchanged.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
We believe there is some practical limit to how high
a concentration level of ZSM additive you may go to.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
However, if the refiner is willing to use a very high zeolite
containing fresh catalyst the dilution effect from high
levels of additives can be easily offset.
The highest commercial application of ZSM-5 additive
we have had to date is a unit using 16% PENTACAT.
We have several units running above the 10% additive
level. None of these units have reduced catalyst make-up
rate or suffered dilution effects.
Question 21.
MAT, fixed fluid bed and riser pilot plant tests are widely
used to predict catalyst performance in an FCC unit.
According to commercial experience, how reliable are
these predictions, particularly when a new catalyst or a
very high ZSM-5 addition rate are being tested? How
can catalyst deactivation be properly simulated?
ROMAN:
We do not recommend MAT comparisons of signifi-
cantly different catalysts, particularly when matrix effects
are present. MATs are excellent screening tools for similar
catalysts or when zeolytic effects only are being considered.
They can be useful for ZSM relative comparisons, but
the results should not be used for predicting commercial
performance. Fixed fluid beds are better, but still have
the same concerns as the MAT units.
Pilot plants give the best reactor simulation results and
can readily handle differentiation of zeolite versus matrix
performance. However, all three suffer from a major limi-
tation often ignored in laboratory studies. The catalyst
being tested must accurately portray the history it will
see in the proposed use. Most MAT fixed fluid bed and
even many pilot tests use artificial aging techniques which
do not accurately reflect the proposed end use.
In one example, high temperature steaming was used
followed by MAT testing to prove the superiority of a
particular catalyst. When this was disproven commer-
cially, post audit studies pointed very clearly to (1) differ-
ential response to high temperature steaming versus
normal regenerator conditions, (2) zeolite versus matrix
aging was different in test versus commercial, and (3)
the catalyst with the highest matrix content was severely
penalized in the MAT test.
We have developed sophisticated protocols to address
these phenomenon and in particular recommend that any
testing program contain the following:
1) preparation of a valid pseudoequilibrium catalyst
which has a proper age distribution and at the
metals level at which the catalyst is anticipated to
operate under;
2) use of real feeds;
3) correlation to commercial operations;
4) definition of performance measurement windows;
5) blind post audit of actual results;
6) periodic and frequent baselines.
69
TOC/INDEX
FLETCHER:
Pilot plants give the best predictions of FCC catalyst
performance, closely followed by fixed fluid beds (FST
and FACT), with conventional MAT’s a distant third.
Reliability of the data is directly proportional to the care
taken to simulate the current operation. Pilot plants will
provide the best simulation of the unit while the MAT
while generally provide the poorest simulation.
Careful attention must be paid to how the coke yield
from the pilot plant is used to predict FCC response to
catalyst changes. Differences in residence time in both
the stripper and reaction zone between pilot units and
commercial units make delta coke prediction on the com-
mercial unit from pilot plant results difficult. Many refin-
ers incorrectly observe yields from pilot plants at constant
coke and do not take into account the problem of proper
coke prediction from laboratory testing. A better method
is to use a comparison at constant conversion to determine
selectivity adjustments. This data is then used in a process
model tuned to the unit in question to determine the
yield shifts expected. If the process model has stripper
modeling capabilities, catalyst stripping characteristics tes-
ting can be used to improve the delta coke prediction
from laboratory testing.
The best deactivation procedure is the one that most
closely simulates commercial equilibrium catalyst from
the particular unit. This is best achieved using a large
number of cycles in a cyclic deactivation unit at low
temperatures. Deactivated catalyst should be withdrawn
at predetermined cycles and cracked in a fixed fluidized
bed using the unit feed. Each cracking run should be
compared to data produced from cracking the unit feed
over ecat withdrawn from the unit. Special attention to
the oxidation state of the deactivated catalyst must be
made to match the equilibrium catalyst in lab scale testing
(but not in the pilot plant testing where regeneration
exists). This process is both time consuming and costly.
Low metals operation (⬍1000 ppm total metals) are
better simulated using steam deactivation. Very high Con-
radson carbon feeds (⬎3.0 wt%) should be cracked in a
fixed fluidized bed capable of in situ coke burning for
adequate mass balance.
When using ZSM-5, one must be careful to avoid
the dilution effect of the additive. In addition, proper
deactivation of additives is important. One ZSM-5 sup-
plier recommends mixing fresh additive into the deacti-
vated catalyst sample while most deactivate the ZSM-5
along with the catalyst. Directionally, a fresh ZSM-5
additive will show higher light olefin yields than will a
deactivated sample.
Proper mixing of ZSM-5 is important when using fixed
bed reactors (MAT). If ZSM-5 is placed on top of the
bed almost no reaction will occur. This is due to the fact
that the ‘‘Y’’ zeolite cracks the gas oil molecules into C7-
C10 olefins that are the primary reactants cracked by the
70 Heavy Oil Processing
ZSM-5. If the ZSM-5 is placed on top of the bed, little
or no reactions will have occurred providing reactant for
the ZSM-5. If the ZSM-5 is placed in a layer in the center
of the bed the conversion will be very high. If the layer
is placed at the bottom of the bed only moderate reaction
will occur since the reaction rate is relatively low.
A key factor to remember is that all test work involves
compromises and that the results gathered are simulations
of a commercial operation. Highly sophisticated test pro-
cedures are available but are both time consuming and
costly. A balance must be struck between time, cost, data
reliability, and the economic opportunities that are avail-
able.
HAHN:
I think Mr. Roman and Mr. Fletcher have given a
thorough review of all the issues involved in catalyst per-
formance testing. Generally testing costs become a key
driver. We use MAT with a great deal of scrutiny, judg-
ment and attention to catalyst conditioning and test feeds-
tock used.
STEPHEN K. PAVEL (Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc.):
Thank you for the excellent responses on methods of
testing and their problems. We agree with the comments.
Usually we all have to come to some sort of decision
aside from going straight into a commercial operation.
Generally we use any of the above test methods and some
modeling to interpret it to the commercial state.
Question 22.
Has anyone used gasoline sulfur removal catalyst addi-
tives as a means to control total pool gasoline sulfur
levels? If so, what reduction levels were obtained?
FLETCHER:
Gasoline sulfur reduction additives have only demon-
strated sulfur reductions of about five weight percent
commercially. Although 25 to 30 percent reductions can
TOC/INDEX
be measured under controlled metals free laboratory con-
ditions.
As a rule of thumb, for nonhydrotreated feeds, about
ten percent of the feed sulfur will end up in the FCC
gasoline. Whereas for hydrotreated feeds this number
drops to about five percent. When compared to an FCC
catalyst with little matrix concentration, a catalyst with
a high concentration of an active selective matrix can
show a reduction in sulfur of up to 25 percent for a
nonhydrotreated feed. This sulfur is converted to H2S.
This can be further enhanced by a high rare earth level.
Aromatic sulfur containing molecules such as benzothia-
phene are too large to enter the zeolite cage in order to
gain access to the strong acid sites necessary for their easy
destruction, but some reduction occurs. In the FCC,
the easier sulfur compounds to convert are the sulfides,
disulfides and mercaptans found primarily in the light
and mid-cut fractions. Reduction of benzothiaphenes is
affected most by matrix type.
We believe the primary reason for the disappointing
results observed to date with sulfur reducing additives is
that the refiners with the greatest sulfur problems are
cracking heavy feeds and are already using the high matrix
bearing catalyst.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
In response to the sulfur reduction, we have people
using the bottoms cracking additive that we manufactured
specifically with the goal of reducing the gasoline sulfur.
We have seen 25 and 35 percent reduction in total gasoline
coming off the FCCU. We also have a new additive
that should be available hopefully the first quarter that
promises even higher gasoline sulfur reductions.
JOHN HALEY (Grace Davison):
Further to Mr. Fletcher’s comments, several refineries
have realized up to a 25 percent reduction in gasoline
sulfur with Grace Davison’s first generation gasoline sulfur
reduction additive, GSR, and further research is continu-
ing in this area towards a goal of more than 50 percent
reduction in full range gasoline sulfur.
ZIYAD AZZOUZ (Saudi Aramco):
Will the use of those special additives to reduce sulfur in
the gasoline affect the yield of gasoline, sulfur, and octane?
FLETCHER:
Generally our observation is that the catalyst properties
that most affect the sulfur reduction, are the matrix and
rare earth. As you increase the matrix component in the
catalyst, you would expect that the cracking to light diesel
and heavy gasoline will increase. And as you increase the
rare earth, the amount of cracking into LPG will be
reduced and will be observed as an increase in gasoline
yield.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
Our particular additive is also used to upgrade more
of the bottoms to gasoline. So we tend to see two effects
here. One is reduction in sulfur in the gasoline, but also
an increased gasoline yield. So there are certain traps that
are available that would actually reduce the volume of
the gasoline, but we have not felt those were what the
refiner wanted to accomplish.
8. Fractionation
Question 23.
How are the current methods of corrosion monitoring in
the FCCU performing? What is the industry’s experience
with reliability of various hydrogen probes? What non-
intrusive hydrogen permeation devices are available?
FUSSELL:
In Port Arthur on our gas concentration unit, we use
ultrasonics and corrosion probes for inspection. We have
some hydrogen patch type probes that are permanently
installed on our unit, but we no longer use those due
to maintenance problems and difficulty in interpreting
the data.
FOSTER:
We currently use a combination of traditional corrosion
probes and water sampling. We also use non-intrusive
Beta foils which have served us well.
The problems are that the Beta foils do have to be
perfectly sealed to work properly, and are very expensive.
The diffusion through the metal can change from applica-
tion to application, so unless you stay on top of the
correlations, they do not give a very highly accurate quan-
titative answer.
On the other hand, the Beta’s do offer transportability
and reusability. We are able to get a wider range of data
around the plant, which enables us to a tailor the level
of inspection more appropriately to those areas that show
the most activity. It helps us marshal our resources to the
right areas.
SAMUELS:
As Mr. Foster just mentioned, part of the problem
with hydrogen probes is that they are effective, but they
are limited in the monitoring area. You are monitoring
a small area in a large system. Several types of non-intrusive
hydrogen permeation devices have proven to be reliable
and I will list those: Baker Petrolite’s, HPC11, hydrogen
permeation monitoring system, the Beta Corporation beta
foil system and the CCT hydrogen patch probe. These
can be reliable if used properly.
Question 24.
We are currently injecting ammonium polysulfide into
the FCC wet gas downstream of the compressor. We
71
TOC/INDEX
have seen some fouling problems downstream that we
believe are related. Have other refiners experienced this
problem, and what action was taken to solve the
problem?
BINFORD:
The NACE Group formed a task group to study this
and other FCCU corrosion issues several years ago. The
results reported in NACE meeting minutes in 1991, con-
firmed a high incidence of downstream fouling with
ammonium polysulfide applications. I will note that sev-
eral people are successfully using ammonium polysulfide.
So I do not mean to infer that it is ineffective.
The users reported that as a group 42 percent had
observed some fouling with the use of ammonium polysul-
fide. Use of corrosion inhibitors was also studied and
surveyed. The use of corrosion inhibitors had a better
track record in terms of fouling with only a ten percent
incidence of fouling reported by NACE.
The control in feeding of APS was a key area that the
study indicated need improving. Overfeed was a major
problem in downstream deposition and fouling, especially
sulfur deposition. Also, carryover of water into the dry
sections (or supposedly dry sections) of the FCC gas
conservation section was noted as a serious problem, caus-
ing downstream corrosion and fouling in distillation
equipment when the water flashed off and left the inor-
ganic foulants behind. In some instances water separation
equipment may be operating above design throughput
causing this problem, (especially the FCC main column
overhead receiver). The use of filming amines with good
dispersant properties have been successful in addressing
some of these fouling issues if the operation of seperators
could not be improved to alleviate the problem.
SAMUELS:
I think my answer looks like APS 101. Ammonium
polysulfide, APS, is used to control hydrogen blistering
and cracking in FCCs and cokers. Cyanide present in the
gas concentration section reacts with iron sulfide to form
ferocyanides. Without the iron sulfide protective layer,
hydrogen is available to penetrate to clean the steel. APS
reacts with the cyanide to keep it from reacting with the
iron sulfide. If excess APS is added, the elemental sulfur
can drop out of solution and cause pluggage and can also
be a corrosive species.
To avoid this, we would recommend that you add just
enough APS in a stoichiometric amount to react. The
way to test for this would be to measure the cyanides in
your water boot. You want to just eliminate the avail-
able cyanides.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
The FCCU that I referred to in Southern California
had Hydrogen Patch Probes on it. We put those on in
72
1992. They never did register any pressure build up, and
I was always suspicious of them. They consisted of a
bottom part that was welded onto the vessel or line, and
then a top part that snapped on through an O Ring of
neoprene or rubber. I always thought that if the hydrogen
was tenacious enough to get through an inch of steel, it
could get past the O Ring in nothing flat. However, at
the 1995 turnaround we found no indications of any
hydrogen blistering in the neighborhoods that these were
located. So there was no reason to see a pressure build up.
I have become familiar with the Beta Foil that was
mentioned earlier, and I think that is a much more practi-
cal arrangement. It does not depend on a pressure build
up. Instead it has a vacuum pulled on it and you check
to see if the vacuum ever get broken.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
We had severe corrosion problems in interstage and
high pressure coolers several years back. We resolved the
problem by increasing the water wash to these coolers.
We were very low in water and then we increased it to
the normal practice of 2 ppm per 1,000 barrels of fresh
feed. The problem was resolved.
B. Coking
1. Mechanical Reliability
Question 25.
What is the life expectancy of coke drums? What cycle
length goes with this life expectancy? For those who
have recently replaced drums or are planning to do so
in the near future, what criteria are being used to deter-
mine that replacement is necessary?
FOSTER:
For Lyondell-Citgo Refining, replacement will become
necessary when the cost of repair (and the associated
downtime) outweighs the cost of replacement. This crite-
ria might be complicated somewhat if we consider replace-
ment of the existing drums to increase capacity.
Foster-Wheeler cites 20 years. Ours are 29 years and
still going. Others have seen close to 10 years. The actual
life expectancy can be a lot more or it can be a lot less,
depending on how the drums are operated. Although the
overall cycle length is important, what is more important
is the quality of the cycle.
Since the quench is where the drums sustain the major-
ity of the damage, we watch this very closely and try to
have a very soft quench. We monitor the cycles with
temperature and strain gauge measurement to see where
the opportunities lie in our coking cycle. For example,
we found some fat in our warm-up cycle and were able
to reduce that time and get to a shorter cycle without
Heavy Oil Processing
TOC/INDEX
drastically reducing our quench and incurring undue ves-
sel strain.
We operate on a 16 hour cycle on our older coker and
have been on this cycle for about 20 plus years. We
contracted a company (ERA) to look into the remaining
life of our drums. They did a lot of work on the drum
base material and found that the shell material was in
good condition for being 29 years old. Their report stated
that if we continued to watch our quench cycle and
continued to repair the drums in the same manner as we
had in the past, they feel we have a number of good
years remaining.
HENKE:
Typically for coke drums that have seen 24 hour cycles
throughout the major portion of their service life, the life
expectancy has been 20 to 30 years. I have been told that
there are approximately six sets of drums in North America
that have been in service for longer than 30 years. The
drums at our Corpus Christi Refinery have been in service
for 38 years. Recent information suggests that the drum
replacement time will drop into the range of 15 to 25
years, due primarily to the reduction in cycle times. The
size of the drums is a significant variable. The large drums
will directionally require replacement before the smaller
drums.
We evaluate the amount of bulging, cracks, cost of
repairs, and exposure to leaks and fires, with the primary
replacement criteria centering around safety and the cost
of drum repair.
Question 26.
What is industry experience with regard to the use of
laser beam inspection of coke drums, coupled with finite
element analysis, in forecasting repairs? What other
tools are being employed to predict required repairs or
remaining life of coke drums?
CAIN:
At our Port Arthur plant, laser beam inspection is used
before each turnaround to map the inside of the shell. A
video camera is attached to the drill stem during the
mapping. Before this delayed coker’s first turnaround this
year, the drums were mapped and no bulges were found.
Other methods employed in drum inspection include wet
mag particle testing on welds and expansion joints.
FOSTER:
We use laser scan techniques to map the bulges in our
old coke drums to measure changes over time. This is
expensive, but it is only way we have found that we can
truly measure the size, severity and dynamics of bulges.
We also do ultrasonic inspection of all of the horizontal
weld seams on these drums every year, looking for any
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
internal cracking. Fatigue cracks are monitored and
tracked from year to year.
SAMUELS:
Marathon does not use laser inspection of coke drums.
We believe this is an extremely accurate and expensive
technique for measuring bulges and other drum distor-
tions.
In addition to taking physical measurements, we have
employed strain gages, thermocouples, finite element anal-
ysis to determine when drum damage occurs. In addition
to predicting drum life, these techniques allow you to
optimize your cycle times.
Question 27.
What run lengths between decoking are typically being
achieved on coker heaters and transfer lines? What meth-
ods are being utilized to maximize coker heater run
length?
SAMUELS:
Robinson’s two 13,000 barrels per day cokers produce
anode grade coke on identical feed to both units. Vacuum
resid charge is typically 10° API gravity. Each unit operates
at 20 to 25 percent recycle and the furnace outlet tempera-
tures are set to achieve a 9.5 VCM specification for the
coke. The number two coker achieves 1.5 to 2 year runs
or has achieved that in the recent past. Currently, we
are on ten month runs due to a significantly heavier
crude resid.
The run length is typically limited by a maximum
furnace tube wall temperature of 1,300°F. An antifoulant
is used in the coker furnace and transfer lines and will
be discussed more in Question 37. The number one coker
furnace operates at a higher severity and typically achieves
six month run lengths between decoking. We are able to
spall and steam-air decoke this furnace on the run. It is
a two pass furnace and we can take one pass off at a time
and decoke keeping the unit on line at a reduced rate.
Variables that impact run length include the asphaltene
content of the charge, and furnace firing severity. You
should minimize the maximum flux rate for a given outlet
temperature to minimize film cracking. Here, burner
modifications can reduce the maximum flux rate com-
pared to the average flux for the furnace. Also, double
fired furnace designs will lower the maximum flux rate.
For coke drum pressure, obviously lower is better. The
recycled rate can be a tradeoff between yields and run
length. Adjusting velocity steam injection can help opti-
mize your run length. We have found the use of antifoul-
ants to be unit specific. Minimizing transfer line heat loss
between the furnace and coke drum is important. You
should have minimum pressure drop, short length and
proper insulation.
73
TOC/INDEX
Normal bulk cracking gives skin temperature increases
of about 1°F per day, while film cracking can be as high
as 5°F per day. Some details comparing the two cokers
is below:
#2 Coker: #1 Coker:
Furnace outlet 930°F Furnace outlet 945°F
70-100 psig furnace outlet 90-150 psig furnace outlet
pressure pressure
900#/hr velocity steam to each 1500#/hr velocity steam to
of 4 passes each of two passes
Maximum allowable flux rate, Maximum allowable flux rate,
23m Btu/sq ft/°F 16m Btu/sq ft/°F
T u b e w a l l t e m p i n c r e as e, T u b e w a l l t e m p i n c r e as e,
0.7°F/day 0.9°F/day
MALEK:
Good design practice on high severity coker operations
would strive to achieve somewhere between eight months
to one year of online service on the heater. The secret to
doing this is the maintaining superficial tube velocities at
sufficiently high levels. Seven to ten feet per second are
good bulk tube velocities that need to be sustained. If
flow rates fall below the normal design rates, these bulk
velocities must be maintained by the addition of sweeping
steam along with the feed in order to keep the velocity
at a sufficiently high level.
The heat flux issue on the design is very important.
Generally, new heaters are designed with an average heat
flux of no more than 9,000 Btus per hour per square foot.
Every attempt is made to keep the peak flux temperatures
down to as low as possible by spacing of the tubes and
arrangement of the burners.
One of the biggest contributors to loss of run length
is feed interruptions. Just a very slight feed interruption
will cause coking to occur. It is very important in the
design to be able to sustain smooth feed at a steady flow
rate and at a relatively steady inlet temperature because
of the heat response on the heater. Provision for sweeping
the heater should be automatically provided. In the event
of inadvertent feed loss, steam should be rapidly added
to the coil to sweep the feed forward into the coke drums.
CAIN:
Again, at Port Arthur our coker heaters run four to
six months between spallings and approximately four years
between turnarounds when pigging is used to decoke.
Skin temperatures are monitored constantly and high fluid
velocity is maintained in the tubes.
FOSTER:
We can get nine months between on-line spalls. The
main thing that puts us into a premature spall are feed
interruptions due to heater charge pump cavitation. We
have addressed this problem in two ways:
74
1. Minimize light material in the unit feed. For
instance, when we process slop we are careful to
profile the tank in question. We also look at cold
feed tanks to make sure the cutter is not stratified
in the tank.
2. Even more important is the procedure used to
warm-up a pump in preparation for a pump switch.
The warm-up procedure must not allow too much
flush, especially cutter, to enter the pump that is
running during the warm-up step.
HAHN:
I agree with the previous comments. Our coker runs
about 14 months on a typical cycle and one time we were
even able to get 18 months on our delayed coker. We
found steam velocities in the heater to be very important,
and, of course, proper instrumentation. One other item
that you might want to pay attention to is the paraffinicity
of your crudes. Highly paraffinic crudes mixed with non-
paraffinic crudes present a challenge. We have adapted
certain guidelines that we follow so that we do not run
over a certain maximum amount of paraffinic crude. We
have established that guideline so that we do not coke
our heater prematurely.
PAUL STEEL (Conoco):
I just wanted to add that through our alliance with
Bechtel, Conoco licenses its patented distillate recycled
technology as a proven method of improving coker eco-
nomics by increasing liquid yields and reducing coke yield.
However, this technology also delivers the additional ben-
efit of measurably increasing furnace run length between
decokes. This year one of our own refineries demonstrated
this technology to extend its coker heater run length by
30 percent. We believe this technology can enable a well
designed furnace to obtain run lengths of over one year
between decokes for most resid feeds.
ASHUTOSH GARG (Furnace Improvements):
I would like to add the importance of uniform firing
of coker heaters. Most coker heaters have lots of burners
and if you put equal amount of fuel and equal amount
of air to all the burners and have good flame that could
improve the run length.
Question 28.
Have delayed coker operators been successful in decok-
ing heater tubes with pigging methods? Has the fouling
rate been the same/better/worse after pigging as com-
pared to steam/air decoking methods? Is it necessary to
follow pigging with steam/air decoking?
TASKER:
One of our licensees has a coker downstream of an H-
Oil unit and that heater design allows online decoking
Heavy Oil Processing
TOC/INDEX
one pass at a time, running the coker at reduced rate. It
is a pigging method that is used and we believe that this
has been very successful. Since steam-air decoking has not
been practiced in this location, it is not easy to make
direct comparisons between the two techniques. But based
on unit performance, it would appear that the pigging
method is better than the traditional method.
Typically, a special studded pig is used for the main
part of the decoking operations and this is followed by
a polishing pig which has less studs and is less abrasive.
Both ends of the heater can be worked similar to the
steam-air decoking method.
Usually, a service company is used for this operation
and this has led to cleaner startups. There are also no
disposal problems associated with this because it is all
taken care of by the service. A typical improvement would
be approximately 160°F, back on the skin temperatures.
The tubes are not exposed to excessively high temperatures
during decoking if you use a thermal technique. We found
that it is somewhat superior to the steam-air decoking.
In regard to the timing, we believe that one cell has
been done in about eight hours and typically around
about 14 hours would be a usual time. This method has
also been used in crude and vacuum tower heaters. As an
alternative, there is the steel shot and nitrogen technique.
It is a proprietary technique and that is also a very good
method. It does not expose your tubes to high tempera-
tures. I think that procedure has been discussed in previous
NPRA sessions.
CAIN:
We use spalling to decoke our heater tubes on a regular
basis. We did use pigging during our unit’s first turn-
around this year and it was not followed by steam-air
decoking.
HENKE:
Our Minnesota refinery successfully pigged two
delayed coker heaters during a turnaround in 1996. We
measured heater inlet pressures slightly lower at start-of-
run than after a normal steam/air decoke. This seems to
suggest that pigging will remove material from the heater
tubes that the steam/air decoke procedure can not, possi-
bly noncoke deposits such as salts. If the pigging is done
properly, you should not have to decoke the heaters
after pigging.
MALEK:
One of our clients in Texas has adopted the pigging
procedure as routine. They have traditionally steam-air
decoked in the post. They report that the tube surfaces
are completely freed of nonorganic obstructions that oth-
erwise would not be removed by the steam-air decoking.
Because of this, they believe that the cleaner internal
surfaces will slow the build up of coke and extend run
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
life. They have also installed special pigging breakout
connections on the coker which facilitate the rapid hookup
of the pigging apparatus.
PETERSON:
We do not have a coker, but we do have some experi-
ence with pig decoking of a vacuum heater. We found it
to be faster and more effective than steam-air decoking
with no need to follow with steam-air decoking. We had
an occasion where we were going to do some mechanical
work to the shock tubes of our convection section. We
cut these tubes open. They were extremely clean inside.
That raised the possibility that we were removing metal
from the tubes Inspection showed that we were okay on
that aspect, too.
SAMUELS:
A recent tube pigging attempted in our Robinson
Number 2 coker failed. The cause of the failed attempt
was pig damage due to the heater plug design of the
furnace built in 1968. The diameter of the header is just
slightly smaller than the diameter of the tubes. It caused
enough pig damage to render the pigs ineffective. That
is something to watch out for if you still have that design.
HAHN:
We have also found pigging to be a very effective
method. We used to steam-air decoke. The first time we
did our pigging, we noticed on startup that there was a
significant difference in startup delta P. We attributed
that to the removal of inorganics that we had not pre-
viously been able to remove with steam-air decoking. We
took advantage of the reduced pressure drop to increase
charge rate rather than extending run length. We continue
to have 14 month run lengths.
We have also done quality checks with a boroscope to
verify the cleanliness after pigging and found that to be
quite effective. There was no tube damage that we noticed,
so we consider it a very successful method and we do not
steam-air decoke afterwards.
JIM ZEIBIN, (Husky BPU Operations):
I work at the plant that Mr. Tasker mentioned concern-
ing pigging. We tried three methods of cleaning the heater
tubes. We have tried pigging, mechanical turbining and
steam-air decoking. We used pigging the first time to
determine where the most coke was found in the heater.
This allowed us to locate our tube skin thermocouples
to the point of the highest coke laydown. We tried
mechanical turbining, but it did not clean the tubes suffi-
ciently and we also had slight tube damage. We tried
steam-air decoking. We are a relatively new plant and we
had some difficulty with the system. So we have elected
to continue with pigging and have excellent success. We
75
TOC/INDEX
do not follow with steam-air decoking. Our total time
for decoking is roughly 14 hours, 48 hours oil-to-oil.
HAROLD WOODROFFE, (Petrotrin):
Could the panel suggest a few contractors that do this
type of pigging operation?
SAMUELS:
Marathon Robinson has used the following contacts
to pig furnaces: Mr. Mitch Moran of UCISCO at (281)
874-1822; and Mr. Don Forsey of Hydro Kleen Systems
Inc. at (403) 347-8018 or (800) 772-8018.
HENKE:
Decoking Descaling Technology Inc., Hydro Kleen
Systems Inc. (Canada), Pinnacle Pigging Systems Inc.
(U.S.A.), and Eliminator Pigging Systems all provide qual-
ity pigging of delayed coker heaters.
Question 29.
We have seen material that appears to be organic ‘‘coke’’
or ‘‘sludge’’ fouling our fractionator fin fan coolers. The
fouling does not wash out with on stream water injection,
but when the coolers are opened, the fouling is in the
first few feet of tubes and is easily removed with hydro-
blasting equipment. Has anyone else experienced this?
Have they eliminated the fouling? How?
BINFORD:
We have seen several cases of fouling in overheads of
cokers. For lack of a better description the substance looks
like black bubble gum in the fin fan coolers. In one case
we tracked this fouling back to oxygen induced polymer
formation when recovered oil from the refinery slop sys-
tem was injected into the coker. The solution here was
to inject a phenol as an antioxidant into that recovered
oil stream.
In the second case, we found amide formation in the
overhead fin fans that was leading to the formation of
76
polymer. This was a function of the high nitrogen content
of the coker feed, with the nitrogen bearing compounds
reacting with unsaturated olefins to form the polymer.
Fouling here was intermittent and was ultimately con-
trolled with feedstock blending.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Typically, the sludge fouling in the coker main fraction-
ator overhead system, coker gas plant higher pressure
receiver condensers, and the coker debutanizer condensers
is mix of ammonium sulfide salt (and other salts) and
iron sulfide corrosion products. This sludge causes very
high pressure drop. The sludge is not water soluble. In one
case where the coker gas plant deethanizer was operating
poorly, the debutanizer fin-fan condensers plugged solid.
The analyzed sludge contained ammonia (as a salt), sul-
fide, iron, and some cyanide salts as well the iron sulfide
corrosion products. While the sludge formed is not water
soluble, the precursors of the sludge, the salts that start
the corrosion are water soluble. A good water wash system
with the proper amount, quality, and water distribution
will reduce the sludge fouling rate significantly. The sludge
increases coke drum operating pressure via higher
exchanger pressure drop and higher overhead receiver
temperature. The higher overhead receiver temperature
can make more wet gas which requires higher receiver
operating pressure. Ultimately a good water wash system
will help this problem.
2. Optimization
Question 30.
What changes in coke yield, liquid yield, and liquid
distribution can be expected when revamping delayed
cokers to lower coke drum pressure? Please quantify the
pressure reduction and the yield changes. Is anyone
considering significant hardware modifications to run at
lower pressures?
SAMUELS:
Reviewing data from three coking technology licensores
and a coking consultant, expected liquid volume gain
from lowering coke drum pressure by 2 1/2 pounds,
ranged from .2 to .45 vol% gain.
This gain in yield should be relatively linear over the
normal operating pressures of the coke drums. The average
value for these four companies was .32 vol% per 2.5
pounds of pressure.
I would like to refer you to an excellent paper presented
at the 1993 NPRA Annual Meeting on this subject enti-
tled ‘‘Design and Economics for Low Pressure Delayed
Coking’’ by Barat Bansal, Jon Moretta and Arthur Gentry
of The M.W. Kellogg Company.
Heavy Oil Processing
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
We have made significant modifications to our coker
main fractionators. These modifications were initially jus-
tified on the basis of reducing drum pressure and getting
the resulting yield improvements. Test runs at the lower
drum pressure confirmed our earlier yield estimates. How-
ever, at present, we are not operating at the lower drum
pressures. This is due to the significant feed incentives
that have driven us to utilize the additional fractionator
capacity by increasing the coker throughput.
I would like to point out an additional consideration
when reducing drum pressure. The vapor velocities in the
drums will probably be near maximum in an existing
coker. Dropping the pressure will possibly push the vapor
velocities beyond conventional limits. This could result
in increased potential for carryover. Careful attention
should be placed on drum capacity utilization and frac-
tionator wash zone design. Additional details on the frac-
tionator design are covered in Question #33.
MALEK:
PCI has a delayed coker correlation that we have had
the opportunity to fit against a number of sources of
operating data. I took this correlation and prepared some
yield estimates based on a 22% concarbon feedstock.
Lowering the drum pressure from 35 psig to 15 psig
resulted in a decrease of coke make of 3.4 wt%, an increase
in C5 plus liquid yield of 3.5%.
I would just like to point out also that it is not always
easy to lower drum pressures to take advantage of these
yield benefits. The velocity limitations in the coke drum
may limit you if your unit is running at near capacity.
Hydraulic limitations may be encountered in the coker
fractionator. This may be overcome by the installation of
structured packing. This has been done in quite a few
revamps. At lower pressures, the overhead gas compressor
may limit you. So taking advantage of lower operating
pressure is not without problems.
BRIAN D. ALBERT (Koch-Glitsch):
The effect of reduced coke drum pressure is well docu-
mented in the literature and we assume will be well covered
by the panelists. We would like to address fractionator
hardware modifications that can reduce coke drum pres-
sure.
A typical coker fractionatior with valve or sieve trays
has a pressure drop of 4 to 6 psia. A fractionator that has
been fully revamped with packing would have a pressure
drop of 1 psi or less. While pressure drop reduction is
not usually the primary driver for most coker fractionator
revamps it can be an excellent side benefit to increased
fractionator capacity. The pressure drop reduction can
also be used to lower the drum pressure or raise the inlet
suction pressure to a coker wet gas compressor that is
capacity constrained.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
In addition to packing modifications one major mid-
western refiner decreased the pressure drop across their
unit by approximately 2 psia by replacing conventional
valve trays with new valve trays with venturi openings.
Question 31.
What viscosity grade silicone antifoam and what carrier
oil (HCGO or LCGO) are refiners using to control foam
formation in coke drums? Are higher viscosity grades
more effective?
BINFORD:
Both heavy coker gas oil and light coker gas oil are
used as carrier streams for delivering silicone to the top
of the coke drum. Proper delivery of the defoamer into
the drum is just as important as the choice of the product.
Both diluents can dissolve the silicone product, however,
each only to a certain degree. Some coker gas oils will
not dissolve the higher molecular weight antifoams such
as 100,000 centistoke silicone. So testing of the diluent
solvency is important before changing silicone products.
We recommend diluting the silicone to at least a 15:1
blend with the carrier. This usually gets good dispersion
of the product onto the foam front.
Regarding whether or not higher viscosity grades are
more effective, the predominant silicone defoamers used
in the refining industry are either 100,000 centistoke or
60,000 centistoke dimethylpolysiloxane. Since the higher
viscosity molecule is heavier, usually a little less is lost to
overhead in the coke drum through entrainment. The
rate of thermal cracking of both silicones is the same since
they both have the same bond energies. However, the
100,000 centistoke will remain active in the drum longer
due to its higher molecular weight.
If most of the silicone from the drum is lost due to
entrainment, then usually the 60,000 centistoke defoamer
will probably be the more cost effective since it is less
expensive on a dollar per pound active basis. If most of
the silicone actually reaches the foam front before carrying
over, then the 100,000 centistoke silicone product will
provide more ‘‘bang for the buck’’ since it stays active on
the foam front longer.
Usually, its best to determine the most effective product
for a given system by running side-by-side trials at the
unit. They hydraulics of the unit are very hard to predict
and almost impossible to model. Typically, the first step
to controlling silicone usage will be by installing automatic
feed systems. A simple step of providing stroke control
pumps with an adjustment capability in the control room
will allow the board operators the ability to reduce
defoamer usage during the early and middle portions of
the drum cycle. This will also allow them to increase
usage as needed at the end of the drum cycle based on
the actual foam front measurement in the control room.
This usually prevents substantial over feed.
77
TOC/INDEX
CAIN:
In Port Arthur, the silicone antifoam has a viscosity
of 60,000 centistoke. The carrier oil is light coker gas oil.
A study done there on three different viscosity grades of
silicone antifoam showed no overall benefit to using the
high viscosity variety.
JACK HARRELL (Baker Petrolite):
I would agree with the panel and all of the comments
they have made so far except for one thing. We have
found that in cokers that are using the lower viscosity
antifoams and are having significant carryover of the sili-
cone into the distillates off of the fractionator, going to
the higher viscosity materials usually cuts the carryover
about half.
Question 32.
Has anyone used a non-silicone antifoam? How did it per-
form?
BINFORD:
Silicones have traditionally been the only effective
product in high temperature hydrocarbon environments
that we have seen. We have five patents on non-silicone
and reduced silicone programs for high temperature
hydrocarbon environments. So this has been active
research topic for us. The goal of our non-silicone
defoamer development was to reduce downstream HDS
catalyst poisoning which is the problem most people are
going after.
Several years ago as a result of our work in this area,
we tried some of these technologies in two Gulf Coast
refiners’ cokers. The non-silicone products were effective,
but only at very, very high feed rates. The cost for a non-
silicone program at that time was about ten times the
cost for an existing silicone program, and we did not see
the justification for that increased expense in terms of
increasing of catalyst life at the HDS unit.
So at this point, we would say that non-silicone pro-
grams in most coker systems are not justified. We know
of a few companies that claim to have low silicone coker
antifoams. We have not seen any convincing side-by-side
comparisons against silicone that would convince us that
a low silicone program actually reduced downstream
hydrotreater catalyst poisoning or was cost effective.
Question 33.
What has been the experience with grid/structured pack-
ing in coker fractionators? Are these packings being used
to reduce pressure drop or improve fractionation? Has
operation at lower recycle ratios necessitated design
changes due to increased fouling in the fractionator bot-
tom section?
78 Heavy Oil Processing
HENKE:
As I mentioned in Question #30, we have had very
good success with structured packing in our main coker
fractionators. Structured packing and other devices are
used to reduce pressure drop, improve fractionation and
provide the capability to increase overall coker
throughput.
Operation at lower recycle ratios will lead to fouling
of internals in the wash sections if they are not designed
and operated correctly. The design and operation of the
internals is dependent on the heavy coker gas oil quality
requirements.
With stringent quality requirements, the best choice
is grid. Grid packing withstands process upsets better than
conventional internals and can also operate with high
levels of coke fouling.
With flexibility in the heavy coker gas oil quality and
an objective of ‘‘zero’’ recycle operation, we would tend
to lean toward a hybrid open spray chamber design. Grid
packing will foul and require periodic replacement if it
is not adequately wetted.
MALEK:
My comments pretty much support that. The use of
the grid or the structured packing are very effective in
delayed coker fractionators. However, application of these
devices in the lower sections of the coker fractionator can
be pretty troublesome when coking occurs. It is very
difficult, if not impossible, to clean these surfaces without
damaging or destroying them. So count on replacing them
when you have severe coking that occurs in the bottom
of your tower. You might want to consider some simpler
devices that are more amenable to cleaning.
HAHN:
We also had very good success with a structured grid
in our fractionator. We did this mostly because we were
having coke carryover up into the coker heavy gas oil
section which we could not tolerate. The grid was very
effective in resolving that problem.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Packing use in the coker fractionator is relatively com-
mon. It is used to increase fractionation, lower pressure
drop, and lower recycle ratio. At least one coker main
fractionator had all the trays replaced with structured and
grid packing. The coker main fractionator is really no
different than other refinery heavy oil main fractionators
as it regards packing use, with the exception of the wash
section below the HCGO draw. The wash section is
760-780°F and the oil is thermally unstable. High liquid
residence time in the wash zone causes coking.
Trays, packing and spray chambers are used in the
wash zone. The specific column internal depends on the
TOC/INDEX
targeted recycle ratio, HCGO quality, and column super-
ficial gas velocity. Coker main fractionator wash section
trays require 15% or higher recycle ratio to keep the trays
from coking. Grid packing can be operated at recycle
ratios in the 7% range. Wash zone spray chambers or
empty vessels operate at recycle rates of 5% or less. How-
ever, the spray chamber and empty vessel work best at
low column superficial vapor velocity. A new coker main
fractionator is sized for a 0.15-0.18 C-factor (velocity
term) while a revamped coker may operate at a C-factor
of 0.36-0.4.
A revamped coker main fractionator wash section vapor
velocity is typically 1.5-2 times the new column design.
Gravity settling of the asphaltene containing material
occurs at C-factors of 0.15. At a C-factor of 0.36, gravity
settling does not occur. A spray chamber is not very
effective at removing asphaltenes. If high metals and
asphaltene HCGO product is acceptable, then spray
chambers are adequate. The other variable is coke drum
superficial velocity. At high coke drum velocity a consider-
able quantity of non-volatile material is entrained in the
coke drum vapors. This material ends up in the HCGO
product if it is not removed. The specific design of the
wash section in a coker main fractionator depends on the
specifics of each applications.
BRIAN D. ALBERT (Koch-Glitsch):
Structured packing and grids have been utilized in
coker fractionators with excellent success. For most
revamps, the primary project driver is to increase the
capacity of the fractionator. A very common debottleneck-
ing project is to replace trays in the HCGO pumparound
with grid or a large sized structured packing. The HCGO
pumparound is the typically the most heavily loaded sec-
tion of the column and debottlenecking here allows the
refiner to maximize the utilization of the existing col-
umn internals.
Sheet metal structured packing (FLEXIPAC威 & GEM-
PAK威) have been successfully applied in several coker
fractionators. Structured packing can often be used to
replace fractionating trays that are flooded or experiencing
low efficiency. When packing is used in the naphtha
sections of a fractionator it is important to consider the
column’s history of salting or corrosion. Because packings
are relatively thin (0.008’’ typical) they have very little
corrosion allowance. Higher metallurgy materials such as
Monel, AL6XN, or Hastelloy C may be required for
fractionators column where the overhead temperature is
expected to be below 250°F or that have a history of
salting or chloride corrosion.
Pressure drop reductions are a natural result of utilizing
packings in a fractionator. For every tray replaced with
packing, the tower pressure drop will be reduced by 0.1
to 0.15 psia. Replacing 10 trays in coker fractionator
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
normally reduces the column pressure drop by 1 to 1.5
psia.
The wash/ cleanup section of the coker fractionator is
the most severe service that can be found in a refinery
distillation unit. The type of distillation device used in
the wash zone should be carefully chosen based on the
refinery’s quality requirements for their HCGO.
Designing the wash zone with grid packing is usually
the best choice when the quality requirements for the
HCGO are more stringent (Hydrotreater or hydrocracker
constraints) than can be achieved with a spray chamber
design. Grid is mechanically robust and can withstand
process upsets better than conventional trays or sheds.
For a given recycle or wash rate the grid packing will
produce a cleaner and higher quality gas oil than will shed
trays or sprays. As the vapor velocity in the fractionator is
pushed higher, grid become increasingly more effective
than sheds, or weighted sprays in removing the coke fines.
Grid packing can also operate with high levels of foul-
ing. For some ‘‘zero’’ or ultra-low recycle operations grid
packings will foul over time and will require periodic
replacement.
Question 34.
What is the lower limit in coker cycle times? Please
include a time breakdown for each of the activities. Is
this lower limit different for drums containing shot coke
versus those containing sponge coke? Are blow back
problems increased as quench time is reduced?
CAIN:
At Port Arthur, we use 16 hour cycles for decoking.
Purge and steam, test drum takes 30 minutes and warmup
drum takes four hours. Switch drum time is seconds and
fill empty drums takes 16 hours. Steam out full drum
takes 30 minutes, water quench takes three hours, drain
full drum takes two hours, unhead drum takes minutes,
drill coke takes two hours and rehead drum takes minutes.
SAMUELS:
Robinson’s two 13,000 barrels a day cokers produce
1,400 long tons per day of anode coke. The drums are
drilled directly into rail cars and the unit’s share a common
drill water system and blow down system. Shot coke
production is avoided as we have no means of handling
the flow from the coke drums.
When shot coke has been produced, we have seen a
time increase from 25 to 50 percent in the cool down
and drilling steps due to the hardness and structure of
the coke compared to sponge coke. Blow back has not
been a problem or limited quench time.
We operate the two cokers on 18 hour switch times
that are offset by nine hours. This requires decoking four
drums every 45 hours or the equivalent of 11 hour cycle
times. Each coke drum’s actual cycle time is 18 hours,
79
TOC/INDEX
but two drums are being decoked simultaneously, nine
hours apart. That is done to compensate for the common
drill equipment and to meet the switch times of the
two units.
Automatic unheading devices and coke crushers are
not used. Rather than get into the detailed steps of the
drilling. I have included a bar chart of the switching
sequence and timing.
PAUL STEELE (Conoco):
I just wanted to add that Conoco currently operates
at 11 hour drum cycles on two of our cokers at two
different facilities. We have been operating at 11 hours
on one coker making shot coke for a few years now, and
this year we attained 11 hours on another facility’s coker
that makes a sponge anode coke. We also feel that ten
hour cycles are attainable, and we are currently studying
implementation at one of our facilities.
ED CHOY (Husky Oil):
We want to increase our coker capacity by lowering
our coke drum cycle from the current of 20 hours down
to about 14 hours. What I want to know is what is the
maximum coke drum vapor velocity that is allowable
beyond which we can run into serious problems of carry-
over and foamovers?
HENKE:
There is no magic number; the determining factor is
when you start coking the overhead line from carryover.
In some cases ‘‘ fines carryover ‘‘ is present but the over-
head line is not coking. The question then is, how much
80 Heavy Oil Processing
entrainment do you want or can put up with. At this
time a drum velocity maximum must be established.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO):
Vapor velocity through the drums is a function of the
pressure that you run your drums at and the vapor density.
Normally, at a typical vapor density, you can afford a C
factor equivalent to half feet per second, with a maximum
of 0.70. At higher than 0.7 C factor, you will start entrain-
ing coke fines to the fractionator. This is an equivalent
factor that is used in designing of fractionators.
HIGGINS:
The 1996 Q&A transcript includes additional detail
on coker cycle times.
3. Residual Feeds
Question 35.
What is the highest Conradson carbon material now rou-
tinely being fed to a delayed coker or fluid coker as a
component of fresh feed? What is the highest Conradson
carbon on total fresh feed to a delayed coker or fluid
coker? What are the delayed coker heater run lengths
when processing these feeds?
FOSTER:
Our coker feed typically runs 29-32% Conradson car-
bon as a percent of total feed. The crudes we process at
Lyondell-Citgo Refining are all 17°API gravity Venezue-
lan crude oils, with cutpoints of 1050-1100°F on the
TOC/INDEX
vacuum stills. Again, as long as we have no feed interrup-
tions, we can achieve 9-month runs between spalls.
TASKER:
In one of our H-Oil unit operations, the H-Oil bottoms
products does go to a delayed coker. In other ebulated
bed operations, the bottom products are also fed to carbon
rejection processes. The range of CCR contents in the
bottom products going to the cokers typically varies
between about 20 to 25 wt% CCR and typically about
23 to 24 for Canadian crudes.
With these levels of CCR, the run length may be
around about six months, but this may well depend on
the timing and planning requirements for decoking.
When you consider the harsh winter months in Canada,
this is a fairly critical part of the operation.
Of course, the H-Oil is intended to reduce the amount
of CCR which would then reduce the amount of coke.
But around about 25% is the maximum we generally see.
JAMES D. WEITH (Fluor Daniel):
On these heavy resid streams you are feeding, I would
like to poll the panel to see if anyone has a feel for what
the pour point of the heavy coker gas oil is?
HENKE:
The heaviest HCGO that we make has a pour of 60°F.
BINFORD:
BetzDearborn has not done an extensive survey on the
relationship beteen Conradson carbon and coke fouling,
however we have been involved in several fouling control
projects and have Conradson carbon data on feedstocks
related to cokers that have a history of fouling. From the
period of 1991 to 1995, four studies were done on delayed
coking operations that experienced severe fouling prob-
lems in their cokers. Conradson carbon ranged from 14.6
to 25.9. Of the four cokers studied, three out of the four
coker feeds had Conradson carbons in the 14.5 to 16.5
range. The cokers processed resids from a variety of crude
feedstocks, including heavy California crude (cut with
ANS), Canadian crude, and heavy Venezuelan crude. The
coker that had the highest Conradson carbon (25.9),
processed vacuum reside derived from the heavy Venezue-
lan feedstock.
EUGENE ROUNDTREE (Exxon):
The highest carbon content feed fed to our flexi and
fluid coking units has been about 35 wt% concarbon.
We believe that these units can process any material which
is pumpable up to about 500°F.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
C. Visbreaking
Question 36.
What is the minimum furnace tube mass velocity required
to prevent coking? Do low mass velocities have any other
effects (positive or negative) on furnace operation?
MALEK:
Visbreaker velocity should be maintained at a superfi-
cial velocity of about 8 to 10 feet per second in order to
prevent coking. Lower mass velocities, or those approach-
ing the minimum, usually will be beneficial because this
will increase the conversion achievable in the furnace
tubes themselves. Visbreakers may be designed for all coil
cracking or they may have soaker drums downstream of
the tubes. Some of the same comments that applied to the
coking operation apply here, of course. Feed interruptions
promote coke lay down and need to be avoided. The
same instrumentation needs to be provided to provide
for a sweep with steam in case of loss of feed flow through
the heater.
You will find a number of the visbreaker operations
around the world are incorporated into relatively simple
refineries. In some instances there is not as much attention
paid to the desalter as in a more complex refinery. The
presence of sodium in visbreaker feedstocks will accelerate
a coke lay down and severely limit operation of a vis-
breaker. So attention needs to be paid to the desalter
operation in order to increase run lengths.
TASKER:
I agree with a lot of what Mr. Malek said. For design
purposes, IFP designs the inlet velocity to the visbreaker
heater at about 2 to 2.5 meters per second or let us say
7 to 8 feet per second.
We also use steam condensate injection to ensure that
the coking potential is minimized, and this rate is normally
about .5 wt% of the feed. We minimize the tube diameter
to about five inch tubes and the space between the tubes
to about two diameters. Average heat flux is generally
about 20 to 22 kilocalories per square meter per hour.
Lower velocities, of course, will tend to lead to over-
cracking and to coking conditions. For those visbreakers
with soakers, the soaker temperature is kept about 20 to
25°C lower than the visbreakers without soakers. Typical
furnace run lengths are between nine and 12 months and
most of the problems which contribute to furnace coking
are in the feed preheat system. Of course, feed interrup-
tions do not help as well. As part of the design, we provide
double shell exchanger systems or spare exchangers. For
coil type furnaces without soaker sections, run lengths are
typically in the order of three to four months between
decokes.
81
TOC/INDEX

Question 37. entire coker is really key to achieving a payout on a

Have you found the use of antifoulants to reduce coking chemcial program.
in coker/visbreaker preheat trains and furnace tubes to On the subject of visbreakers, we have seen antifoulants
be economically viable? How do you quantify the benefits work in visbreaker applications as well, extending run
of these additives? lengths of the visbreaker up to 70 percent and increasing
throughput in the visbreakers about four percent.
By using the antifoulant program in the visbreaker, we
SAMUELS:
have been able to raise coil outlet temperatures to around
I will address the coking portion of this question. We
472°C which allows you to obtain a higher conversion
believe that the use of Nalco/Exxon EC3045A antifoulant
and increased yield in the visbreaker as well. Reduced
in our number two coker at the Robinson refinery provides
fouling of filters, lines, column bottoms, which are minor
about a one-half year payout. Fifty weight ppm of the
incentives compared to the increased throughput, and
chemical is injected into the furnace charge at the suction
increased yield also provide some justification as well. In
of the main column bottoms pump and into the coke
one recent application, we got a payback for the treatment
drum vapor line going to the main column in the
in 69 days which gave us about a 4:1 return on the
quench oil.
chemical expense.
Typical furnace run length prior to the use of the
chemical was six to eight months. With the chemical we
MICHEL ROY (Petro-Canada Products):
have been able to achieve a year and a half or longer run
We have been using an antifoulant for the last three
lengths. The chemical is justified by avoiding one seven
years in our visbreaker unit. Our observation is that on
day shutdown per year. Obviously, the bottom of the
the light sweet North Sea type crude it has little effect.
barrel capacity dictates the crude basket which impacts
But, if you go with the heavier type crude, more aromatics,
the refinery gross margin. So it is a significant payout.
it has a definite impact on our cycle. Also, it made a
No other significant operating changes were made in
significant impact on the ease of cleaning the equipment.
the time before or after the chemical injection. We believe
In the past, our exchangers were plugged solid and very
it is a fair test. The feed quality has recently degraded
hard to clean. With the use of the chemical over a full
and a higher concarbon and asphaltene content has short-
cycle, we have seen a definite improvement in the ease
ened the run lengths to about ten months. When an
of cleaning the equipment.
opportunity is available such as a planned turnaround,
we will remove the chemical ahead of that turnaround
PAUL EATON (Champion Technologies):
and monitor the skin temperature rate of change.
We have found that antifoulants work in instances.
It should be noted that this chemistry did not work
We have had applications in delayed cokers which have
in our number one coker. While the feed of both cokers
run lengths greater than a year versus less than six months.
are identical, the furnace velocities, outlet temperature,
The economic benefits as previously stated are based on
pressure and flux rates for the two cokers are different.
increased run lengths which produces increased profit
margins.
BINFORD: We have tried other applications that failed. The com-
Mr. Samuels keyed in on increased run length. Some mon trends that we find among these failed applications
other potential added justification is reduction in fuel gas are poor desalter operation and a lot of slop injection,
and lower maintenance costs; but obviously, the increased which generates a high solids loading. So we think that
run length is really the key to justifying a coker furnace there is a clear connection between the solids and the
antifoulant. effectiveness of antifoulants. In fact, solids can overwhelm
We have also seen run length increases between 30 the effect of antifoulants. A good desalter operation is
and 50 percent through the use of coker antifoulant pro- required for control of fouling in downstream equipment.
grams. A real key to success besides the furnace vapor
velocities is a strong monitoring program on that furnace,
having a handle on adjusting furnace burners to eliminate
hot spots, insuring even firing of the furnace, etc.
If you have a problem in the furnace that causes a
mechanical shutdown because of something unrelated to
the antifoulant program, then obviously the payout is not
going to be there. If you have to shutdown in the first
nine months of a planned 12 months run due to a mechan-
ical failure the chemical will be wasted. As a result, the
mechanical reliability of not only the furnace, but the

82 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX
III. HYDROGEN PROCESSING
A. Hydrogen Production
1. Hydrogen Manufacturing
Question 1.
How is CO2 corrosion mitigated in hydrogen units?
BARLOEWEN:
Topsoe uses stainless steel for those parts of the hydro-
gen plant that are exposed to CO2 containing condensate.
The use of stainless steel then necessitates protection of
your system against chlorides in both the feed and boiler
feedwater systems.
The way we do that on the feed system is through the
use of a chloride guard between the Co-Mo desufurization
system and the zinc oxide system. We use demineralized
boiler feedwater as makeup with a specification of less
than 0.2 microhms conductivity.
BINFORD:
We found that CO2 corrosion can be controlled with
a combination of the proper amine solvent, corrosion and
inhibition practices and operating targets. The proper
amine solvent should not degrade significantly in CO2
service and yet provide good CO2 capacity. This many
times eliminates MEA, DEA and MDEA; although
MDEA can provide good capacity and minimal degrada-
tion problems if it is blended or formulated with other
compounds. Many formulated products are available, but
most of these still suffer from some CO2 degradation,
and as a result are many times no better in the long run.
One of the formulated solvents which we have seen used
successfully has been Huntsman Jeff treat M510.
Corrosion can still be a problem, even when using the
proper solvent because of the aggressive nature of CO2.
The use of corrosion inhibitors in mixed CO2 and H2S
environments has been practiced with success over the
last 30 years. One of the considerations that must be
weighed in selecting a good corrosion inhibitor is the
foaming nature of the product. The addition of a defoamer
to the corrosion inhibitor is really not an acceptable solu-
tion. After non-foaming, film persistency, solids disper-
sion and physical properties are important. I agree with
Mr. Barloewen on the stainless steel. Stainless steel can
also, however, be prone to corrosion if the environment
is oxygen free. Stainless steel does usually perform well if
oxygen scavengers are not used and the organic acids are
controlled to a low concentration. As a rule of thumb,
formic acid above 4,000 ppm can aggressively attack both
carbon and stainless steel. In high CO2 systems, carbonic
acid is usually the prevalent acid, but formic and other
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
organic acids are more aggressive in the system. These
acids are especially aggressive in very low H2S environ-
ments because the iron does not form a protective iron
sulfide scale. Amine degradation products have been
found to act as chelants that can remove the protective
scales when they are formed. We are currently trialing a
new series of products in gas plants on the Texas Gulf
Coast to effectively protect against corrosion in these high
CO2, low H2S environments.
Finally, to achieve the benefits of a good amine solvent
and corrosion inhibition program, the unit must be prop-
erly operated. Excessive rich amine loadings and excessive
temperatures are both an open invitation to trouble. Steam
usage and amine circulation must be balanced. The best
operating conditions for a given unit may be quite differ-
ent from another due to the design and required through-
put. We usually use BR&Es T-SWEET model to try to
identify the best operating conditions for the unit before
starting any corrosion control program or recommending
a solvent change.
CAIN:
All of our Delaware City plant units subjected to CO2
corrosion are either 304 or stainless steel, or clad with it.
ROMAN:
The concentration of carbon dioxide exiting the low
temperature shift reactor can approach 20 mole percent.
The resulting condensate in the high and low temperature
knockout pots has a very high level of carbonic acid and
is extremely corrosive to carbon steel. The chromium
content of these steels needs to be at least 12 percent.
Type 304 is usually specified, although type 410 or type
430 or any steel with 12 percent chrome is also satisfactory.
SHOOU-I WANG (Air Products):
The panel has suggested that stainless steel is common
use to mediate the CO2 corrosion. But one thing I would
like to share with the audience is that this could be a
process hazard. We have experience, in this case a potass-
ium hydroxide, leeching out from the reforming catalyst
and caustic cracking of stainless steel material has caused
the rupture of a 24 inch stainless steel line. After a serious
investigation and examination, we found out that at cer-
tain temperature locations and circumstances, this cata-
strophic failure could happen.
TOM BACON (Dow Chemical Company):
Corrosion results from a combination of potentially
corrosive effects. In hydrogen plants these include wet
CO2 vapor, degradation products of the various amines
83
TOC/INDEX
used, erosion caused by particulates in the amine solution,
flashing CO2, and high velocity, and localized lack of
metal passivation. Dow’s experience with GAS/SPEC*
CD-Plus has resulted in the following.
Reduction of corrosion begins with design criteria that
minimize these effects. Amine velocities should be limited
to 3 fps in carbon steel and 7 fps in stainless steel piping.
Rich loading should be limited to 0.45 moles CO2 per
mole amine to minimize CO2 flashing. The approach
temperature of the lean—rich cross exchanger should
be limited to 45°F to minimize CO2 flashing. Piping
metallurgy should be 304SS for the rich amine circuit
between absorber and stripper. Exchanger tubing for all
four exchangers should be 304SS.
Operating guidelines include assuring adequate amine
concentration and circulation to maintain the limit to the
rich loading and adequate stripping to achieve the speci-
fied lean loading.
Question 2.
To make RFG and low sulfur diesel, refiners need more
hydrogen, yet traditional sources like catalytic reformer
hydrogen are being reduced. How are refiners meeting
this challenge: purchased hydrogen, new or revamped
hydrogen plants, recovery systems, etc.? Are any new
feed sources or technologies being used to produce
hydrogen?
SAMUELS:
In the area of new hydrogen production technologies,
Marathon researchers have developed the HYSULF pro-
cess for the manufacture of hydrogen from hydrogen
sulfide. The process uses redox chemistry under mild
operating conditions to convert H2S into hydrogen and
sulfur. The process employs two basic steps, the hydrogen
sulfur production and recovery step and the hydrogen
purification step. A major engineering firm has estimated
that the capital costs of the HYSULF process is 30 to 50
percent less than a claus tail-gas plant combination due
to fewer major pieces of equipment that are required.
The process produces about 22,000 cubic feet of hydro-
gen per ton of sulfur produced. In addition to evaluating
internal applications for this process, Marathon is cur-
rently seeking external support for the construction of a
demonstration unit in 1999.
Details of the process can be found in an NPRA paper
that was presented by Dr. Mark Plummer entitled ‘‘The
HYSULF Process: A Valuable Hydrogen Resource from
Hydrogen Sulfide,’’ and was presented in the Spring 1995
NPRA Annual Meeting.
In the area of separation technologies, Air Products
has a new gas separation membrane known as selective
surface flow or SSF娃 membranes. A 0.5 to 1.5 million
standard cubic foot per day demonstration unit is in
service and operates with full scale membrane separators.
84 Hydrogen Processing
The distinguishing features of the SSF娃 technology
is that this membrane, versus a polymer type membrane,
keeps the lighter components on the high pressure side,
in this case hydrogen, and also the pressure drop required
through the membrane is much lower. A recent article
in the June issue of Today’s Refining discusses the merits
of the SSF娃 technology.
I would also like to refer you for the more traditional
hydrogen purification technologies, to a white paper of
UOP that discusses the selection criteria for pressure swing
absorption, selective permeation and cryogenic separation
processes. The paper is entitled ‘‘UOP Process Solutions
for Reformulated Gasoline.’’ I spoke with the gas separa-
tion folks at UOP. Although the paper has not been
updated since 1991, they feel that the basic principles
still hold for selection criteria. You may contact John
Geeseman at UOP at (847) 391-2937 if you would like
a copy of this paper.
TASKER:
Well, in addition to addressing the first part of the
question, we can alleviate the reformer hydrogen produc-
tion by changing the reforming catalyst. As a small plug
for Acreon Catalysts, they have developed a reforming
catalyst RG582 that produces a high level of hydrogen
yield with a wide range of octane values. This catalyst is
currently being used in about 17 different units around
the world and more details can be obtained directly
from Acreon.
As to the second part of the question, there are a
number of possible sources of purchased hydrogen, mer-
chant hydrogen, and this may depend very much on the
location and industrial area where the plant is located.
These sources include purchased hydrogen from chlorine
manufacturing and other processes. So they may well be
limited geographically.
There are also a number of companies licensing skid
mounted hydrogen generation units and other companies
that would setup with producing plants in association
with the hydrogen producers.
HENKE:
In our refineries, we are maximizing hydrogen produc-
tion by focusing on getting the most out of our existing
assets. We have made significant progress in four areas:
1) we are debottlenecking our steam methane reformers
through enhancements to the PSA systems, Benfield oper-
ation, and heat removal systems; 2) we are recovering as
much hydrogen as we can from the fuel gas system; 3)
we are reducing the requirement to purge hydrogen from
hydroprocessing units by focusing on make-up hydrogen
purity control; and 4) we are improving the reliability
and mechanical availability of our hydrogen producing
units. We have found that this last area is a significant
source of additional hydrogen.
TOC/INDEX
JOSECK:
At one refinery, we recently completed a study to sup-
plement the hydrogen source. One new technology we
considered in membrane purification from Air Products
was SSF . The SSF technology was considered due to the
lower hydrogen compression requirements and traditional
membrane technology. The new technology is capable of
producing hydrogen at a higher pressure than the vent gas
or heavy hydrocarbons. SSF membranes are gas separating
membranes that comprise a microporous adsorptive mate-
rial supported on macroporous substrate. The SSF mecha-
nism preferentially permeates larger or more polar gas
components to the low pressure side of the membrane.
The unit design considered increased hydrogen impurity
of a low pressure separator or off gas stream from 68
percent to 90 percent hydrogen. Product hydrogen recov-
ery was estimated at 80 percent with an inlet feed pressure
of 225 psig and a product hydrogen pressure of 200 psig.
The vent permeated was at 5 to 10 psig.
MALEK:
We have found that the hydrogen recovery techniques
and conservation in the refinery can only go so far in
meeting the RFG requirements. Usually, the next step
that a refiner has to take in meeting these requirements
is a large increment of hydrogen. One approach that
refiners are increasingly following is a usage of merchant
hydrogen. Good examples of such systems are those oper-
ated by Air Products in the New Orleans and Houston
area, and the new system that is being installed by Air
Liquide in the Corpus Christi area.
These systems take advantage of the fact that there are
quite a few sources of excess hydrogen being produced
in various industries that we are not perhaps familiar with,
i.e., ethylene plants, chlorine cells and a number of others.
These merchant suppliers will, as a business opportunity,
to go out and seek these sources, put in the collection
systems, the pipelines, the compression and the purifica-
tion systems. They will usually supplement these systems
with their own steam reforming processes to balance out
the hydrogen requirements.
The sources from new ethylene plants are quite signifi-
cant. We are all aware of how much activity there is in
ethylene plant construction. For example, a one billion
pound per year ethylene plant can generate easily a surplus
of 40 to 60 million cubic feet a day of hydrogen. It might
not be practical for a refiner on an individual basis to go
out and seek this supply. But these merchant suppliers
are aggressively trying to develop these pipeline networks
to accumulate these excess sources of hydrogen and to
supply a reasonable and reliable source of hydrogen. We
believe that this type of approach will continue to acceler-
ate in the industry.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
ROMAN:
Ashland has developed a gasification process called
Hymeltt and is working with a EnviRes LLC to commer-
cialize this process. Feed is introduced below the surface
of a molten metal bath, ranging in temperature from
2,500 to 3,000°F. All organic material in the feed is
rapidly dissociated into its elements. Hydrogen and nitro-
gen primarily evolve as gases. The carbon and sulfur dis-
solve in the metal. Oxygen in the feed evolves as car-
bon monoxide.
The carbon content in the bath increases with time
and the overall reaction is endothermic. When the carbon
content reaches a preset level, the feed is interrupted and
oxygen is then injected into the bath. The oxygen reacts
almost exclusively to produce carbon monoxide in an
exothermic reaction, with methane or steam sometimes
added to provide an overall heat balance for the system.
The gas evolved in the first vessel contains more than
90 percent hydrogen and the gas evolved in the second
vessel in excess of 90 percent carbon monoxide which
can be shifted to hydrogen, converted to products such
as methanol or burned in a heater. We believe the process
can also be operated at a pressure in excess of 400 pounds
and the process tolerates a wide range of feeds from meth-
ane to SDA pitch.
Ashland built and operated a pilot plant from 1992
until 1996 with a nominal molten metal capacity of 300
pounds. When the SDA pitch was fed, the gas from the
first zone contained 92 percent hydrogen. We plan a
larger scale testing in a pressure capable vessel containing
six tons of molten metal. The larger scale testing should
provide all of the critical design information for a commer-
cial plant with a molten metal capacity of 100 to 200
tons, and capable of producing between 10 and 35 million
standard cubic feet a day of hydrogen.
This plant is expected to have a high turn down ratio
of 4 to 1 or better and be capable of rapid responses to
change in feed rate making it ideal for process or load
following. When the heating value of CO produced by
85
TOC/INDEX
the process is valued at 80 percent natural gas, the cost
of hydrogen is approximately 50 percent of that produced
by conventional steam methane reforming at the same
purity levels.
BARLOEWEN:
I am going to focus on another type of technology for
medium size hydrogen plants. Topsoe developed a Haldor
Topsoe convection reformer which is a new concept that
combines in a relatively small piece of equipment the
radiant and waste sections of the conventional reformer.
It is self-sufficient for fuel and steam and does not
export any steam. It lends itself to modularization and it
is suitable for plants in of capacity up to 20 million
standard feet a day.
We have supplied a number of these plants to fuel cell
projects in very small capacities and have a 10 mmscfd
TCR a day plant starting up in Europe right now.
CAIN:
At our Delaware City plant, we plan to convert an
existing methanol plant to concurrently produce hydrogen
and methanol. This methanol plant contains a feed pre-
treatment section and a conventional steam methane
reforming section for the conversion of feed streams to a
hydrogen rich syngas stream. A portion of syngas will be
sent to a PSA unit to produce high purity hydrogen and
the balance of it will be used to produce methanol product.
FLETCHER:
While not directly related to hydrogen production,
there is an FCC catalytic route that exists for refiners who
are pushing sulfur limitations in the gasoline pool, and
are using a high zeolite to matrix catalyst.
As a rule of thumb, for a nonhydrogenated feed about
ten percent of the feed sulfur will end up in the gasoline.
This drops to about five percent for a hydrotreated feed.
When compared to an FCC catalyst that has a low concen-
tration of matrix, a catalyst with high concentration of
an active selective matrix can show a reduction in sulfur
of up to 20 to 25 percent. And this can be further enhanced
by using a high rare earth level.
Additional sulfur reduction has not been demonstrated
commercially in FCCUs that were already using a high
matrix bearing catalyst prior to the trial of the sulfur
reducing catalyst. The primary sulfur reduction benefit
will occur when you are going from a very high zeolite
to matrix ratio catalyst to one that is low zeolite to
matrix ratio.
FUSSELL:
Back in 1994, we tied into the air products hydrogen
pipeline and it is truly a wonderful thing.
86 Hydrogen Processing
FOSTER:
When we revamped our refinery to 17 API heavy crude
operation, we made the commitment to make RFG and
low sulfur diesel. As part of the revamp we started-up a
new coker, a new CFHT (Cat Feed Hydrotreater) and
revamped our diesel hydrotreater to low sulfur operation.
These changes required an increase in chemical hydrogen
consumption of 100 mmscfd.
This was a large increase, and much greater than we
were currently producing in-house. To accommodate this
increase, we looked first to Lyondell, an owner company
which produces hydrogen as a by-product from their
methanol and olefins plants. We negotiated a new contract
for their methanol hydrogen and expanded the purchase
volumes for the existing olefins hydrogen contract. This
took care of much of our requirements.
For the balance of our demand, we set up a long-term
contract with a proven commercial hydrogen producer
and broker. They expanded their facilities expressly for
our revamp. This was a good economic decision for us,
since they are more skilled at the economic production,
maintenance, and technology of an on-purpose hydrogen
plant than we are, and can better take advantage of the
economies of scale. We do employ a membrane separation
system on the new CFHT, which recovers 10 mmscd of
pure hydrogen.
MARK WEISE (BOC Gases):
For those refiners who are not fortunate enough to be
located along an existing pipeline, a stand alone hydrogen
plant from a gas company can also provide you hydrogen
at a lower cost. BOC Gases and Foster Wheeler have
teamed up to provide hydrogen to refiners, up to 50
million cubic feet a day and greater. This combination
of gas company and plant supplier can typically achieve
savings on both capital and operating cost, which are
passed on to the refiner. Additionally, the refiner’s risk
is reduced since once a suppler agreement is reached, costs
are fixed and known. Finally, the BOC/Foster Wheeler
partnership is unique in that both companies retain own-
ership of the facilities thus ensuring low life time hydrogen
cost and high reliability.
POORNIMA SHARMA (KTI Corporation):
The decision to build new plants or revamp and make
versus buy is site specific. In make versus buy decisions,
multiple factors need to be considered like transferring
of risks associated with schedule, cost , maintenance, capi-
tal, and on stream availability to an industrial gas supplier.
The choice between a new or a debottlenecked plant is
a function of the quantity of hydrogen required. A major
increase in hydrogen demand can often only be met with
a new plant. A 10-20% increase in capacity can be accom-
plished by recovering hydrogen from refinery off-gas
TOC/INDEX
streams or by revamping a steam-hydrocarbon reforming
type hydrogen plant.
If the refinery chooses to revamp a hydrogen plant, a
variety of options can be considered, applied individually
or in combination, to increase the capacity of the plant.
These options are:
—Add a Pre-Reformer in series with the reformer.
Expected increase in capacity is 10-12%.
—Add a Low Temperature Shift reactor in a PSA
based hydrogen plant. Expected increase in capacity
is 4-5%.
—Increase reformer inlet temperature by adding a
reformer feed preheater in the convection section.
Expected increase in capacity is 3-4 %.
—Increase capacity by increasing the inside diameter
of the radiant tubes by upgrading metallurgy. While
expected increase in capacity varies from reformer
to reformer, up to 20% increase has been possible
in a case study.
—Add a post reformer or a secondary reformer into
the flow scheme. This has the potential to increase
capacity by more than 20% provided the down-
stream heat recovery train and shift reactors are able
to handle the increased gas flow rate.
The technology for new hydrogen plants is continu-
ously being upgraded as new developments in metallurgy
and catalysts take place. The development of high activity
pre-reforming catalyst has enabled the pre-reforming tech-
nology to be well established both for new and revamped
plant designs. Post reforming in convective, heat
exchanger type reformers, currently in use in ammonia
plants can be applied to hydrogen plants.
KTI has done many debottlenecking studies. We will
study all the options and propose the most cost effective
scheme for debottlenecking your hydrogen plant.
Question 3.
What is the panel’s advice on how to avoid overheating
of steam reforming furnaces?
PETERSON:
We did have one tube fail in our hydrogen heater and
one of the contributing factors was poor flame patterns
from dirt in the fuel gas to the burners. We have gone
to cleaner gas to help prevent that. We also have the
operators performing surveillance, both optically and with
an infrared device to help find the hot spots in the heaters
and adjust the burners accordingly. The tuning of the
PSA and other instruments as well as preventing upsets
all help to prevent the problems in heaters.
We have also recently gone to a predictive maintenance
system where we had a device called H-Scan. It was pro-
vided by a company called IESCO. It is a proprietary
ultrasonic method that crawls up the tubes and gets a
very complete inspection of the metal condition. This
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
way we can be prepared for the next anticipated down
time with the appropriate number of tubes on hand and
have a turnaround well planned.
ROMAN:
Most of our recent problems have involved poor firing
patterns in the fire box. At high turn down ratios, we
have experienced excessive air leakage into the fire box
where the tubes enter through the floor. In an effort to
reduce excess air to the stack, the operators would cut
the air to the burners and the oxygen starved flame would
be pulled over against the tubes where additional air was
entering into the firebox.
The resulting flame impingement caused creep damage
and eventual failure. The tube entry holes have subse-
quently been sealed with ceramic fiber to avoid this leakage
and prevent a recurrence of this problem.
BARLOEWEN:
I am going to focus on the potential of tube failure
during start up. Startup is basically an unusual operation
where you have very low mass flow through the tubes
and no heat of reaction. So, right away the normal rela-
tionships between process temperatures and furnace tem-
peratures do not apply. In addition, there are some vendors
that recommend relatively high furnace outlet tempera-
tures before you cut in the hydrocarbon feed, in excess
of 1,300 to 1,400°F. At Topsoe we like to see the furnace
outlet temperature below 1,200°F.
The final thing to emphasize on startup, and it really
applies to reforming furnace firing in general, is that in
today’s refinery with a concentration of instrumentation
in the control room, it is sort of like the home office.
The home office feels like they know everything that is
going on. In the control room, they feel like they know
everything that is going on. A reforming furnace is a
classic piece of equipment that you have to monitor in
the field and there is no substitute for it not only during
startup, but also as the run progresses.
CAIN:
Two causes that we have seen were unexpected loss of
feed to the reforming furnace and also changes in the fuel
gas btus. We have implemented advance controls that
detect changes in the fuel gas gravity and make adjust-
ments for that. We also installed an SOV (solenoid oper-
ated valve) to close the main fuel gas valve on heater loss
of steam flow, loss of the draft fans, and low level in the
boiler. We also monitor the loading procedure of catalysts
to make sure that there is a good, even Delta P across all
the tubes to prevent hot spots.
SHOOU-I WANG (Air Products):
I think the panel and KTI have suggested a number
of very good recommendations. I want to add one area
87
TOC/INDEX
on preventing a reformer furnace from a catastrophic
failure, such as a melt down of reform tubes. The practice
we have is to use two out of three voting systems to shut
down the high temperature reforming process effluent
and also as a back up to use two out of three voting
system to shut down on high temperature. This is at the
flue gas temperature at the outlet of reform radiant section.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
I would like to point out that some very hot tubes and
some tube failures are associated with sulphur poisoning
of the catalyst. This particularly occurs in the top part of
the tubes where the feed enters and where the temperature
and ph are low.
The sulphur poisoned catalyst loses activity for steam
reforming and the feed proceeds unconverted to the hotter
part of the tubes leading to coking of the catalyst. This
is worst in the hottest area by the tube wall. The tubes
are overheated since little heat is absorbed, and deposited
coke can lead to channeling. The overheating of the
tubes—often worse in local areas—leads to mishaps. The
situation becomes more critical the higher the content of
higher hydrocarbons in the feed.
JIM ABBOTT (ICI Katalco):
First off, I would just like to agree that it is very
important to monitor the reformer tubes out in the field
during startup. Visual monitoring is extremely important.
The second thing I would like to draw operators’ atten-
tion to is an emerging phenomenon which we have
observed on top fired reformers. This is around the use
of new shaped reforming catalysts which have indeed
enhanced heat transfer and reduced tube-wall tempera-
tures. Often the position of the peak metal temperature
has moved from a point on the top half of the tubes
down towards the very bottom.
The point I would like to make is that it is necessary
to watch out when the reformer is loaded up again within
increased firing as indeed is possible with the shaped
reforming catalyst. When monitoring your tube wall tem-
peratures, be sure to check where the peak temperature
actually is. Measuring the tube wall temperature in the
same position as before could well give too low an answer.
You need to check all the way down and check where the
highest temperature is to avoid any potential for premature
tube failures.
ERIC FEARON (KTI Corporation):
During normal operation of the reformer we have to
take the process outlet thermocouple into consideration.
This thermocouple is subjected to high severity service
due to the high process effluent temperatures and as such,
is liable to drift. This means that process outlet tempera-
tures can actually read low when in fact the temperature
88 Hydrogen Processing
in the reformer is much higher. KTI has experienced drift
at the process outlet temperature of as much as 200°F.
In order to avoid overheating of the reformer the fol-
lowing steps are recommended:
1. Tube wall temperatures should be measured at least
once per shift using an optical pyrometer that auto-
matically compensates for white wall reflection.
Optical pyrometers that do not have this capability
will always indicate a higher tube wall temperature.
Under normal operating conditions tube wall tem-
peratures should indicate 80°F to 100°F higher
than the process outlet temperature.
2. Develop a curve based on CH4 slip in the process
effluent versus theoretical temperature of the pro-
cess effluent. Check the methane slip and theoreti-
cal temperature versus the indicated temperature
and the tube wall temperature.
3. Periodically (once a month) a calculation to deter-
mine the approach to equilibrium should be made.
This will require a full analysis of the reformer
effluent gas.
4. Although items 1 and 2 also apply to start-up of
the reformer, care should be taken to ensure that
there is an adequate flow of circulating nitrogen
through the reformer tubes to prevent overheating.
KTI uses a flow of 1850 scfh/per reformer tube as
a minimum and 2500 scfh/per reformer tube as
a maximum.
It is also recommended that a constant visual inspection
of reformer tubes be carried out during start-up. When
reformers suffer damage during heat-up, investigations
normally reveal that constant surveillance of the reformer
tubes would have alerted the operator in time to prevent
major damage to the reformer tubes.
BRUCE SCOTT (Bruce Scott, Inc.):
One of the problems with shooting the tubes with a
pyrometer is guessing what the emissivity and the reflecti-
vity of the tube is. I would kind of like to poll the panel
and see if there is any experience with E2T’s little black
hole device which is supposed to eliminate those concerns.
HIGGINS:
No response.
Question 4.
Our methanator trips on high temperature monitored at
a thermocouple 25% down in the bed. This ensures that
the trip occurs before the bulk of the catalyst and reactor
are overheated. As the catalyst ages and deactivates, is
the ‘‘25% point’’ still sensitive to a surge of CO2? Is there
a safer strategy to follow for the protection of methanators
as catalyst ages?
TOC/INDEX
BARLOEWEN:
Typically in most methanators there is a deactivation
pattern that occurs that gradually moves down the bed.
I think the obvious way, if you have sufficient instrumen-
tation and thermocouples, is to pick a lower spot in the
bed and use it as a trip point or to use rate of change as
a triggering point for shutdown.
CAIN:
We do not have an automatic trip. We have a hand
switch that we trip when the TI software alarms, set at
a reasonable temperature, to alert the board operator of
a runaway condition. We have a procedure in place, where
if the temperature exceeds 850°F, to activate the hand
switch to remove the process gas from the methanator.
JOSECK:
We have two bed thermocouples which have high tem-
perature and high rate of rise alarms. The methanator has
a manual shutdown. It also has an automatic shutdown
on either bed high temperature. The first thermocouple
is at the 30 percent point. The second is at the 70 percent
point. Shutdowns and alarms are recommended for all
thermocouples due to the potential for CO2 solution car-
ryover. Based on discussions with the United Catalyst
Inc., during CO2 solution carryover, the top 25 percent
to 50 percent of the bed can be cooled by liquid CO2
solution. As the liquid goes through the bed, it is vaporized
liberating CO2. As the CO2 is methanated, high reactor
temperatures can occur only in the bottom half of the bed.
Question 5.
What methods are available today for monitoring the
sulfur content of the feed to a steam reformer? Recom-
mendations as to the required volume of CoMo catalyst
for the desulfurizer in a hydrogen plant deviate substan-
tially (100% difference is not uncommon). This is not
the case for the other catalysts in the hydrogen plant.
Why is this so?
BARLOEWEN:
In order to be of real value, an instrument in this
services has to be able to detect sulfur concentrations
down to 10 parts per billion. A modern desulfurization
system followed by a hot zinc oxide system will reduce
your sulfur level to well below those levels. This is the
protection system most people use unless they have a
known problem. There are some instruments available
and being used that can measure in the 10 part per billion
range level.
The second part of the question discusses the question
of sizing of the cobalt moly catalyst or desulfurization
system and why there is such a variation between licensors.
I believe the answer is that it reflects the fact that these
units are not sized for normal operation. The normal
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
operations contaminant levels for most units are extremely
low. They are really sized for an upset. So the size of the
reactor is set by the conservatism of the licensor. You
should also recognize that these cobalt moly catalysts are
only partially sulfided due to the very low sulfur content
in the feed and no formal sulfiding procedure normally
being used. So again, that provides an area where there
may be differing opinions between licensors as to just
how active that catalyst is.
CAIN:
To answer the first part of the question, we do not
have a GC. We use lab analysis and the operators take
H2S draegers once a shift.
PETERSON:
Our hydrogen unit was designed for a wide range of
feeds, from natural gas, LPG’s and up toward light straight
run. The reactor is designed fairly large to accommodate
the various amounts of sulfur we could see in the feed.
So far, we have run just natural gas for four years. We
have really an underutilized bed in this case. The sulfur
content of the reactor effluent is monitored with a lead
acetate bubbler to make sure that we are not sending any
sulfur farther downstream.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
I should like to point out a risk which you may incur
if you run for a long time without sulphur in the feed
to a cobalt moly catalyst. The catalyst will lose all of its
sulphur as H2S to the gas very slowly. If you then change
to a feed which contains heavy hydrocarbons like butane
or naphtha, you can have a severe hydrocracking over the
cobalt molybdenum catalyst.
Question 6.
What is the panel’s recommendation concerning the use
of a separate chlorine guard as protection for low temper-
ature shift catalyst?
HENKE:
We do not recommend a separate guard bed immedi-
ately upstream of the low temperature shift catalyst. If
chlorides are suspected in the feedstock or import recycle
hydrogen, it is advisable to remove them in the front by
providing chloride absorbent catalyst beds upstream of
the zinc oxide reactor. This is done because the chloride
species have to be hydrogenated before they can be
absorbed by the catalyst. Also most catalyst manufacturers
recommend installing this catalyst in a dry stream since
chlorides are easily washed from the catalyst by water and
can be transported downstream.
Chlorides can also be introduced into the system
through process steam or the use of chlorinated solvents
during maintenance. Steam can be easily eliminated as a
89
TOC/INDEX
source of poison by ensuring that the boiler design pre-
vents carryover of boiler solids into the process steam
system.
Having said all this, I would like to point out that
ammonia plant operators have installed guard beds,
upstream of the low temperature shift reactor, consisting
of the low temperature shift catalyst itself. They do this
because it is extremely difficult and expensive to remove
chlorides from their process air.
JOSECK:
The concern is chlorides in the feed or chlorides from
a leak in a waste heat boiler or process steam generator.
We currently use chloride guard catalysts in three units.
The guard catalysts are loaded as a layer of catalyst on
top of the main low temperature shift catalyst beds. At
one refinery using naphtha reformer hydrogen as a feed,
we have a chloride guard bed on the inlet to the desulfur-
izer reactors and the low temperature shift reactor.
We have had one incident where we had a leak in a
waste heat boiler and the chloride bed aided in the protec-
tion of the low temperature shift catalyst. The low temper-
ature shift catalyst was protected. The amount of guard
catalyst is dependent upon the severity of the chloride
contamination. If chloride contamination is suspected due
to short low temperature shift catalyst life, approximately
five percent of the catalyst should be loaded as guard
catalyst. Samples of the spent low temperature shift cata-
lyst can help determine the amount of guard catalyst
required.
BARLOEWEN:
I mentioned earlier that Topsoe would provide a chlo-
ride guard between the cobalt moly and the zinc oxide
system. However, for the first charge of the low tempera-
ture shift, we would also provide a chloride guard on top
of the low shift and then let the data from that first
cycle determine whether it is necessary by measuring what
chloride pickup occurred during that cycle, the obvious
source being the steam system.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We have chloride guard catalyst on top of cobalt molyb-
denum catalyst. Recently, we found that chloride is escap-
ing, from cobalt molybdenum catalyst up to .5 ppm. I
would like to know the panel’s view on what should be
a maximum chloride content which can be tolerated by
the reformer catalyst.
HIGGINS:
No response.
ROSS BRUNSON (United Catalysts):
We have seen cases where you have chloride intrusion
from the feed gas. It shows up as a temporary poison to
90 Hydrogen Processing
both the reformer and high shift and a permanent poison
to the low shift. Even after the low shift is changed and
the chloride intrusion has been fixed, we have seen rapid
deactivation from the chloride poisoning continue on low
temperature shift. What happens is that the chlorides
come off the upstream catalyst. Unless you change those,
the accelerated deactivation of the low temperature shift
will continue. It continues to come off even after the
performance of the reformer and high temperature shift
returns to normal. So those should be considered for
changing, including the zinc oxide and cobalt molyb-
denum.
KEN CHLAPIK (ICI Katalco):
We believe the most effective low temperature shift
catalyst solution is a self guarding low temperature shift
catalyst. What this allows the hydrogen operator to do is
to maximize the effectiveness of the entire bed for the
CO shift activity. Depending on the poison that you are
looking at, the kind of catalysts that we offer can provide
up to 5 to 20 times the amount of poison retention that
is needed to fully deactivate the catalyst. So even though
the catalyst is fully deactivated, it is still receiving poisons
and absorbing poisons beyond that point.
Question 7.
Are any refineries currently monitoring for methanol
emissions from their hydrogen manufacturing facilities?
If so, what levels of methanol are being found? What
analytical methods are being used?
HAHN:
One of our West Coast refineries with an SMR recently
measured methanol in their emissions from that unit and
found them to be extremely low, much less than any of
the anticipated requirements.
That unit had both a low temperature shift and a high
temperature shift. We have learned that the amount of
methanol formed during the high temperature shift is
extremely low under normal conditions and the amount
can be controlled under the low temperature shift reaction
through kinetics. If we keep the temperature low enough
on our low temperature shifts, then the methanol produc-
tion is not very high at all.
BARLOEWEN:
The emissions of methanol from hydrogen plants is
increasingly a concern. Measurement of it is difficult in
the CO2 vent, and somewhat easier in the condensate.
Topsoe has developed a very accurate model to predict
the formation across the low temperature shift catalyst.
We compared it with one refiner and came within three
percent of the measured values. For a unit utilizing just
a low temperature shift, not a high temperature shift, the
emissions for a 70 million standard cubic foot a day
TOC/INDEX
hydrogen plant ranged from 500 to 3,000 pounds of
methanol per day. The methanol formation as was pointed
out is sensitive to temperature. A 20 degree decrease in
temperature in the operation of the low shift will decrease
the methanol formation by a factor of two. It is sensitive
to space velocity, i.e., higher space velocity will reduce
methanol formation. The lower the CO concentration,
the lower the methanol formation and the more steam,
the lower the methanol.
Topsoe recently introduced a new low emission cata-
lyst. It went into service in the past month in the West
Coast. It reduces emissions by a factor of eight from the
typical catalyst.
JOSECK:
Most of the methanol produced in hydrogen plants
from low temperature shift concentrates in the process
condensate. The level in the condensate depends on the
operating condition of the low temperature shift, specifi-
cally temperature, new or used catalyst, steam to carbon
ratio, the amount of CO and CO2 in the feed. We have
sampled the process condensate infrequently and it has
ranged between 1,200 and 4,000 ppm with an average
of 2,600 ppm. Samples were analyzed by an outside lab.
United Catalyst reports levels of 400 to 600 ppm for
new catalysts and recommends higher activity catalysts to
reduce methanol concentrations. Based on recent MACT
concerns, we are in the process of reevaluating all the
process condensate streams in the CO2 vent for methanol.
The analytical method for the vent and process condensate
is GC-FID utilizing NIOSH, method 2000 in a manner
consistent with U.S. EPA RM18 or SUMMA canisters
in accordance with methods TO-12 and TO-14. Analyses
performed by analytical procedures from method TO-12
for NMOC and EPA RM18 for methanol. The API has
petitioned the EPA to either (1) eliminate CO2 vents for
miscellaneous vent requirements for MACT I, (2) after
further review of the data and if appropriate and feasible
the EPA could add control requirements for methanol
from hydrogen plant vents to refinery MACT II rules,
or (3) list hydrogen plants as a separate source category
and evaluate the need for regulation.
SHOOU-I WANG (Air Products):
We are currently monitoring the methanol emissions
from one of our larger hydrogen plants in Northern Cali-
fornia. Recently we analyzed the cold process condensate
from another hydrogen plant in Pasadena, Texas. We
measured about 170 ppm methanol. The measurement
was performed on the HP5890 gas chromatography and
used a DB wax column.
JIM ABBOTT (ICI Katalco):
We also know that a number of refineries are increas-
ingly concerned to monitor and minimize their emissions.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Determining the total make of methanol is slightly com-
plicated because it partitions between the CO2 and the
process condensate. The process condensate, then, itself
is often stripped and thereby leads to a vapor emission.
We believe that the best means of monitoring the
byproduct methanol routinely is to take a sample of this
cooled process condensate. The water sample can be ana-
lyzed by gas liquid chromatography for methanol. Fur-
thermore, the methanol in the CO2 can then be simply
calculated by means of well tried and trusted models.
In terms of what those levels of methanol are, it depends
on gas conditions, dry gas composition, and steam to dry
gas ratio. Temperature is very important and also the
quantity of catalyst volume and the catalyst age also play
a part.
Finally, the inherent catalyst selectivity is the most
important feature of all in limiting the methanol pro-
duced. For instance, potassium doped low temperature
shift catalysts which have now been patented and are now
being further developed will give significantly lower rates
of methanol formation. They will do this without sacrific-
ing any capacity to absorb poisons and only taking a small
activity hit.
We have experience already with one of these types of
catalysts in meeting the needs of a plant which had metha-
nol emissions problems.
B. Hydrotreating
1. Reactor Bed Plugging
Question 8.
What is being done upstream of hydrotreaters to mini-
mize causes of bed plugging? Please discuss metallurgy,
corrosion control, intermediate storage and filtration.
Question 9.
Has anyone found a reliable method for filtering solids
from a heavy feed, such as products from a coker, FCCU,
or other processes? List specific micron sizes for typical
particulate foulants.
Question 38.
Beyond the normal precautions of feed filtering and tank
gas blanketing of feedstock to distillate/heavy oil hydro-
treaters, what new methods are being employed to mini-
mize fouling and extend run length? Has compositional
analysis of feed streams resulted in significant findings
relative to the mitigation of fouling?
BARLOEWEN:
Well, the subject of plugging and how to avoid it is a
perennial question. I am going to provide the base starting
point on avoidance. The first point is upgrade the metal-
lurgy in the upstream units, particularly in the hot and
91
TOC/INDEX
high velocity areas. Your indicator of whether you have
a problem is the iron content of the feed going to the
hydrotreater. If it is higher than one part per million,
then you are in trouble. It is better if you could be lower.
We have seen some units that needed to be as low as
one-quarter of a part per million in order to reach a 2 1⁄2
year cycle.
The second factor that can influence that metals level
is your fractionation performance in the upstream unit.
If you do not have clean separation, again, that can result
in excess carryover of metals. It is been widely reported
that you want to avoid oxygen contact with your feeds.
Do not store it; if possible, feed it hot. If you have to
store it, blanket it with an inert material, nitrogen or
natural gas.
Again, moving further downstream in your feed surge
drum, if you have one on your unit, do not forget to
blanket it with hydrogen or natural gas. Avoid hot spots
in your heater firing. That is really a generic comment,
but it is something not to be forgotten about. Then you
are into treating the symptoms which is the traditional
feed filters and graded bed system to provide the means
of trying to keep the solids from coming in and then
dealing with the solids when they come in.
I would like to spend just a moment to talk about feed
filtration. It is something that everyone wrestles with, i.e.,
how do you in fact design these units? In many cases,
the starting point is that to plan to run these units (any
feed filters) at least 20 to 30 degrees above their cloud
point. Secondly, you have to make some assumptions
about the solids loading that you are going to design for.
If it is an existing unit, you can get some data, but many
times you are making a judgment for a unit for which
you do not have data for.
There are a number of types of units available. There
are the back flow variety and the back flushing variety.
There are at least four manufacturers: Ronnigen-Petter,
Pall, Vacco and Proguard. One of the issues you have to
deal with in designing these units is the filter size. A 25
micron is typically a starting point and it has been shown
that a 25 micron filter will filter material down to much
smaller sizes.
Finally, you have to backflush it with something.
Where will that something go? If it is feed or product
and if you have a very high solids loading, you may find
yourself dealing with a very high percentage of recycle in
effect that you had not anticipated. There are systems
that provide back flushes with steam or gas to minimize
that problem.
Finally, you may conclude that while you want some
protection, continuous back flushing filters are too big
of an investment. Many refiners have had success with
cartridge type filters. There, typically a starting point is
a 10 micron filter element, and then you move up or
down depending on your interval of change out. Again,
92 Hydrogen Processing
something to remember is those filters also have to be
above the cloud point. As your temperature requirement
goes up to reach that target, you may have to go away from
standard filter elements and go to fiberglass filter elements.
BINFORD:
As Mr. Barloewen said, the place to really start on
these problems is first a good understanding of what is
going on upstream and second, a good knowledge and
understanding of what the feed is made up of, and then
lastly, what is going on within the hydrotreater heat
exchanger system and the bed itself. We found that reactor
bed plugging can be caused by either deposition of corro-
sion products formed upstream; or polymerization of the
hydrotreater feed, either in tankage, in the heat exchanger
or sometimes even on the reactor bed. In any of these
cases, a layer formed on top of the reactor bed causes
the plugging.
The reduction of corrosion products and particulates in
hydrotreater feed streams can be accomplished by several
methods. As Mr. Barloewen said, identifying sources of
corrosion upstream is really critical to successfully elimi-
nating these problems. If it is corrosion related, effective
corrosion control program in the crude unit overhead
condensing system, the FCC Gas Con, or the saturated
and unsaturated gas plants can many times eliminate the
problem altogether. Obviously, there is a tradeoff between
implementing a chemical solution versus upgrading unit
metallurgy. Sometimes metallurgical solutions are the
most cost effective, and sometimes chemical.
Many times the effect of ‘‘incidental’’ streams intro-
duced into these systems is not fully evaluated. These
would include oxygenated wash waters in overhead con-
densing systems that can cause iron oxide formation, and
then subsequently migrate to the hydrotreater bed; or
purchased condensate that might contain polymerization
precursors. When the feeds are characterized, the impact
of these incidental streams must be fully evaluated to
make sure that they are not going to cause a problem.
TOC/INDEX
Although unusual, we found a few cases where corro-
sion actually occurs in intermediate tankage or in preheat
exchangers. This can be effectively addressed by either
installing a more corrosion resistant metallurgy or an
effective chemical treatment program.
A well designed disperssant type antifoulant program
can be used to effectively combat pressure drop buildup
due to inorganic foulants, but these are usually effective
only if they are applied before the bed fouls significantly.
It is also important to make sure the top of the reactor
bed is designed to accept the smaller dispersed particles.
Mr. Barloewen already covered intermediate tankage, but
polymerization mechanisms can also occur in the preheat
exchange equipment. Identifying the source of the poly-
merization and the mechanism is critical in designing a
proper antipolymerant program to address reactor bed
fouling resulting from polymer formation.
CAIN:
One other item I could add to previous comments is
that on the intermediate tankage be careful where your
draw point is. Your draw point could be too low and you
could be pulling in water and sediment. Needless to say,
you need to drain your tanks regularly.
I have some experience in our Delaware City plant on
a furnace oil hydrotreater. We plan to upgrade it to 316L
stainless steel when replacement is required, however it
may not be justifiable. To reduce plugging, they have
installed shaped support balls and they are also using
a Nalco disbursement which has been very effective in
dispersing polymerized hydrocarbons. The shaped sup-
port balls are made by Haldor Topsoe.
FLETCHER:
With respect to particulates, we know of several refiners
that are reliably filtering large particles greater than 25
microns from gas oil feeds. For smaller particles, such as
FCC catalyst fines from FCC fractionator bottoms, these
cannot be reliably filtered because of their small sizes. If
left in the feed, these fines will accumulate in the intersti-
tial spaces of the hydrotreating catalyst causing pressure
drop and maldistribution.
In one particular case that we know of about 7 weight
percent of approximately 2 micron FCC catalyst fines
was measured on the spent hydroprocessing catalyst from
a unit processing FCC fractionator bottoms. We believe
that the most reliable method to remove these small parti-
cles from the feed is to distill it, possibly in the feed of
a DCU, or a fluid coker, or in a VAC tower. And obviously
this assumes that the product streams from these units
will be going to the hydrotreater.
With respect to polymerization, I concur with the
previous comments. Antioxidants have been used in the
past with some measure of success. These are usually
injected into the rundown to tankage.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
For napthenic acid corrosion, refiners have blended
feeds to a total acid number of less than 0.5 mil KOH
per milligram and used stainless steel grades with greater
than 2.5 wt% molybdnum with success. Corrosion inhibi-
tors have been used, but unfortunately the most effective
phosphorous based inhibitors are also catalyst poisons.
FOSTER:
We produce well over 20 mbpd of coker heavy gas oil
(CHGO) at our refinery. The quality is very poor, so it
is essential to treat all the feed at our Cat Feed Hydrotreat-
ers, and to maximize the run cycle. So we spend a lot of
time on our feed filter design. But we have found by
experience that no matter how good our filtration system
is at our hydrotreater, it can be defeated by the sheer
quantity of fines in CHGO if the fractionator is not
designed or run properly.
So to protect our CHGO quality, we install two redun-
dant wash oil spray headers above the CHGO draw sec-
tion. Each spray can deliver 100% of the required wash oil,
and each is designed to deliver a minimum 30% overlap.
But good design is not enough. At turnaround time
we require a process engineer to witness and approve the
spray test prior to closing up the vessel. Sometimes there
is an obstruction in a nozzle or other problem that prevents
a good spray. Even though there is intense pressure to
get the unit back in operation, it pays to make sure your
sprays are right.
We have had some success with the installation of a
coke removal system on the coker fractionator. We filter
a slip stream from the bottom of the fractionator, cool
it to about 300°F and then pass it through a standard
cloth filter. This tends to prevent coke buildup in our
fractionator, as well as lower the coke fines in our HGO.
HAHN:
In both our diesel and naphtha hydrotreaters, we expe-
rienced plugging, particularly a crust that would form on
the top of our beds. We do not have any gas blanketing
on our tanks or anything of that nature. We have simple
coalescers upstream on our crude unit rundown streams,
mostly for water removal. Our hydrotreater feed is not
pretreated in any other way.
We have found success by using the graded bed method
of loading our catalyst, and we also eliminated the trash
baskets which were initially put into those reactors as part
of original design. They were totally ineffective in doing
what they were supposed to do and were often a hindrance.
Once we removed these baskets and went to a graded
bed, we no longer had a plugging problem at all. Often
times we used to have a 50 pound pressure drop develop
over the life of the catalyst. Now we have none at all and
our catalyst can run until it really needs to be changed
out for catalytic reasons rather than for pressure drop
constraints.
93
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
After experimenting with several filtration devices, we
have concluded that in our situation, sand filters are the
most reliable devices for filtering solids from heavy feed
streams such as heavy coker gas oil. Proper sizing and
grading of the filtering medium is essential to optimize
particulate removal. We target removal of particles larger
than 20 microns. Actual particulate balances around our
gas oil hydrotreater reactors have shown that inert solids
coming from the heavy coker gas oil, smaller than 20
microns, readily pass through the reactors.
JOSECK:
At one lube oil hydrotreater, hydrotreating gas oils and
the deasphalted vacuum tower bottoms, 25 micron filters
were added and later changed to 10 micron filters improv-
ing the first bed fouling. The unit was revamped increasing
the hydrogen recycle from approximately 1,250 to 4,000
standard cubic feet per barrel of hydrogen, improving the
total reactor fouling. Catalyst pressure drop no longer
limits the reactor; the reactor is limited to catalyst activity.
At a second hydrotreater, we have 25 micron cartridge
feed filters. We recently experienced a high pressure drop
in the top bed that was attributed to iron sulfide from
the reaction of iron and sulfur in the feed. The unit
processes napthenic and paraffinic feedstocks. We have
since loaded high void space topping in the reactor with
promising results after seven months. Start-of-run pressure
drop in the top bed decreased from nominal 30 psi to
less than 10 psi.
We have had the most success when the type of bed
plugging has been identified and traditional approaches
have been used to reduce the problem. We have had more
success with bed grading than scale baskets for reducing
top bed plugging.
We have also used nitrogen blanket feed tanks in com-
bination with size bed graded catalysts on the top bed
for improving pressure drop. These related experiences
support the discussion last year around the five causes of
reactor bed plugging. That is trash, soluble iron, carbona-
ceous coke, catalyst bed coking and catalyst bed fines.
PETERSON:
I agree with the previous comments. I would like to
throw a little fine tuning on a couple of them. We have
noticed that our filters plug up more if we feed resid as
vacuum tower bottoms. We see less plugging in the filters
if we feed this equivalent resid material as reduced crude,
before it has gone through the vacuum heater and the
vacuum tower, where maybe some cracking, some coking,
or some other reaction has occurred. We have not isolated
the mechanism for that yet. We run a fairly hot vacuum
transfer temperature, about 780°F.
On back washing the filters, we had set up instrumenta-
tion and did not take full advantage of it for a while. We
94 Hydrogen Processing
then did some fine tuning and found that we were missing
some of our backwashes. So we started looking at shorter
times in the back washing cycle and we found about half
of our filter elements were not being effectively cleaned.
We have also noted that, over time, our filter elements
tend to accumulate something that does not backwash
off. We therefore have a spare set. We send one set out
for sonic cleaning to clean the residual material.
In another refinery, we have a distillate hydrotreater,
in which we now treat reduced crude as well as distillates.
That unit was not designed with the filter because it was
only going to have distillate feed. We did get a significant
successful run, until we had an upset in the unit where
the recycle compressor had gone down. We have seen a
significant increase in reactor pressure drop in naphtha
units as well when we have upsets with the compressor
and start back up. We get a step change in pressure drop
in the reactor.
The last thing I would say is make sure you have a
good vapor-liquid distribution in your reactor so you do
not have all the hydrogen going down one side and all
the oil down the other causing coke formation down in
the reactor bed.
SAMUELS:
In fact, there is a few more things to add here. We set
a sodium specification of 0.5 part per million on our
65,000 barrel per day distillate hydrotreater at the Robin-
son refinery, after severe reactor fouling and some
exchanger fouling, from salt treated purchased diesel
stocks. I think this would apply to any distillates that you
would be moving over salt water. This specification in
fact did eliminate the problem.
As has been mentioned many times, dissolved oxygen,
ethers, peroxides and di-olefins will cause polymerization
and can cause crusting when solids either in the feed or,
corrosion products in the preheat exchange are bound up
by the polymer. In one naphtha hydrotreater we were
actually getting about three month runs due to reactor
pressure drop where we would have to go in and skim
the bed due to this polymerization mechanism.
We solved that problem by adding an active support.
We are using criterion 814-Hc, cylinders and balls on
top of that reactor bed. Currently, we are on a nine month
run with no pressure drop increase and are cautiously
calling this a success, as the active support appears to be
hydrotreating the polymer. I would also add that we do
not see much success in hot hydrogen sweeps. I think
once you have a polymer formed or you have pluggage,
you pretty much have to go in and skim or dump. In
general, Marathon has not had great success with chemical
treatments with antifoulants, to current hydrotreater reac-
tor bed fouling, but we are still looking.
TOC/INDEX
TASKER:
While I agree with all of the remarks that have pre-
viously been made, especially Mr. Barloewen’s, let me
apply my remarks to the heavier materials. It is always
difficult to specify and find the right filter for the job.
Trying to be definitive on the type, size range and the
quantity is always extremely difficult, especially in heavy
oil processing.
In downstream of our ebulated beds, of course, we
have to deal with catalyst fines as well as the possibility
of some carbonaceous material and typical corrosion or
fouling type materials. These have to be dealt with because
you are going into downstream processing on some of
the products.
Traditionally we have used basket strainers and made
of Johnson screen. They also are typically in multifilter
arrangements and often controlled on a PLC system or
directly from the DCS. Obviously, in heavy oil processing
back flush filters require a tremendous quantity of back
flush and become somewhat cumbersome to use. So we
have concentrated on a basket type filter.
The sintered metal filters have proven to be worth their
while, but not so much in the heavy oil systems. One of
our recent developments with one of our clients has been
in Japan with a scraped surface filter on the hot heavy
oil product from the H-Oil unit, and that, of course, is
going into separation and fractionation. So we are very
interested in taking out all of the particulate matter that
may be present.
Now, this type of filter is not new, but the application
downstream, on the downstream side of the ebulated bed
system is quite recent and we are finding that we have
approximately 3 psi constant pressure drop on the scraped
surface filter.
We would not advise to going to lower than about
400 micron on the filter size on the heavy oil processes
because you will be changing filters or backwashing them
constantly. So we are looking at taking out anything from
400 up to 1,800 micron size because we are dealing with
the possibility of catalyst fines coming over.
Going up a little bit now from the heavier oil, we have
some other details concerning a special catalyst guard bed
to prevent fouling on the top of the main catalyst in some
of the downstream hydrotreaters. The catalyst HMC 841
made by Acreon was mainly designed as a demetalization
catalyst with a specific structure and low acidity. It can
accept feedstocks with some asphaltenes and metals. It
can avoid the plugging by the radicals created in the heater
by thermal degradation of the heavy feedstock because of
its acidity being very low by using a special alumina. The
radicals can be hydrogenated before they are in contact
with the higher acidity of the hydrotreating catalysts.
The constituents of the feed streams as already men-
tioned, mainly the paraffinic and aromatic characters are
important for the tendency to foul. But the operating
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
temperature as we have heard is also an important param-
eter.
It has been mentioned also that flushing is sometimes
worthwhile and that can be done to remove some of the
soluble materials. But, of course, it has its limitations.
Heavy polyaromatic structures are sometimes quite diffi-
cult to remove.
Hydrogen stripping has been mentioned, but as already
noted, that is not the best of solutions. It works in some
cases, but not in others.
CRAIG HARVEY (UOP):
Bed fouling appears to be most problematic in gas oil
hydrotreaters processing HVGO, HCGO and imported
intermediate stocks. Typically, the cause of the fouling
can be related either to (1) inadequate desalting, (2) exces-
sive coke fines, (3) naphthenic acid corrosion or (4) gums.
Gums are most commonly encountered when process-
ing purchased intermediate stocks that have been exposed
to oxygen. In some instances, prefractionation of the pur-
chased stocks has proven effective in reducing fouling
tendencies in the hydrotreater preheat exchangers and
catalyst beds.
Naphthenic crudes require special materials considera-
tions as carbon steel, chrome-molybdenum steels and cer-
tain 300 series stainless steels are subject to naphthenic
acid corrosion (NAC). NAC occurs at temperatures
within the range of 230-370°C with the peak corrosion
occuring at temperatures of 275-280°C. Corrosion is most
problematic at high velocity or impingement locations.
NAC can occur either in the preheat train of the hydro-
treating unit or in upstream facilities. The resultant iron
naphthenate corrosion products can eventually precipitate
as iron sulfide in the void spaces of the lead catalyst bed.
Our experience has indicated that NAC is generally
not a problem in hydroprocessing units when operating
with feedstocks having acid numbers less than 1.5 mg
KOH/g. In crude units and vacuum units, NAC is of
concern when processing crudes with acid numbers
exceeding 0.5 mg KOH/g.
Industry experience has indicated that a minimum of
2.5% molybdenum is required to avoid NAC. Whereas
‘‘older’’ Tp 316L generally satisfied this minimum Mo
requirement, the ‘‘modern’’ Tp 316L averages only 2.0%
Mo. Thus, the current UOP recommendation for NAC
service is to either specify Tp 316L with a 2.5% Mo
requirement or specify Tp 317L which has 3-4% Mo.
HCGO streams can contain substantial levels of coke
particles. Proper definition of the particulate loading and
particle size distribution is essential for specifying appro-
priate filtration equipment. In some cases, the loading
and particle size distribution has necessitated elaborate
filtration efforts. Backwash, cartridge and solid bed filters
(or a combination of these) have been used with varying
degrees of success.
95
TOC/INDEX

While properly designed filtration equipment is

required for the bulk of the particulate removal, the lead
reactor of most units is equipped with a top filter bed
consisting of several layers of specialized, high voidage
guard catalysts. These specialized guard catalysts are typi-
cally graded by shape, size and activity. In severe service,
a bypassable guard reactor is specified.

BRIAN MOYSE (Haldor Topsoe):

I think most people in the industry agree that the size
of the filter used is more dictated by what can be tolerated
in terms of backflashing cycle or change out frequency,
rather than the technical design. What that means is most
people have a larger opening than they really should and
are passing materials to the reactor no matter what. In
that scenario a properly designed graded bed will not only
enable you to in some cases remove trash baskets, but
also enhance your gas/liquid distribution and thereby your
catalyst utilization and run length.
BILL FAHEY (Baker Petrolite):
For hydrotreaters that have experienced an increase at
pressure drop in the reactor due to iron sulfide plugging
of the upper part of the reactor bed, the use of a proprietary
antifoulant that agglomerates the iron sulfide has been
very successful. These programs are used at high rates for
8 to 12 hours after which you go back to normal opera-
tions. We have seen about an 80 percent recovery in the
pressure loss.
RAY FRITSCHE (General Atomics):
We know of two refineries in Europe that are using
electrostatic separators for removing catalyst fines from
FCC slurry bottoms, producing a low-ash hydrotreater
feedstock. The advantage is that there is no plugging with
small catalyst particles.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
Mr. Binford, as a comment to what you have said and
what Ms. Hahn stated, do you expect polymerization for
straight run naphtha if we do not have a gas blanket on
the tank? Do you agree on removing the trash baskets of
the reactor?
Mr. Peterson, how can we ensure the proper gas liquid
distribution of the bed?
PETERSON:
We have seen some poor reactor distributor designs in
the past resulting in a lot of liquid going down one side
and the gas going down the other. We had what we called
carrots of coke forming. Sock loading of the catalyst also
promoted these distribution problems. We have gone to
well dense loading which we will talk about a little bit
later and we have gone to well designed distributor trays
to make sure that the liquid is dripping or is being sprayed
down equally over the whole cross section of the bed and
that the gas also gets into all the areas. There are various
proprietary tray designs that we view as successful and it
is the homemade ones that tend to get you in trouble.
During the installation of the tray in the reactor, we
want to make sure that the startup crew and the construc-
tion crew engineers check the distributor tray for levelness
with a water test. Make sure all the water is not pouring
down one side with liquid starvation on the other side.
BINFORD:
Regarding the processing of straight run materials, if
there is no unsaturates in the stream, I would not expect
to see any polymerization in tankage. That could be
checked for with a simple bromine number.
There are a couple of things to watch for. One is
intermittent reprocessing of slop oil or recovered oil
streams back to the front of the crude unit. Sometimes
you can get unsaturates that come back through from the
recovered oil. So you want to make sure you do not have
any incident related polymerization as a result.
Secondly, without gas blanketing in the tankage, you
are still subject to corrosion in tankage. What may look
like a polymerization problem may actually be a corrosion
problem in tankage that is carrying downstream.
BARLOEWEN:
I would like to comment briefly on distributor tray
design. One quick and dirty indicator is if you have very
large temperature gradients across the reactor diameter
either at the inlet below a quench zone or at the outlet
at the bottom of the beds.
Secondly, if you do not have very good instrumenta-
tion, Topsoe has done a lot of work in the design of
distributors. We have developed models that characterize
the performance of the three major types of designs that
are available, chimney tray, bubble cap and Topsoe tray.
We could give you an analysis.

96 Hydrogen Processing
TOC/INDEX
PAUL FEARNSIDE (Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals):
On upstream corrosion control, please remember that
when the pH of the crude unit overhead water is in excess
of 7, iron sulfide becomes insoluble and a rag layer builds.
I cannot tell you how many times I have run into that
rag layer continually growing and puking over, causing
a pretty bad pressure drop problem across the hydro-
treater reactor.
Moving down the tower as far as naphthanic acid
corrosion control goes, to address one of the panel mem-
ber’s concerns on phosphorous based chemistry, we do
have a non-phosphorous based chemistry that is
extremely effective.
As a last ditch effort to help alleviate reactor bed pres-
sure drop, we have been 80 percent effective in reducing
the pressure drop problem by using dispersant type chem-
istries. A typical treatment takes from 12-72 hours to
complete depending on the severity of the situation. Pres-
sure drop reductions in excess of 35 psi have been achieved.
JOHN ARNDT (Arndt & Associates):
I would like to relate two things on feed filters. As Mr.
Barloewen said, cold feed can be a problem. Keep feed
temperature well above cloud point Ⳮ 20°F. Feeding
from cold tankage can make your filter cycle like mad.
Watch out for periods of high cold feed rates.
Secondly, watch your back flush. Have plenty of pres-
sure available to get enough back flow to clean the filter
and get the gunk out of the whole element. Insufficient
back pressure will rattle the filter cake but not remove it
from the system. Upon forward flow, the filter just plugs
up immediately.
THIERRY DARDE (Pall Corporation):
One technology that Pall Corporation has applied in
many refineries worldwide is feed filtration by automatic
self-cleaning filter. Installed on different streams such as
coker gas oil, diesel or vacuum gas oil, Pall technology
has provided significant reactor bed protection. Pressure
drop in the reactor beds in all these applications has
remained fairly constant over a very long period of time.
It was said that usually people want to remove particles
equal or bigger than 25 micron. One point I would like
to address is the efficiency of the removal. If you work
out a few hundred of ppm of particles in the feed and if
you have a feed filtration which has an efficiency of say
10 to 20 percent when compared to a filter which can
deliver 99.99 percent efficiency, the difference in terms
of solids going to the reactor can be in terms of tons. In
other words, one could remove 25 micron/particles with
a low efficiency filter and experience reactor plugging.
The extremely high efficiency of Pall filters guaranties
that no reactor plugging could occur.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
A second comment is about recycled backwash volume.
Our technology is a gas assist technology. The main fea-
ture of this technology is that you can achieve a very low
backwash volume, typically below one percent of the feed.
Therefore, the quantity of the liquid you have to reprocess
is extremely low.
PAUL SZYMBORSKI (Norton CPPC):
As people have mentioned, many refiners have gone
to graded beds in addition to filtering for removing materi-
als on hydrotreaters. It is important to note that you need
to know the source of the particles requiring removal,
whether it is fines, metal particulates or soluble materials
because that will affect the way you design the graded
bed and the types of materials you use in a graded bed.
Norton developed macro porous rings and spheres that
we understand have been used in hydrotreater applications
since the early 1980s. The average pore size is over 100
microns, thus allowing these guard beds to actually filter
out the particulates. Therefore, the particulates are not
just plated out onto the guard bed but it is actually filtered
into the guard bed rings and/or spheres.
2. Reactor Effluent Systems
Question 10.
Has anyone observed high corrosion rates in the
exchangers and stripper feed heaters downstream of the
LP separator in a diesel HDS unit? If so, what was the
cause and what materials are recommended in this ser-
vice to avoid such high corrosion rates? Could stripped
sour water contribute to the problem?
SAMUELS:
High corrosion rates have been a problem in the
exchangers downstream of the low pressure separator,
both in Marathon’s Garyville diesel hydrotreater and Rob-
inson’s hydrocracker. Although the configurations are dif-
ferent in these units, in both cases the root cause of the
problem was under deposit corrosion from ammonium
chloride salt formation in the 350 to 400°F temperature
range. Both systems use carbon steel bundles at this point
in the effluent train. In both cases the failure occurred
on the shell side of the tubes, as a feed from the low
pressure separate is being preheated going to the stripper
or the debutanizer.
It is suspected that minor water carry over or at least
saturated conditions downstream of the low pressure sepa-
rator lead to salt deposition where vaporization occurs.
Stripped sour water if properly stripped should not con-
tribute to corrosion in these exchangers. Check your
stripped sour water for chlorides, iron, calcium, total dis-
solve solid and total hardness in addition to ammonia,
H2S and dissolved oxygen. UOP provides specifications
for this as indicated below.
97
TOC/INDEX
UOP’s Water Wash Quality Guidelines
Chlorides, wppm ⬍5
Iron, wppm ⬍2
Calcium, wppm ⬍0.5
Copper, wppm ⬍0.05
TDS, wppm ⬍10
Total Hardness ⬍1
pH 7-9.5
H2S, wppm ⬍100
NH3, wppm ⬍100
Dissolved O2, ppb ⬍20
Ammonia will always be present in the low pressure
separator, so I do not believe stripped sour water is a
problem. The key to eliminating corrosion in our case
was to eliminate any chloride source to the unit. In the
case of the hydrocracker, we installed a net gas chloride
guard bed on one of Robinson’s reformers so that all of
the hydrogen has now been treated and the problem has
gone away.
Another potential corrosion mechanism to be aware
of in this service is erosion/ corrosion in the reactor effluent
or tube side of these exchangers. If unit rates are being
pushed beyond the original design an analysis of the tube
velocities in the reactor effluent bundles should be per-
formed. Check to make sure that the water wash for
ammonium bisulfite salt is being injected in the correct
exchangers and at the proper rates. This contributes to
the higher velocities. Tube velocities above 10 to 20 feet
per second are not recommended.
MALEK:
With respect to the use of sour water in the water
wash, in our new designs we would recommend that
the water wash be done with condensate or with boiler
feedwater if it is available. This will avoid any possibility
of some high salts concentration that may be in sour
water stripper bottoms. If it is not available, I would
tend to agree that generally you would expect sour water
stripper bottoms to be an acceptable water wash medium.
But generally, we would specify that it be with boiler feed-
water.
I also agree that the chlorides, which probably would
be expected to be coming in with the hydrogen to the
hydrotreater, can contribute to the unusual corrosion in
these systems downstream of the reactor effluent coolers
and in the coolers themselves. These exchangers are nor-
mally carbon steel systems for a diesel desulferizer. We
have seen refiners use stainless steel tubes in the air coolers
in order to slow down this corrosion rate. There have
been some significant failures in the industry in these
types of air coolers in the last several years. It is something
that really needs to be continually watched.
I think the velocity and erosion effects have contributed
to quite a number of these failures. So you should be
98 Hydrogen Processing
watching your unit to make sure that the velocities are
below 20 feet per second as a reasonable target.
The question also asked about corrosion in feed heaters
downstream. This would be the stripper feed heater. I
would like to point out that refiners operate these strippers
at various pressure levels. Some refiners attempt to operate
at a sufficiently high pressure to get the off gas through
the scrubbing system and into the refinery fuel system
without vapor compression. As you raise the pressure of
the stripper, the temperatures that is needed to preheat the
feed increases. The bottoms temperature of the stripper
towers increases also. This is going to accelerate corrosion.
The feed heaters which have be carbon steel tubes may
need to be upgraded to carbon/moly steel just to offset
the corrosion from H2S as you move into higher feed
temperatures. If you are having feed heater problems look
at maldistribution across your heater. Make sure that there
is no high temperature areas in some of the tubes due to
poor flow distribution.
BARLOEWEN:
I would like to confirm what Mr. Samuels pointed
out as the primary causes, namely ammonium chloride
corrosion. The most effective way to address that is not
to pour your money into metallurgy, but to go after the
chlorides. It is extremely difficult to identify just what
metallurgy is optimum. Normally, the most likely source
of the chloride is the off gas from the catalytic reformer.
The use of the chloride trap there normally solves the
problem. Occasionally, you might have chloride contami-
nant coming in with the hydrocarbon feed. For this situa-
tion, in very extreme cases, you might go all the way to
desalting the feed.
CAIN:
We have had, in a couple of our plants, corrosion in
the stripper feed heater of a diesel hydrotreater. This was
attributed to high temperature sulfur attack. We upgraded
the tube metallurgy to nine chrome to correct the problem
at our Delaware City plant. In our Louisiana plant, we
upgraded to five chrome in the stripper reboiler heater
and also in the feed bottoms exchanger.
BOB RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Concerning the first part of the question on corrosion
in the stripper feed exchangers, I did not hear anyone
mention water carryover into the low pressure separator.
Normally, the flow goes from the high pressure separator
to the low pressure separator. Should you have water
interface level control problems in the high pressure sepa-
rator, you can form a tight emulsion in the low pressure
separator. That water can carry over into the stripper and
concentrate the salts when the water vaporizes in the feed
exchanger. Very low levels of salt can cause a very serious
problem. I know of at least one client who has installed
TOC/INDEX
a coalescer in the feed going to that exchanger with some
success on reducing the rate of corrosion in the stripper
feed exchanger.
HAHN:
We did something quite similar. We determined that
our salts were coming from a water carryover from the
low pressure separator. We installed a demister in our
low pressure separator and that seems to have solved
our problem.
Question 11.
Has anyone experienced fouling problems in the reactor
feed/effluent preheat exchangers on an FCC pretreat unit
or MHC unit? If so, what was the cause and how was it
rectified? Has anyone tried antifoulant injection in this
service? (Background: refiner operates with HVGO TBP
Endpoint 1050°F, SG 0.926, CCR 0.5 wt%, ASTM Color
⬍ 6.0, S&W 0.05 vol%-which comes directly from
upstream VDU’s and from gas blanketed storage tanks.
Treat gas is mixed with the HVGO upstream of the pre-
heat exchangers.)
PETERSON:
We have injected antifoulant in our FCC feed hydro-
treater exchange stream since day one at the very strict
advice of our licensor. He also warned that if we ever
take it out for any period of time, do not put it back in
again because anything that accumulated is going to
slough off and plug up the reactor bed. Well, we have
heeded his advice and we have experienced a four year
run. We are afraid to try anything different right now
because it has been successful. The feed to the unit com-
prises vacuum gas oil, sometimes atmospheric gas oil and
light cycle oil directly from our FCC unit.
In resid cracking season, we have fed reduced crude
and vacuum tower bottoms into the unit. All of these
feeds are direct from their units. We have at times though
had to slop some oil to a tank which, unfortunately, is
not gas blanketed. So far we have been lucky. We have
not had any major problems.
When monitoring for pressure drop without DP cells
across exchangers where you are dealing with 0 to 3000
psi pressure gauges range, it is kind of hard to see a
difference in pressure drop build up from time to time.
We are monitoring the temperatures in the exchangers.
The feed temperatures change depending on what the
feed to the unit is, so heat transfer coefficients values are
a little hard to calculate as well. Our hydrogen is mixed
with oil downstream of the feed exchangers, but upstream
of the fired reactor charge heater.
BARLOEWEN:
Again, normally the hottest shell in the feed effluent
exchanger train will need some type of periodic cleaning.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Ideally that is longer than your turnaround cycle. The
cold heat preheat shells typically do not foul a lot. Later
on it is pointed out and it is mentioned in the question
that one methodology is to use some makeup gas or
recycled gas injection into the feed to reduce fouling.
That has worked in some units, but for other units it
has not.
Finally, at the end of that list of approaches, you are up
to additives and the use of antifoulants and antioxidants to
try to extend the cycle length.
BINFORD:
Regarding the question about an antifoulant injection
in this service, we have used antifoulants successfully many
times in these applications. More importantly, I wanted
to go through a little bit of what was not provided in
this question that is really critical to understand the nature
of the fouling and then trying to design a solution around
it, whether that be mechanical operational or chemical.
Some key information that is missing from the data
provided is characterization of the feedstream itself.
Things that need to be identified and tests that should
be run are first the bromine number, which would give
a measure of unsaturated material since a high degree of
unsaturates may be indicative of a higher fouling rate.
Filterable solids and existing gums should be measured
on a representative sample. This would indicate a potential
to deposit exchangers or carry through to the reactor bed.
Pyrolle nitrogen should be measured. This would quantify
the level of nitrogen based fouling precursors which can
sometimes be very significant in regards to fouling. Finally,
total acidity and metals content should be identified. Acids
either as a result of feedstock contamination or naturally
occurring, and metals that may be either entrained or
dissolved in the feed can catalytically accelerate fouling.
Trying to solve this problem or give some direction on this
specific instance really needs some more characterization
work on the feedstream itself before an effective chemical
solution could be applied.
LLOYD WINGER (Conoco):
One of our FCC feed hydrotreaters experienced this
fouling problem, apparently due to an air leak or other
problems in the vacuum tower. We fixed the vacuum
tower and have not experienced the fouling again.
Question 12.
What is the industry’s experience with corrosion/erosion
effects on alloyed reactor effluent exchangers in hydro-
processing units? What new metallurgy (e.g., duplex
stainless steels) has been tested and/or used for reactor
effluent coolers (and associated piping) to combat
ammonium bisulfide corrosion? Under what conditions
(e.g., velocity, NH4HS concentration) have they been
tested or used, and what has been the experience
with them?
99
TOC/INDEX
TASKER:
This question is one that has come up many times
before during NPRA meetings in one form or another.
It is often a case of economics when you are using a
particular alloyed effluent exchanger. This has to be justi-
fied during the design stage. In one of our units, we have
Incoloy 800 which has been used with excellent results
from an erosion, corrosion standpoint. This particular
exchanger does not have symmetrical piping which I will
mention in a moment and it has a three bank arrangement.
There is perhaps some evidence of maldistribution, but
no evidence of erosion or corrosion.
Typically, we like to ensure that both the metallurgy
and the piping design are correct and that the standard
design criteria are followed. We strongly believe in sym-
metrical piping. It is essential for longevity of exchanger
life when serpentine tube design is used. Box header
arrangements provide quite satisfactory operation,
although we have observed both sidewall erosion and
corrosion in one effluent exchanger.
Obviously, it is extremely important also to ensure that
you have good water injection and we design for individual
water injection to each pass inlet. Typically, maximum
tube velocity is around 20 feet per second at the inlet
piping to the exchanger. The typical water injection repre-
sents about five percent of the feed flow rate with the
water effluent having a maximum of about four percent
of ammonium bisulfide salts. Last year we heard from
the panel figures from two percent to eight percent, but
we standardize at about four.
HRI and IFP have no experience with Duplex stainless
steel and we have used carbon steel, killed carbon steel,
and that is a function of the H2S concentration. We have
used 321, 316 and 347 stainless steel. I can say that carbon
steel is pretty bad news though.
For the last part of the question, most of our licensees
have examined the inlet and outlet piping of the effluent
coolers during planned turnarounds using UT testing
methods. During operation, we recommend thermal
infrared techniques to determine whether there is maldis-
tribution from both temperature and flow and we find
that there are lots of specialist companies that come in
and do that. The cheaper way, of course, is to buy your
own camera, invest a few thousand dollars and do it
that way.
ROMAN:
Ammonium bisulfite salts will deposit in effluent cool-
ers if the product of the ammonia and H2S partial pressures
exceeds 140 psia. This is easily attained in vacuum gas
oil units and a water wash must be used to prevent
solid deposition.
Carbon steel is acceptable if the velocities are limited
to 20 feet per second and the concentration of ammonium
bisulfites limited to five percent. We recently replaced
100 Hydrogen Processing
the carbon steel effluent coolers on our largest unit with
alloy 2205 duplex bundles due to repeated failures of
these bundles. The shell side inlet velocities, were almost
40 feet per second on this unit. Use of higher grade duplex
materials will allow higher velocities and salt concentra-
tions, however, we have not opted to do this since our
water wash rate has been set by the requirement to have
20 percent water in the liquid phase after injection. There
have also been recent reports of entrainment of aqueous
water into the separator vapor outlet line at higher salt
concentrations. This appears to set an upper limit of
about ten percent ammonium bisulfide no matter what
the metallurgy of the coolers.
CAIN:
In our Delaware City plant, the only erosion/corrosion
problem we have had is on the reactor effluent exchangers.
We had to replace a bundle and pillbox due to polythionic
acid and corrosion. This was due to the fact that neutraliza-
tion was not done properly. The first three exchangers
off the reactors are 304 stainless steel tube material. The
fourth exchanger is carbon steel followed by eight air
coolers. The tubes and the header boxes of the air coolers
are Incoloy 800.
The inlet and outlet piping for the air coolers is carbon
steel. The piping configuration has been changed to a
concentric flow pattern. The diameter of the piping has
also been enlarged to a lower velocity. There is also water
and chemical injection in the upstream piping.
At our Louisiana plant, we experienced some erosion/
corrosion in the carbon steel tubes of our reactor air
effluent coolers in one of our hydrotreaters as well. We
have successfully used E-BRITE on one train in this service
and have just ordered a new cooler made of Incoloy 825
for the second train.
FOSTER:
Since we are running high concentrations of Venezue-
lan crude, this is a particular problem for us. In fact we
are performing a comprehensive review of our ammonium
bisulfide susceptibility. If you are contemplating, or
already running higher nitrogen crudes like some of those
from Venezuela, I recommend performing this review
prior to this operation if possible.
We chose duplex stainless steel for the effluent air
cooler tubes for our new CFHT. While duplex stainless
steel is less expensive than some other alloys, the welding
and fabrication is to be very carefully watched: things
like the selection of the weld procedure, the welding rod
metallurgy, and qualifying procedures for the welders.
Erosion-corrosion of the inlets of the carbon steel tubes
is a common problem for us in our older units. For these
we are investigating the use of ferrules (essentially a SS
insert) for the inlets of the coolers, where most damage
takes place. Again, the devil is in the details of fabrication.
TOC/INDEX
The trick here is that the ferrules have to be carefully
tapered to prevent localized eddies at the end of the ferrule.
JOSECK:
We have a 2205 duplex stainless steel shell and tube
exchanger in high pressure 3000 psig service. The
exchanger is separator off gas and wash water on the tube
side versus recycle gas. It has been serviced since 1992.
In 1995, we pulled the exchanger offline for inspection
due to the service change in the new application. The
inspection showed no visible corrosion or mechanical
defects. Velocity at the inlet is 16 feet per second and
the salt concentration in the decanted water is 0.3
weight percent.
BOB RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
I refer everybody to the Piehl article that has been
discussed in years past at NPRA meetings, which discusses
in-depth the phenomenon of velocity and salt concentra-
tion and the K factors which affect the corrosion suscepti-
bility to exchangers. On the injection of water, I heard
one of the panelists say that they inject water to each one
of the bays. While that can be done very successfully, and
it has been on some units, there have been problems in
units where water injection to each bay had been tried.
It is tough to mix water and have a three phase system
in a downflow environment. When you inject it down-
flow, there should be a nozzle or spray. It is a lot easier
to mix three phases when you have got an upflow condi-
tion and it is a lot easier to predict the flow regime in
an upflow condition where good mixing is achieved. I will
caution you about injecting into each one of those bays.
CRAIG HARVEY (UOP):
For severe service, the use of alloy tubes may be desir-
able. Alloy construction not only provides maximum
insurance against corrosion, but it can also allow certain
design limits on velocity, Kp, and bisulfide contents to
be relaxed. However, it should be noted that relaxation
of the NH4HS design limits can have an adverse effect
on downstream piping and equipment. It should also be
noted that while alloy construction minimizes NH4HS
erosion-corrosion problems, other forms of attack can
become problematic.
Table 1 provides recent survey data with respect to the
experience with alloy construction in reactor effluent air
cooler (REAC) service. In Table 2, these data are sorted
by material.
Alloy 800, S31803 (duplex), Tp 321, and Alloy 400
(monel) have all performed well. Alloy 825 should be a
better choice over Alloy 800, but experience to date is
limited. Tp 430, S31500 (duplex), and Alonized carbon
steel have all failed for reasons given in the tabulation.
Survey data with respect to experience with alloy piping
in service downstream of the REAC is as follows:
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
● Very few plants have used alloy construction for
REAC inlet or outlet piping.
● Two plants with outlet piping of S31803 have had
no problems after five years and seven years of ser-
vice, respectively.
● One plant used Alloy 800 inlet piping, which failed
because of polythionic acid stress corrosion cracking.
● One plant used HF-modified piping, which failed
by chloride stress corrosion cracking in three years.
Alloy 800 suffers from the same shortcoming as the
austenitic stainless steels, namely, susceptibility to inter-
granular (polythionic acid) stress corrosion cracking if
used in the sensitized condition. If Alloy 800 is to be
used for headers, the carbon content must be low (below
0.03%). Alloy 825 is a preferred choice as it contains
stabilizing element.
Question 13.
Are refiners inspecting the piping into and out of their
reactor effluent coolers? If so, what methods are pre-
ferred?
MALEK:
This question deals with inspection of piping into and
out of the reactor effluent coolers. From a design stand-
point, we would recommend that provision be made in
the piping for corrosion probes. After the unit is in opera-
tion there should be an inspection procedure established
to routinely inspect these pipes while the unit is operating.
It is important to closely inspect these pipes at each turn-
around to document the effects of corrosion. The patterns
of corrosion can be monitored, particularly if you will set
up your inspection procedure to look at high turbulence
areas. The pipe should be checked for corrosion in at
least four planes.
ROMAN:
We are currently relying on ultrasonic thickness mea-
surements. We take UT readings upstream and down-
stream of all welds on all elbows and also at the outer
most point which bisects the angle of that elbow. The
three phase flow which exists in these coolers makes it
difficult to assure even flow distribution of the water wash
and we generally require symmetric inlet and outlet piping
on these exchangers to minimize flow maldistribution.
We are also considering a new technique which would
allow us to take moving radiographic scans of this piping
and display it and view it digitally as opposed to on film
as is done with normal x-ray techniques. This will allow
us to detect pitting which might be missed by spot UT
readings.
FOSTER:
We have used radiographic examination for many years
due to the unpredictable, localized nature of ammonium
bisulfide and ammonium chloride attack encountered in
101
TOC/INDEX

Table 1

Reactor Effluent Air Coolers with Alloy Construction

Peak
NH4HS Velocity Water Balanced Tube Design
Plant Kp (wet-%) (mis) Injection Headers Life (Vr) Materials Features
02 0.23 4.7 6.7 M Y 2Ⳮ Alloy 825 -
03 0.61 5.4 5.8 S 17Ⳮ Alloy 800 -
04 0.19 9.5 4.6 M N 4Ⳮ S31803 -
07 0.31 6.0 6.7 S Y 4Ⳮ S31803 -
08 0.03 4.8 6.7 S Y 1Ⳮ S31803 -
10 0.25 5.3 4.0 S N 2Ⳮ Alloy 825 -
13 0.44 5.5 4.9 M P 0** S31500 U-Tube
13 0.44 5.5 4.9 M P 6Ⳮ S31803 U-Tube
13 0.44 5.5 4.9 M P 2Ⳮ Alloy 800 U-Tube
14 0.43 3.5 5.2 M N 8*** Alloy 800 -
14 0.43 3.5 5.2 M N 1Ⳮ Alloy825 -
15 2.00 17.2 5.8 M Y 9Ⳮ Alloy 800 -
18 0.24 3.0 4.3 S Y 16Ⳮ Tp 321 U-Tube
19 0.20 10.3 5.8 S Y 12Ⳮ Tp 321 U-Tube
26 0.22 5.1 4.6 M N 8Ⳮ S31803 -
30 1.06 4.5 2.7 M N 9** Alloy 800 -
32 8.10 13.8 4.0 M N 3 Tp 430 -
32 8.10 13.8 4.0 M N 11**** Alloy 800 -
34 0.43 3.3 6.4 S N 1Ⳮ Alloy 800 825 Box
39 0.23 5.8 4.3 M N 1 Alon CS U-Tube
39 0.23 5.8 4.3 M N 26Ⳮ Alloy 400 U-Tube
40 0.68 12.4 - S Y 22Ⳮ Alloy 400 U-Tube
41 0.24 5.6 10.1 S N 9**** S31803 -
44 0.26 4.3 3.0 S Y 2Ⳮ Alloy 800 -
45 0.67 8.6 7.3 M N 7Ⳮ S32304 -
98 ? ? ? ? ? 9Ⳮ Alloy 800 -
Note ** Failed by sulfide cracking at startup.
Note *** Failed following 2 years of plant downtime.
Note **** Destroyed in a fire.
Kp ⳱ Calculated Kp Fluid Corrosivity Factor
NH4HS ⳱ Calculated Foul Water Ammonium Bisulfide Content (wt-%)
Velocity ⳱ Calculated Maximum Tube Velocity (m/s)
Wash Water Injection
S ⳱ Single Point Upstream of REAC
M ⳱ Multiple Points to Individual Bundles
Balanced Header Design (i.e., Balanced Inlet/Outlet Piping Configuration) ?
Y ⳱ Yes
P ⳱ Balanced Inlet, Unbalanced Outlet Unbalanced
N ⳱ Unbalanced

these systems. X-ray also allows you to examine the areas
covered by insulation. UT thickness methods tends to
get specific points and does not really allow a complete
profile of your pipe. Automated UT scans (utilizing crawl-
ers) can be used to give a more thorough measurement,
but the surface must smooth for these to work.
FUSSELL:
In Port Arthur, we have a 1,600 psig UOP Unibon
unit that hydrotreats about 40 percent of the feed to our
FCCU. We have identified the piping around the effluent
air fan as being very critical. We use ultrasonics to inspect
it. We inspect it once every six months and we have quite

102 Hydrogen Processing

TOC/INDEX

Table 2

Performance of Alloy Tubes in Reactor Effluent Air Coolers

Material Survey Results
Alloy 800 Used in 9 plants.
No failures by erosion-corrosion.
One failure by pitting in a coastal unit after 2 years
idleness.
Current lives up to 17 years.
Alloy 400 Used in 2 plants.
No failures.
Current lives up to 26 years.
S31803 Used in 6 plants.
No corrosion failures.
One destroyed by fire.
Current lives up to 8 years.
Alloy 825 Used in 2 plants.
No failures to date.
New installations; OK to date.
Type 321 Used in 2 plants.
No failures to date.
Current lives up to 16 years.
S31500 Used in 1 plant.
Failed by sulfide stress cracking on start-up
Improper weldment microstructure
Type 430 Used in 1 bundle.
Failed in 3 years.
CS w/Aluminum-rich surface Used in 1 bundle.
Failed in 1 year.
S32304 Used in one plant; OK after 7 years.

a few more thickness monitoring locations on this piping
than we would typically have in other services.
We have had to replace portions of this piping on two
occasions. The first one was due to erosion. UOP had
originally installed a mixing plate downstream of the air
fans which caused this erosion. I am sure that there was
a good reason for the plate, but we took it out and we
have not had the problem again. We have also replaced
portions due to general thinning.
HAHN:
I would concur with most of what has been said already,
particularly about checking for places of high velocity and
potential erosion points. We have learned the hard way
on that a few times. In addition to the methods already
discussed, we are using sheer wave and eddy current to
inspect some of our piping. We have found that to be
quite effective if you get an experienced specialist to do
your scanning for you.
BILL JOHNS (Texaco R&M, Inc.):
I agree with the panel, i.e., x-ray and do your best to
look at all of those points that you feel are troublesome.
Also, if you have a change in process and you have not
been measuring, go back to measuring frequently the
thicknesses of metal in and out of those air fans. Any
significant change in process will make a change.
On the last question, we found some tube laminations
on 800 alloy tubes in fin fans and traced it back to
manufacturing problems. We replaced those with 825
alloy and have not seen any problems with 825 alloy. We
understand another refiner on the West Coast had seen
some laminations with 800 alloy tubes as well. So be
aware of that problem.
3. Catalysts and Catalyst Sulfiding
Question 14.
Silica uptake on hydrotreating catalysts is becoming an
increasing concern. Is there a way to monitor uptake to

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 103
TOC/INDEX
effectively plan changeouts? Are there new reactor
design criteria or new catalysts on the market to help
improve run length?
FLETCHER:
The key to planning change out is accurate measure-
ment of silicone in the feedstock. Because silicone is added
to a delayed coker at variable rates based on the antifoam
requirements, which vary with the coking cycle, silicone
in the coker naphtha is variable. This means that spot
measurements of silicone content will vary widely and
will not accurately represent the average silicone of the
coker naphtha feed. Therefore, averaging a number of
spot samples taken throughout the coker cycle should
accurately represent the actual average silicon content.
The best measurement, however, of average silicone
content of coker naphtha feedstock is the average silicone
uptake over a catalyst cycle. Akzo Nobel recommends
that good records be kept of spent catalyst silicone content.
This is best done by obtaining three separate catalyst
samples when the catalyst is discharged from the unit.
These samples include: top of the main catalyst bed. This
sample will indicate the silicone uptake capacity of the
catalyst grade used. Second, we recommend a sample from
the bottom of the reactor, which identifies whether the
breakthrough has occurred. Third, a composite sample
which indicates the actual silicone pickup of the unit
during the run. If a refiner monitors the antifoam usage
at the coker over the run and measures the silicone pickup
of the catalyst during the cycle, the delta between the two
will give a good measurement of fraction which has been
absorbed by the catalyst. This number when applied to
ongoing silicone antifoam usage can then be used to
predict the silicone fed to the coker naphtha hydrotreater
as accurately as feed analytical measurements.
BARLOEWEN:
One additional factor to give you an idea when you
are about to fall off the cliff is monitoring sulfur content
on the naphtha hydrotreater. Just before your silicon
capacity is all used up, you will start to see spikes on the
nitrogen. More and more refiners are also looking at
nitrogen as heavier crudes are being introduced to their
crude slate. So that is a warning that will give you about
two weeks before you are out of business.
HENKE:
We practice those things that Mr. Fletcher mentioned.
We monitor Silicon (Si) uptake by tracking silicone con-
sumption at the delayed cokers and direct measurement
of silicon in the feed to the naphtha hydrotreater. We
reconcile these values with analysis of the spent catalyst
to assist in planning future catalyst changeouts.
We continue to use Akzo Nobel’s KF-844 in our coker
naphtha hydrotreaters with good results. This catalyst and
104 Hydrogen Processing
similar catalysts from other vendors are designed with
high surface area to maintain activity while removing the
silica. I would also refer you to the 1994 NPRA Q&A
transcript, page 128. It contains an excellent graph, pro-
vided by Mehmet Asim of Akzo Nobel, correlating silica
uptake to fresh catalyst surface area.
Finally, I would like to point out that the best way to
improve this situation is to reduce silicone consumption
at the delayed cokers. Most operators of delayed cokers
inject more silicone antifoam than is required. New tech-
niques to control coke drum outage can go a long way
to manage and ultimately reduce silicone addition.
JOSECK:
Due to a contamination in the crude, we experienced
silicon in the straight run feed to a naphtha desulfurizer.
After identifying the contamination, the catalyst was
changed out four times within a six month period without
poisoning the downstream reformer catalyst. The unit
charge rate and daily feed analysis by atomic absorption
(AA) were used to calculate a total silicone weight on the
catalyst. Comparing the calculated weight to the catalyst
vendor estimates and analysis of the preceding catalyst, a
prediction was made to plan the next catalyst changeout.
The AA instrument was calibrated using a spike feed to
a 0.3 detection limit. After each catalyst change out, a
sample of different bed locations in the reactor were ana-
lyzed for metals, to determine the take up for future
change out planning. We changed catalyst after the first
shut down to a higher surface area, a higher pore volume
catalyst for higher silica takeup based on research com-
pleted by another refinery experiencing the same contami-
nation.
We considered inserting test plugs of different catalysts
in the top of the reactor for the evaluation of silica take
up versus catalyst vendor estimates per one catalyst manu-
facturer’s recommendations.
Our problem occurred over a year ago. We did an
extensive literature research. A technical paper presented
by Terry Reid of Akzo entitled, ‘‘Coker Naphtha Hydro-
processing: Solutions for Trouble-Free Operations’’ is an
excellent resource. The paper clearly summarizes operating
catalyst variables not recently available in one location
until now. The paper clearly defines guidelines, some of
which we learned through painful experience.
TASKER:
I agree with the preceding comments. Perhaps you
might want to consider having a spare charge of catalyst,
but that is always an expensive option. One way to
improve the run length, of course, is to design the reactor
with a space velocity of about two or less.
The first consideration though is for the diolefins and
the second consideration is for hydrotreating when it
comes to the silica poisoning. Now, our experience is that
TOC/INDEX
you can probably go up to about eight weight percent of
silica as SIO2 with the cobalt moly catalysts before you
can say that the catalyst is essentially dead. The surface
area is very important to assure longevity of operation. The
form of the silica which affects the catalytic performance is
not fully known, but is assumed to be SIO2. It is also
assumed that virtually all of the silica is from the antifoam
agents used in the coker operation and it generally goes
to the naphtha cut. The formula for that antifoam is
generally known by the antifoam manufacturer and you
can get some of that information from your suppliers. It
is generally supplied in a polyglycol form.
For total life estimation, this has been mentioned
already, but you need to know the volume of catalysts in
the reactor. When you are approaching that eight percent
calculated number, I think you will see some bad perfor-
mance.
As guidelines, we have experience with feed silica levels
of between one and two ppm in Germany and similar
levels in Italy and Sweden. For U.S. domestic licensees,
we have units designed for up to five weight ppm of silica
in the feed. For South American, we are looking at units
capable of handling 10 weight ppm in the feed.
Usually for that type of situation, you need more cata-
lyst and you need a surface area of approximately 200
square meters per gram per cc. There are limits, however,
and there is a need to improve the catalyst and have a
higher pore volume for higher tolerance. The main idea
is to design the catalyst volume which will give you at
least a two year life based on the expected feed silica
content. Watch your delta T and watch your delta P and
you should be in good shape. A delta T of less than 40°C
is good and you may have to recycle to keep it at this level.
DAVID DiCAMILLO (Criterion Catalyst Co.):
I agree with everything the panel has said. Additionally,
there are catalysts specifically designed for silica uptake
that will hold more than the levels Mr. Tasker mentioned.
Criterion DN-140 has been analyzed at 11 wt% Si (22%
SiO2) after removal from a commercial NHT treating
100% coker naphtha.
Depending on the age of the catalyst and the unit
design, if you are spiking silica in your feed, we have
observed that it can carry through even though the catalyst
has not reached its normal uptake capacity. So if you
have a critical service like a reformer downstream, you
might want to pay close attention to your antifoamer
addition and be aware that if you pass spikes through,
they will get into the product. When you get back to
normal addition rates, the product will be silica free again.
Question 15.
Given the reduction in L/D ratio that occurs during the
catalyst regeneration process, what is normally accepted
as the minimum average particle length for extrudate
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
catalyst loaded into a hydroprocessing reactor? What is
the minimum acceptable particle length, below which
pressure drop and flow maldistribution problems are
expected to occur?
CAIN:
As a general rule, once the length over diameter (L/
D) ratio drops below three, you will see a noticeable
increase in the pressure drop. Your catalyst supplier can
supply specific information on a given reactor configura-
tion.
FLETCHER:
We believe that this answer really has three aspects.
(1) We believe that the minimum average length for
regenerated catalyst is about 2.5 millimeters for 1/20th
inch diameter catalyst. With this catalyst length the pres-
sure drop will probably not be a problem in the majority
of units. The average length should be greater than 2.8
millimeters which should give a satisfactorily low pressure
drop for any unit able to use 1/20th inch diameter catalyst.
This minimum should be increased as the catalyst diame-
ter grows, 3.5 millimeters for 1/10th inch and an L/D
of at least of at least one for larger sizes. (2) Equally
important in determining fitness for use is the catalyst
length distribution. The content of short catalyst particles
has a large impact on the pressure drop. Generally, the
concentration of catalyst particles with an L/D of less
than one should be less than 15% of the total catalyst
particles. Fines content should be less than one percent
by weight. (3) Other important considerations are the
side crushing strength (⬎3.5 pounds per millimeter), and
the Compact at Bulk Density (CBD), (⬍10% increase
compared to fresh catalyst). The CBD is directly linked
to void volume which has a large impact on pressure drop.
BARLOEWEN:
The real issue with how much degradation and down
sizing of particles you can tolerate is what pressure drop
you can tolerate. Every new unit is designed for a start-
of-run clean pressure drop and has an allowance for foul-
ing. That fouling allowance can be used up with particu-
lates or it can be used up as you install a smaller catalyst
and every catalyst will become somewhat smaller on regen-
eration.
One data point that we have is for a catalyst that started
out as 1/16th inch catalyst with a 3:1, L/D ratio. After
one regeneration, and (of course) screening out fines, the
L/D ratio dropped to 2 to 1 and that unit saw approxi-
mately a 10 percent increase in pressure drop, which was
not a problem for them.
TASKER:
Of course, this question was aimed at typical hydropro-
cessing catalysts, and perhaps we should include the grow-
ing number of bottoms up grading processes such as our
105
TOC/INDEX
H-Oil process which uses large quantities of catalyst. Of
course, we would like to have a decent way of reusing
that catalyst and regeneration by itself does not quite cut
the mustard.
We have a new process which I have mentioned before
at other NPRA meetings, the rejuvenation process. That
allows us to significantly reduce our catalyst costs by
reprocessing the catalysts instead of sending it to metals
reclamation.
So obviously we have a great concern over the potential
degradation of the extrudate when being handled in regen-
eration and rejuvenation processes. But we find that the
size reduction or particle breakage is typically quite low.
The typical L/D ratio for the 1/32nd inch extrudate is
in the range of two to five. L/Ds of 1.5 to 2 are acceptable,
but L/Ds of 1.0 or less are not so desirable. Now, for
fixed bed operations, this could cause problems with mal-
distribution. The smaller the particle, the greater the likeli-
hood that it will migrate to the top of the bed in an
ebullated bed. So the problems faced for L over Ds of
one or less is loss from the bed as catalyst fines. We should
try and eliminate those particles in the regeneration or
rejuvenation process by screening. This, of course, is fairly
typical for most ex situ regeneration processes for typical
hydroprocessing catalysts.
JIM SEAMANS (CRI International, Inc.):
Ex situ catalyst regeneration processes have been
designed to minimize attrition and loss in L/D ratio during
the regeneration process. Screening of the catalyst is also
standard practice to remove the chips and fines generated
during the use and unloading of the catalyst from the
reactors. L/D ratios in the 1.5 to three range are typical
of regenerated material and normally not a concern for
most units. If a customer has a reactor that is particularly
sensitive to pressure drop, CRI offers an additional service
of length grading to remove short particles that are not
removed by standard screening. This allows for the return
of a product with average lengths comparable to fresh.
Question 16.
What hot hydrogen strip procedures are used to free a
hydrotreating catalyst bed of hydrocarbons and H2S for
the purpose of dumping the catalyst?
CAIN:
In our Louisiana plant after the charge is taken out,
the reactor section is swept with hydrogen at 500°F until
we can not detect water in the high pressure separator.
Temperatures are then cut for reactor cooldown. The
recycled gas flow continues until the reactor is cooled
down to 200° to 180°F at which time once through
nitrogen is used. Liquid nitrogen supplied by a truck is
vaporized to 0°F and cools the reactor down to 105°F.
106 Hydrogen Processing
FLETCHER:
Akzo Nobel recommends cutting out the heater at
around 350°F allowing the reactor to begin cooling down.
Approximately 125°F shut down the treat gas compressor,
slowly reducing the pressure while maintaining a slight
positive pressure to ensure no oxygen enters the system.
The catalyst can be maintained indefinitely under these
conditions. Some variations can include stripping with
hot sour hydrogen at less than 700°F. The H2S content
must remain above 1,000 parts per million to prevent
reduction of the metals. Washing with LCO or higher
aromatic content feedstock prior to hydrogen stripping is
sometimes used to achieve very low hydrocarbon contents.
FOSTER:
Our procedures call for a 10 hour hot hydrogen sweep
of the catalyst bed at 600°F. We then cool down to
approximately 150°F on hydrogen circulation before
nitrogen purge and cooldown.
HAHN:
On our diesel hydrotreater, we sweep with hydrogen
in a recycle mode at 600°F and 1,000 pounds of pressure
for three to five hours. Then we switch to liquid nitrogen
again as we cool. We sweep once through and then we
pressure up with nitrogen to about 1,000 pounds and
then very quickly lower the pressure to zero. We call this
a ‘‘pop.’’ We go through nitrogen pops several times. We
found that very effective in moving remaining hydrocar-
bon out from low points to where we can drain it off.
This seems to have reduced our total shutdown time
considerably.
HENKE:
We closely monitor and control reactor operation dur-
ing startups, shutdowns, and process upsets to stay within
predetermined guidelines. Proper monitoring and control
of the reactor temperature and pressure coupled with
proper documentation and record keeping should extend
the life of the reactor. I would also add that proper training
of fire fighting and emergency response crews to take
appropriate precautions around the reactors will also direc-
tionally extend their life. During turnarounds, we have
used automated ultrasonic scans, acoustic emissions mea-
surements, and traditional internal inspections to monitor
vessel integrity.
JOSECK:
The only thing I have to add is for units handling
heavy feedstock, we usually switch to a light virgin feed
before shutdown.
PETERSON:
We have shortened the time for the hot hydrogen strip
down to just a few hours and we watch to see if any
TOC/INDEX
hydrocarbon accumulates in the separator downstream.
Similar to Mr. Cain’s, comment, we would use diesel to
flush out the heavy material in our FCC feed hydrotreater.
After this couple hour sweep we switch to nitrogen.
If you have a multiple reactors in a hydrotreater and
are only going to change catalyst out in the lead reactor,
the hot hydrogen strip could lead to desulfiding of the
other reactors if you do not have an H2S source. We have
gone to shortened times and go with nitrogen cooldown.
SAMUELS:
I agree, and directionally we are moving away from the
historical longer hot hydrogen sweeps. We see diminishing
returns once the hot separator level stops building. We
are going to more nitrogen use.
TASKER:
Most of the comments were already made. We generally
look at a guideline for hydrogen stripping of about 200
standard cubic feet of pure hydrogen per cubic foot of
catalyst. That seems to be quite effective. The temperature
at which you do it, of course, will be a function of the
feed that you have in the system because you want to get
all of that material out, and the duration. Obviously we
want that as minimum as possible and typically 12 hours
will do it. The nitrogen sweeping is a good way to go.
But, of course, that depends on your compressor. As has
been mentioned, you may want to invest that extra money
and bring in liquid nitrogen and do the sweep as a once
through operation.
Question 17.
What level of refinery engineering supervision is prac-
ticed in the loading of catalyst in hydrotreating/hydro-
cracking reactors?
FOSTER:
LYONDELL-CITGO refinery has 38 fixed catalyst
bed vessels and a working inventory of 4.8 MM pounds
of catalyst. Rather than assigning the unit engineers to
manage this asset, we have centralized this under 2 Catalyst
Coordinators. They do everything related to catalyst. Let
me give you a list of their responsibilities:
● They work with the engineering, operations, and
catalyst technical staff to determine best catalyst
selection and load configuration for each reactor.
● They design and maintain catalyst loading devices.
● They develop catalyst handling SOPs, EOPs, safety
procedures. These are custom developed for each
catalyst job and provided to the catalyst handling
contractor for execution.
● They provide round-the-clock supervision of cata-
lyst handling activities during turnarounds.
● They maintain all fixed catalyst inventories, precious
metals balances, and work with financial people to
properly account for these.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Since we started this practice 17 years ago, we have
had not one incident of improperly loaded catalyst. More
importantly, we have had only contractor LWDI in 17
years. Our success here is mostly due to the fact that we
have two very high quality individuals who take pride in
their work. They see that not only their work but the
work of their contractors is done safely and expertly.
This might not be for everyone, but for a refinery of
our size, this helps our focus on catalyst issues. This allows
the engineer to focus on optimizing the operation rather
than supervising catalyst handlers.
FUSSELL:
We obviously do not have as many reactors and we
use process engineers extensively to supervise both the
unloading and the loading of all of our catalyst reactors
in the refinery. They also work on the front end to develop
the scope of work. They help select the catalyst contractor
that does the job. As I mentioned, we have around the
clock coverage on the unloading of the catalyst. We try
to collect a good composite sample of what we are taking
out of the reactor so that maybe we can learn some things
about it and determine if it is regeneratable. We also have
around the clock coverage on the loading. These engineers
do more than just technical type support. They coordinate
the work between our maintenance staff and the catalyst
handler, so it is a pretty major effort on their part.
HAHN:
We have one field engineer that follows the catalyst
loading and unloading around the clock in addition to
some of their other duties. We bring in a catalyst specialist
to do our loading and unloading inert. So we do not
directly load. We just sort of monitor and make sure they
are loading as per our diagrams and instructions.
FLETCHER:
In general, we agree with the comments stated so far.
Our general observation is that not enough supervision
is being used. We have observed several cases of maldistri-
bution in hydroprocessing units where the catalyst was
dense loaded at a slant. And in all cases, the refinery did not
have engineering supervision during the entire loading.
In concurrence with some of the other comments, we
recommend that a team be formed between the personnel
from the refinery and the loading contractor. We further
recommend that evenness of catalyst levels and loading
density be determined at different loading heights and
checked with the expectations. Further, we recommend
that it is essential to check the reactor internals, i.e., the
condition, the cleanliness, including the support, and also
look for a contractor who has available video camera
monitoring during the load.
107
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
We process 7% heavy coker naphtha in one of our
diesel hydrotreaters.
The coker naphtha is co-processed along with light
coker gas oil, straight run diesel, and FCC light cycle oil.
A 3.5 year run was obtained without pressure drop prob-
lems.
JOSECK:
We typically staff for a reactor loading with refinery
engineering including both mechanical and process engi-
neers. The engineers are trained by the responsible process
unit engineer and have full authority for the direction of
the reactor loading. During times when numerous reactors
are loaded simultaneously, we have hired consulting engi-
neers on retainer who have experience at the refinery to
assist in the supervision of the loading under the direction
of the process engineer.
SAMUELS:
We have a catalyst expert, technical expert, to oversee
catalyst loading, purchases and so on. But we do in fact
use unit engineers as Ms. Fussell described in each refinery
to do the loading. We have stopped the practice of training
our engineers for inert entry and we do not allow the
engineers to go in during dense loading to take measure-
ments in inert systems.
We also are trying to use the catalyst loading company
technology, the video technology, where the engineer can
actually be in voice contact with the contractor in the
reactor and observe what is going on a video screen. That
has proven very beneficial.
TASKER:
I must laud Mr. Foster’s approach or Lyondell-Citgo’s
approach. It seems to be a very useful one, and very good
engineering practice. From a licensor point of view, we
obviously require some engineering supervision for the
reactor internals as well as the loading because we have
a little bit more to protect. We have some guarantees that
need to be met and we have to make sure that the catalyst
is loaded correctly.
BOB RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
I have been troubleshooting in hydrotreaters and
hydrocrackers for many years and one of the flaws with
our industry is that there has been and still is, as far as
I am concerned, insufficient supervision of catalyst loading
throughout the industry. I think we have underestimated
the problems that are caused by poor catalyst loading. I
am pleased to hear some of the comments from the panel
by people stressing emphasis on supervising catalyst load-
ing. We offer a consulting service to train the refinery
engineers on catalyst loading. I was with UOP when dense
loading was first started. I ran dense loaders in reactors
108 Hydrogen Processing
for a number of years. The many years of experience
qualifies RES to offer catalyst loading services. We can
either supervise and coordinate the catalyst loading or we
can train your people to be better at doing that job.
BRIAN MOYSE (Haldor Topsoe):
I just want to add one thing; Mr. Roddey gave me a
lead in there. We feel that it is essential to have supervision.
John Miller published a very good two page article in the
May 1987 issue of Hydrocarbon Processing on pages 53
and 54 entitled ‘‘Include Tech Service Engineers in Turn-
around Inspections,’’ about this very subject and what
the payback was. As an example of how things can go
wrong, we had one unit that did not have any supervision
and they loaded the grading on the bottom and the catalyst
on top.
JIM ZEIBIN (Husky Oil):
We do keep our process engineers around the clock
24 hours for catalyst loading. One thing we found with
the catalyst specialist is they are very poor in math and
they will load a reactor totally wrong even if they have a
good loading diagram. They get pounds and kilograms
confused and millimeters and inches confused. It is essen-
tial you have a good person that knows how to do math
right there.
Question 18.
There appear to be some new developments in catalyst
dense loading technology. What improvements have
been achieved commercially in terms of catalyst loading
rate and volume of extra catalyst installed? Were there
any negatives, e.g., higher SOR pressure drop? Please
give details of catalyst size and shape, bed size, and
unit service.
PETERSON:
We recently used a contractor to dense load a FCC
feed hydrotreater reactor as recent as last Friday. This
contractor uses the Total developed densicat system. I
used to run a densicat when it was first brought out many
years ago. It has been more an evolution than a revolution
in the densicat design. There was some concern for grada-
tion of particle size in a radial manner. It seemed like
there would be bigger particles towards the outside of the
reactor and smaller particles towards the center.
Part of the evolution of the densicat was to change
from uniform linked layers of rubber strips to varying
lengths, changing the shapes of the strips, doing a few
other things on the distribution of the catalyst to the
rubber strips. They also changed the direction and rota-
tion, every 12 super sacks in our case.
For the supervision, we have engineers around the clock
with the catalyst company and they were very good catalyst
loading company. The reactor that we loaded was a single
TOC/INDEX
bed of 8,600 cubic feet about 50 feet in depth. The
densification that we got was very close to the compacted
bulk density as predicted by the catalyst manufacture.
As far as the benefits of dense loading, these have been
discussed at past NPRA sessions and in various articles.
There is some concern about the initial pressure drop of
the system. But we feel that the build of pressure drop
is slower with dense loading. So if you integrate it over
the whole run of the cycle, you can probably have a lower
pressure drop or a longer run by not developing coked
areas or hot spots or having to cut short the cycle because
of some means other than pressure drop. As I said before,
good dense loading does not make up for poor distribution
of liquid and vapor. You have to have everything work-
ing properly.
TASKER:
Well, there are a number of specialized processes for
dense loading of catalysts and most companies have either
their own or preferred procedures. At IFP, we have the
catapack process and we generally get about 10 to 15
percent more extrudate in the reactors.
For spherical catalysts, of course, it packs quite well
by itself and the improvement is generally less due to
this characteristic. Typically, we see three to five percent
improvement, but we have seen up to ten with spheres.
Our experience has been with extrudate catalysts and
absorbants of .6 to 1.2 millimeter diameter up to three
to five millimeter diameter absorbance. The extrudate
length is typically four to six millimeters long. With
spheres, our experience has been with three to five millime-
ter diameter spheres.
On vessel diameter, we have successfully dense loaded
catalysts into vessels up to 26 feet in diameter for absorb-
ance and 13 to 16 feet diameter catalysts. We feel that
it really does help from a channeling viewpoint and we
even recommend it for vessels as small as three feet in
diameter. It is rather difficult to get a man into something
smaller than that.
When you are dense loading, you have to consider
what constraints you might have in the system and bed
pressure drop might be one of those if you do not have
have enough recycled compressor capacity or head. We
find that we get better temperature distribution and overall
much improved operation.
On the pressure drop side, we do see the estimated
pressure drops which are perhaps four to eight pounds
higher than sock loading, but it depends on the cata-
lyst volume.
FLETCHER:
Our colleagues in Japan report a new loader developed
by and called Idecat. It has a variable height that allows
a uniform distance between the catalyst bed surface and
the loading machine. Therefore, theoretically this would
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
give a more uniform bed density. According to the devel-
oper, this method reduces variations in bulk density, in
radial cross section of the catalyst bed, as compared to a
loading method in which a catalyst loader is fixed at the
top of a reactor. Some substantial increases in loading
rate have been reported, especially when compared to a
fixed position dense loader. In addition, this method will
minimize catalyst breakage and fines generation during
the loading which is observed in high free fall loading.
Another technology has been reported out of Japan which
uses laser beam technology to ensure an even bed surface
during the loading.
Question 19.
What analytical techniques are being used on a regular
basis in refineries to quantify aromatics reduction in
diesel and/or VGO hydrotreaters? How accurate and sen-
sitive are these methods?
ROMAN:
Our control labs do not measure aromatics in either
diesel or VGO hydrotreater products routinely. Most of
these analyses are performed in our R&D labs. We have
used FIA, ASTD1319 and super critical fluid chromatog-
raphy or SFC ASTD5186 for diesel streams. Diesel is
outside the recommended scope for FIA, but it is still
widely used in the industry. The reproducibility deter-
mined for gasoline samples ranges from 3.0 to 3.5 percent.
However, for diesel samples, the ASTM cross check
program reproducibility is closer to ten percent. The color
of many diesel streams makes FIA difficult and somewhat
subjective. The reproducibility of the FSC method is four
percent. Neither method does a good job in separating
multiring partially saturated molecules. They cannot gen-
erally distinguish between benzene and tetralyn for
instance. In FIA, tetralyn would be detected as aromatics
and in SFC as monoaromatics.
For VGO or vacuum gas oil analyses at Ashland we
use an in-house HPLC method and this method is excel-
lent for virgin streams including residues where a separate
step is used to remove the asphaltenes before further
analysis. The method separates the feed into saturates,
monoaromatics, diaromatics, greater than diaromatics,
and polar aromatics, with repeatability for each fraction
being three percent, two percent, one percent, two percent
and .5 percent respectively.
However, we have never been able to balance hydrogen
consumption and reported aromatic ring loss across either
laboratory or plant hydrotreating reactors using this tech-
nique. We have concluded that the changes in ring satura-
tion numbers are close to the uncertainty of the tests.
Prior to using this method, we used mass spec method
ASTM D3239 which, if the operator was very meticulous,
provided excellent resolution of partially saturated multi-
ring aromatics.
109
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
We routinely monitor aromatics reduction in our high
pressure diesel hydrotreaters using super critical fluid chro-
matography. In our FCC feed pretreaters, we monitor
relative aromatics reduction with refractive index and ani-
line point. We are in the process of developing an HPLC
method for routine use. From our experience, the HPLC
technique will be no better than the SFC in terms of
sensitivity. However, the HPLC method is better at han-
dling the increased concentration of polar materials which
are present in the gas oils.
JOSECK:
We are currently using FIA. We are considering SSC
as the test method. SSC provides a repeatable answer and
takes a fraction of the time as FIA, but it is more expensive
and more complex. We are also using a pectrospect GS230
diesel aromatics analyzer with some success for control
purposes which uses mid infrared spectroscopy. Pectros-
pect results are close to the FIA results and work close
to SFC results as both reported by pectrospect and based
on our experience.
FLETCHER:
I concur with the comments that have been made
previously. We have seen FIA, SFC, HPLC, and clay gel
separations. The only comments I would add are that in
concurrence with previous comments, FIA is not accepta-
bly accurate, no better than about three percent absolute,
but is quick and inexpensive. The SFC is slowly replacing
HPLC as the more accurate, albeit more expensive and
cumbersome, method for gas oil aromatics. Both methods
have an accuracy of around one percent absolute when
properly calculated.
High pressure liquid chromatography gives informa-
tion on aromatics distribution over the boiling range and
is very useful for benchmarking FCC feed. Prediction can
be made as to how many monoaromatics go into the
gasoline, diaromatics into the LCO, three to four ring
aromatics that will go to coke only. The three to four
ring aromatics are vital information for coking tendency
for the FCC feed and can be used to benchmark resids.
FUSSELL:
In Port Arthur we recently started doing aromatic satu-
ration testing on the feed and product to our Unibond
unit on a regular basis. We used the Fina modified Crite-
rion method. I do not have the specifics on that, but I
am sure Criterion would be more than happy to discuss
the method with you. We do not feel like that the accuracy
is all that great, but the test is repeatable and we do see
trends. When we take the deasphalted oil out of our
Unibond unit, the saturation of aromatics goes up tremen-
dously. So we definitely see trends with the testing.
110 Hydrogen Processing
Question 20.
Discuss the effects on activity and pressure drop when
changing hydrotreating catalysts from 1/8’’ to 1/16’’ O.D.,
and 1/16’’ to 1/20’’ O.D. Are there any differences in
effects for lobed vs. cylindrical particles?
FLETCHER:
With respect to the pressure drop effects, we have seen
a number of general rules of thumb that can be used for
sock loading pressure drop. They are 1/8 inch cylinders
equal 1/10 inch quadrolobe, 1/16th inch cylinders are
equal to 1/20th inch quadrolobe, and 1/20th inch quadro-
lobe is twice 1/10th inch quadrolobe.
The dense loading changes these relationships because
the cylinders do not achieve the same density increase as
is achieved by the shape catalyst. With respect to the
activity effects, the catalyst size and shape definitely affect
catalyst activity. Shape catalyst decreases the effective cata-
lyst diameter relative to the apparent catalyst diameter.
Thus, fast reactions and reactions involving large mole-
cules have the largest size effects. There is practically no
impact on catalyst activity for gas phase reactions between
the 1/20th and the 1/10th inch catalysts.
However, demetalization shows very large size effects
with improving activity and ultimately metals capacity
with the smaller sizes. HDS also exhibits a significant size
effect of about 15 percent between the 1/10th and the
1/20th inch quadrolobe catalyst. The HDN exhibits a
somewhat smaller size effect, approximately ten percent.
Catalyst pore diameter, feed molecular weight and size
affect all these values.
BARLOEWEN:
I will share with you numbers as we go from 1/20th
inch to 1/16th and then down to 1/8th inch and I am
dealing with lobe particles now. For denitrogenation ser-
vice as in hydrocracking pretreat, relative activity would
go from 100 to 90 to then 60. So there is a significant
reduction in activity as you go to larger particle size. The
reason that you go the other way is because you need
pressure drop relief in units that have been pushed well
beyond their original design capacity. From a pressure
drop standpoint, if you start at 1/8th inch, we would see
almost a doubling of pressure drop to go to 1/16th and
another 20 percent increase to go to 1/20th.
JOSECK:
Obviously, the smaller the diameter of the catalyst, the
less diffusion resistance there is and it is going to be
more pronounced with heavier feeds. Lobe catalyst further
reduces fusion resistance. In our commercial experience
at high pressures typical of lube oil hydrotreating, the
differences between lobe and cylindrical were not measur-
able, but the differences were apparent at the pilot
plant level.
TOC/INDEX
Question 21.
A number of new high-activity hydrocracking pretreat
catalysts have been introduced during the past 2 years.
What is the commercial experience with these catalysts?
HAHN:
We pilot tested several of the new hydrocracking cata-
lysts that are available and selected one based on HDN
activity. We have since loaded these and have seen quite
a bit of success. Our West Coast refineries have seen a
one to two year cycle length on these nickel moly catalysts
to date and so far they are exceeding past cycle perfor-
mances over their previous catalysts.
BARLOEWEN:
Topsoe introduced a new high activity denitrogenation
catalyst TK555 in late 1995. To date it has been installed
in 14 units of which six are in hydrocracking pretreat
service. The first of these hydrocrackers went online in
September of 1996 and the remaining were started up
early this year. All of them are doing very well and operat-
ing at lower temperatures at this point in their cycle than
at comparable points on previous cycles. Topsoe will be
introducing another new more active catalyst in the spring
of next year.
FLETCHER:
Akzo Nobel produces many high activity hydrocracker
pretreat catalysts, both licensed with UOP which include
HCK, HCP and more recently HCT as well as open
market grades such as KF843 and 846. UOP recently
published a paper and presented it yesterday in our techni-
cal seminar covering the commercial performance of the
HCP in four refineries around the world. These results
show an average 25 percent increase in HDN volume
activity compared to the previous generation of catalysts
such as HCK. In one case this translated to over a 20°F
lower operating temperature requirement and the stability
was equivalent to the reference HCK. The extra activity
can be used to extend cycle length or to reduce the period
of nitrogen slip commonly seen at end of run.
TASKER:
We have seen the introduction of several higher activity
catalysts over the last few years and there have been some
apparent marked improvements, but we have to recognize
that these are based on initial activities and we are waiting
right now to determine the catalysts’ longevity to make
sure that they are confirmed.
The indications are that overall life may be less than
before. But on the other hand, some of the commercial
tests have shown a lower initial activity but then very
stable operations with the HR348 and HR360 mild
hydrocracking catalysts.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
KIRK NOVAK (Criterion Catalyst Company):
We have introduced a process called Century which
is a step out technology in manufacturing. This new
catalyst line produces two catalyst products, the DN190
and also HCR from UOP, part of our license catalyst
that we provide. The HCR was the focus of a paper from
UOP at the last NPRA Annual Meeting. With the DN190
and HCR we have over seven units in the industry. The
activity advantages of this catalyst are well-known in terms
of unit operations, about 136 volume metric percent activ-
ity increase.
Question 22.
In choosing a spiking agent for presulfiding, what criteria
should be evaluated (e.g., environmental, solubility,
economic, toxicity, etc.)?
BARLOEWEN:
We attempted to summarize some of the benefits of
various sulfiding chemicals that are used and put together
in the following tables. Hydrogen sulfide is the first of
these. This is fairly widely used in North America because
it is available in most refineries. It is cheap. On the down
side, one of its drawbacks is that it is rarely available in
the rates and the pressures that you need. So, you are
inevitably limited in the speed at which you are able to
sulfide. And speaking from personal experience, I know
many people get frustrated and do not do a thorough
job of sulfiding because of the pressure of getting their
unit online.
The major advantage of carbon disulfide is low cost,
low decomposition temperature and high sulfur content.
However, it is very flammable, has low auto ignition
temperature and high vapor pressure.
Another sulfiding catalyst, dimethyl sulfide, has been
used, and is moderate in cost, moderately high in sulfur
content. However, on the down side it has high vapor
pressure and severe odor problems and has been broadly
replaced by dimethyl disfulide.
111
TOC/INDEX

Table 3 5) the energy of sulfiding; (i.e., is the sulfur in the

feed per 50 degree temperature rise); and
Presulfiding Agents 6) their suitability for equipment and sulfiding proce-
dure.
Hydrogen sulfide, H2S
We believe that all the common agents are effective for
Carbon disulfide, CS2
sulfiding but not all are recommended for some sulfiding
Dimethyl sulfide, DMS
procedures and reactor conditions. Our recommendation
Butyl mercaptan, DMDS
is that you contact your catalyst vendor for their advice.
Tertiary nonyl polysulfide TNPS
Tertiary butyl polysulfide TBPS
JOSECK:
Ethyl mercaptan EM
We have had several bad experiences with sulfiding
Dimethyl sulfoxide DMSO
agents due to unforeseen events. We agree environmental,
Dioctyl polysulfide DOPS
economics and toxicity should be some of the criteria for
selection. However, numerous other factors must also be
considered including side reactions, intermediate com-
pounds, and the process units’ design and downstream
Two of the spiking agents that are most broadly used,
processing. Intermediates formed during the sulfiding
dimethyl disfulide and tertiary nonyl polysulfide. The
procedure can be as or more hazards and odorous as the
dimethyl disulfide has moderate costs, low vapor pressure
sulfiding agent. Intermediates should be considered for
and lower decomposition temperature than dimethyl sul-
toxicity and the environmental hazards also. Side reactions
fide. However, it still has a significant odor problem and
can cause undesirable products using some sulfiding
is quite toxic. However, because of the price factor has
agents. Side reactions may determine if gas or liquid phase
it is still quite broadly used worldwide. Normal bulymer
or in situ or ex situ sulfiding is preferred. We would
mercaptan is really just a ‘‘throw- away’’ on this list. It
recommend consulting the supply or the sulfiding agent
is theoretically possible to use it, but because it has such
and the catalyst supplier for the recommended sulfiding
an atrocious odor in minute quantities it is very rarely
procedures. We also recommend developing formal writ-
used. Tertiary nonyl polysulfide has been quite widely
ten procedures and formal operator training. Hazardous
used. The odor is much improved, low decomposition
analysis with operators should be considered before chang-
temperature, low vapor pressure, low toxicity. However,
ing. Numerous papers and data are available for presulfid-
there is no free lunch. It is expensive. You also have to
ing agents and sulfiding processes. I recommend reading
keep the temperature up because it gets very viscous at
them as much a possible before changing.
lower temperatures.
Finally, of the three that I mentioned, TBPS or tertiary
SAMUELS:
butyl polysulfide is one of the most broadly used and has
I would only add that a paper is available from Gaylord
low odor, lowest decomposition temperature, and low
Chemical entitled ‘‘Enviro-S: An Exceptional Sulfiding
toxicity. Offsetting that, it is expensive. DMSO is from
Agent, Operationally Safe and Free From Odor’’. It is a
a characteristic standpoint the preferred material, i.e., low
1991 paper that compares quantitatively the relative mer-
toxicity, low odor, and low flammability. One factor to
its of a number of sulfiding agents. Parts of this report
keep in mind, it must be used in solution with water
were published in the September 18th, 1989 Oil and Gas
because of a high freeze point. We did not have a good
Journal. It gives a good overview on toxicity and also
reading on price. Last year’s Q&A indicated that it was
degradation temperatures and physical properties.
moderately priced.
TASKER:
FLETCHER: Obviously, weight has to be given to each of the criteria
Well, it is difficult to add to Mr. Barloewen’s complete detailed, i.e., environmental, solubility, economic, toxic-
answer, but I will approach it differently. We would say ity, etc., to come up with the agent which fits the refiner’s
that spiking agents for presulfiding are differentiated by needs best. The general problems already mentioned asso-
the following criteria: ciated with the spiking agents are the temperature at which
1) cost per pound of sulfur; it will convert to H2S, good control of the exotherm
2) the environmental impact risk, i.e., odor, toxicity released, good control of distribution to ensure the catalyst
an vapor pressure; is all presulfided. And, of course, one has to consider the
3) the byproduct yields (i.e., how much water and possibility of flaring surplus H2S.
hydrocarbon such as methane, LPG or naphtha is DMDS has been the work horse of the spiking agents
produced per pound of sulfur); used today, but how about something a little bit different
4) their decomposition conditions called Add-It-In? Add-It-In 400 is being used in Europe

112 Hydrogen Processing

TOC/INDEX

Table 4

Sulfiding Chemicals Advantages and Disadvantages

Chemical Advantages Disadvantages
H2S (Sour Gas) Least expensive Least control (rate and amount available may vary)
No chemical handling May require more time, resulting in less than optimum
sulfiding (low activity)
CS2 Low cost Very flammable
Low Decomposition Temp Low autoignition temperature
High Sulfur Content Toxic
High vapor pressure
DMS Moderate Cost High vapor pressure
Moderately High Sulfur Content Severe odor problem
High decomposition temperature
Toxic
DMDS Moderate Cost Severe odor problems
Lower vapor pressure than DMS More toxic than all other sulfiding
Lower decomp. temp. than DMS chemical except H2S and CS2
High sulfur content
Normal Butyl Mercaptan Moderate Cost Lowest odor threshold of all chemicals
Low vapor pressure Severe odor problems
Low sulfur content
High decomposition temperature
TNPS Very little odor High cost
Low decomposition temperature Low sulfur content
Very low vapor pressure Unstable when stored at low temperatures-sulfur
precipitation
Low toxicity Very viscous below 50°F
TBPS Very little odor High cost
Lowest decomposition temperature
Very low vapor pressure
Low toxicity
Stable and not viscous at low
temperatures
Ethyl Mercaptan Moderate Cost High vapor pressure
Relatively low decomposition Lowest odor threshold of all chemicals
temperature
DMSO Low toxicity Medium cost
Low odor
Low flammability
DOPS Low odor Similar to TBPS
Low decomposition temperature

quite extensively. Its benefits are low odor, easy to handle,
and requires no special classification and labeling. It has
disassociation temperature of around about 130° to
150°F. It is dialkyl pentosulfide. It has about 40 wt %
of sulfur on it.
EDWARD SMITH (UOP):
UOP has found in discussions with refiners that the
criteria for selection typically rank as follows: safety and
handling, environmental and toxicity, supplier reliability
and cost. This assumes the sulfiding additive has been
tested and/or approved by the catalyst supplier.
All of the properties listed, as well as high solubility,
good low temperature handling properties, low decompo-
sition temperature, low nitrogen and low H2S trace quan-
tities are important. UOP offers a product, SA-200
Sulfiding Additive, which meets all of these criteria and
is applicable to hydrotreating and reforming catalysts.
JIM STONE (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality):
Sometimes the sulfiding takes on an aspect of being a
test of a new material. In the Louisiana regulations, we
have available a temporary exemption for testing. So if
you get into something like this where you feel like that
would be useful to you, it is a way of making sure that you
are not going to be violating an environmental regulation
while you are testing something new. You do have to
actually test and make a report if you use this exemption,
and you have to ask for it ahead of time. (See LAC 3
III. 523.B)

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 113
TOC/INDEX
Question 23.
Ex situ presulfided catalysts have become more widely
accepted within the industry. One main concern remains,
namely, the propensity for exotherms in units with large
catalyst volumes. How are ex situ presulfided catalysts
used safely and economically in large units?
FLETCHER:
Eurocat, which is Akzo Nobel’s partner for presulfiding
catalysts has sulfided and assisted in the activation of over
1,000 hydroprocessing units worldwide, including many
units with large catalyst volumes. The applicability of
sulfided catalysts, specifically to avoid large exotherms,
involves many unit specific and catalyst specific variables.
Therefore, a single generic answer cannot be provided.
The Eurocat technical service group has developed a vari-
ety of techniques to assist the refiner in reviewing the
unit conditions and simulating the activation such that
a safe and effective catalyst activation can be planned for
virtually any hydrotreating application.
FOSTER:
For economic reasons, we no longer use ex situ presul-
fided catalysts for our large units. In the past, we have
used these in one of our CFHTs (the volume was about
300,000 lbs).
We did have one incident several years ago when we
experienced an exotherm of 350°F. What happened was
that our catalyst supplier used only a single sulfur species
when they presulfided our catalyst, so all the decomposi-
tion (and exotherm) occurred at once.
Later, we worked with a catalyst suppler that presul-
fided the catalyst with multiple sulfur species, instead of
just one. Since each species had a different decomposition
temperature, this resulted in a gradually ascending decom-
position profile.
So based on our experience, may recommendation
would be to work with your catalyst supplier to design
in a gradually ascending decomposition profile that takes
into account your catalyst volume and heat removal capa-
bilities.
FUSSELL:
We have been using ex situ presulfided catalyst in Port
Arthur for quite a long time. We use it on our Unibond
unit as well as our distillate hydrotreaters, and we have
had no problems with exotherms. We have used both
Eurocat and NCRI and we followed their startup proce-
dures. On our Unibond unit which is the largest catalyst
volume we have, we typically see about a 50°F exotherm
across the unit when we start up.
DANIEL J. NEUMAN (Tricat, Inc.):
We have recently commercialized a true ex-situ presul-
fiding process at our plant in Germany. In contrast to
114 Hydrogen Processing
earlier technologies, our catalysts are completely sulfided
such there are no exotherms during startup since the
exothermic sulfiding reactions have already been com-
pleted ex-situ. The catalyst is free flowing and stable in
air. It therefore can be handled safely during the loading
procedure in air.
Question 24.
What is the industry’s experience with use of ex situ
presulfided hydrocracking catalysts? Has any increase
in cracking activity compared to in situ sulfided catalyst
been observed? Is a liquid phase start-up possible with
ex situ presulfided hydrocracking catalyst?
TASKER:
As a partial answer for this one, we do have some
experience with ex situ HDT catalysts in Portugal and
in Indonesia. We found that initially the control of the
exotherm was difficult, but it became easier later. There
is a fairly quick consumption of hydrogen during the
initial operation and you may get a little pressure dip
during that period. This can impact on the compressor
performance. Sometimes it is difficult to allow for such
changes in the design of the compressor.
For the in situ sulfided catalyst, it may be possible to
control the initial operation better, but the overall sulfid-
ing may not be as efficient as the ex situ presulfided
catalyst. The cost has to be weighed and it is obviously
a little bit more expensive for ex situ than in situ, but I
think there are other factors which weigh on the side of
ex situ presulfiding.
FLETCHER:
Eurocat, again our partner for presulfiding catalysts,
reports that they have sulfided over eight million pounds
of nickel moly and nickel tungsten hydrocracking catalysts
for more than 40 unit activations. From this experience,
they have seen some hydrocracking applications which
showed improved performance. We believe this to be
due to a more complete sulfiding throughout the reactor
resulting in a more fully activated catalyst. In some cases,
HDN activity at the pretreat catalyst has also been
approved with the presulfided catalyst. This also improves
hydrocracker catalyst performance. Eurocat has partici-
pated in the liquid phase activation of a hydrocracking
catalyst that had been ex situ presulfided. This unit perfor-
mance has met the refiner’s expectations.
KEN MAYEAUX (CRI International):
Hydrocrackers represent a major challenge in regards to
using presulfurized catalysts without excessive exotherms.
The catalyst volumes are large and the catalyst is usually
activated gas phase because of the potential for runaway
TOC/INDEX
hydrocracking. The high activity zeolytic catalyst can start
cracking the startup oil well before the catalyst can reach
a high enough temperature to complete the sulfiding. Even
under these less than ideal conditions, CRI’s actiCAT,
presulfurized catalyst has been successfully applied. CRI’s
process generates a variety of sulfiding compounds that
activate over a wide temperature range, resulting in a
gradual activation with minimal exotherms. Over the past
three years, actiCAT has been used successfully in a dozen
hydrocracker startups representing more than five million
pounds of catalyst. Most recently, 500,000 pounds of
pretreat and cracking catalysts was started up gas phase
with reactor delta Ts of less than 40°F. In our commercial
experience, and in activity tests by several catalyst manu-
facturers, the activity of actiCAT presulfurized cracking
catalyst is as good if not slightly better than that from
the best in situ sulfiding procedures.
Question 25.
What procedures are being used for unloading spent
hydrotreating catalyst? Include data on both wet and dry
procedures and how they affect catalyst regeneration.
HAHN:
We unload our hydrotreaters only dry and we do it
with inert atmosphere with a specialty contractor. We
keep a 1.0-2.0 pound nitrogen purge going out the bottom
of the reactor as we dump. We load directly into bins
and then toss in some dry ice on top and seal them up.
We have had no problems with this technique.
We are aware that there are suppliers who can use a
wet method where they have a special chemical coating
that they will put on your catalyst to prevent iron sulfite
fires. However, the drawback to this technique comes if
you plan to regenerate or even to send it off for disposal,
you have to pay extra to have those people strip off this
coating material.
FUSSELL:
On our distillate hydrotreaters in Port Arthur we grav-
ity dump using a dry method. On our Unibond we have
to vacuum the catalyst out and we also do it dry. We do
have some experience at our Big Springs refinery on our
gas oil hydrotreater using the wet method. We have been
very successful with that method in Big Springs. It has
reduced the nitrogen use during the dumping and the
dumping goes much quicker. The catalyst basically slimes
out of the reactor very nicely. There are some concerns
about regeneration. So if you do plan to regenerate, you
might want to look into that a little bit closer before you
use the wet method. There are also some disposal issues
as Ms. Hahn referred to.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
MALEK:
From a new design standpoint, we see the industry
going to the dry technique. There are also some advantages
in the designing and streamlining of these reactors when
you do go with that approach. Using a vacuum approach,
you can eliminate some nozzles on the reactor vessels and
you do not have to put the reactor vessel on a pedestal.
You can lower it on a skirt directly on the ground. There
is quite a bit of cost savings to be realized in streamlining
the design in that fashion.
ROMAN:
We have wet unloaded spent VGO catalyst and also
spent catalyst from our aromatics desulfurizer unit and
have decided against this procedure. Wet unloading leads
to sewer pluggage, extra freight for spent catalyst shipping,
leakage from spent catalyst containers and pluggage while
dumping. It was also difficult for catalyst regeneration
companies to handle. We had one incident where one of
the spent catalyst containers leaked black liquids onto the
highways. We currently use dry unloading exclusively.
This is done under an inert gas blanket. The catalyst is
bottom unloaded into leased catalyst flow bins.
SAL TORRISI (CRI Woodlands):
The choice of dumping method depends on cost, tim-
ing and catalyst reuse or disposition decisions. For those
choosing the reuse option, CRI has worked with custom-
ers to regenerate catalyst dumped by both wet and dry
dumping techniques.
Wet dumping methods are usually chosen to protect
reactors against polythionic acid Stress Corrosion Crack-
ing of Temperature Embrittlement as an alternative to
inert entry. Wet dumping techniques can be divided into
two categories: those which use hydrocarbon and those
using soda-ash or water flooding to passivate the reac-
tor system.
CRI has noted a significant increase over the past 10
years in the number of spent catalysts that require hydro-
carbon removal prior to regeneration. Whether the
dumped catalyst contains high levels of hydrocarbon or
even special passivating oils like CATnap, CRI’s new
optiCAT-Plus catalyst regeneration technology allows for
efficient oil removal and quality regeneration of classically
difficult-to-regenerate catalysts without significant cost
penalty to the customer.
Although soda-ash dumped catalyst has traditionally
been considered unsuitable for re-use, there are circum-
stances where these catalysts have successfully been regen-
erated and loaded for additional cycles. Given that this
decision is dependent on customer preference and experi-
ence, CRI can assist refiners in identifying re-use options
for soda-ash dumped catalyst by performing lab-scale
regenerations followed by physical, chemical and pilot
plant performance evaluations.
115
TOC/INDEX
4. Reactor Safety and Reliability
Question 26.
What means are refiners using to extend the life of HDS
reactor vessels?
CAIN:
We have performed internal visual and dye penetrant
inspections along with acoustic emissions inspections,
sheer wave examinations. We have an outside firm to
perform a fit for service inspection.
FLETCHER:
The most important aspect of reaching a normal 30
year vessel life is a good inspection program. A plan should
be in place to inspect all components on a regular schedule.
The heat up and cool down cycles contribute to reactor
stresses. It is important to follow the manufacturer’s rec-
ommended heat up and cool down rates. Avoid shock in
the reactor with water during shutdowns.
Finally, failures typically occur in the attachments such
as the internals, the outlet collectors, etc., to the reactor.
These are usually the result of poor design such as high
stress and poor materials selection. Inspections around
these areas is especially important.
FUSSELL:
On our Unibon unit, we follow special shutdown and
startup procedures to minimize any damage to the reac-
tors. We also use several different nondestructive testing
methods such as acoustic emissions, replications, wet fluo-
rescent mag particle testing, ultrasonics. We do all of this
on the reactors as well as the high pressure separator.
Question 27.
Are bed differential and radial temperature spread limits
maintained the same from start to end of run, or are
they varied as reactor temperatures are increased to
maintain catalyst activity?
BARLOEWEN:
The question deals with radial temperature limitations
across the reactor, and vertical, across beds of hydrotreat-
ing reactors. A well-designed reactor and distribution sys-
tem should give you a radial temperature gradient on the
outlet of the bed of ten degrees or less, and after a mixing
device, five degrees or less, with emphasis on less.
The maximum radial temperature that you should be
able to live with is very much a function of feedstock
type, processing objective, and catalyst type. For example,
zeolite cracking catalyst is much more sensitive and you
would want to apply tighter limits than on a less severe
service like distillate hydrotreating.
One of the problems is that most hydroprocessing
reactors, especially the old ones do not have a lot of
116 Hydrogen Processing
temperature measurement and so you are only looking
at a very small fraction of the reactor. You do not have
a high assurance that you are looking at the worst spots.
Our recommendation would be to have temperature sens-
ing points near the wall on the inside of the reactor.
Today’s technology allows retrofitting that quite readily
through existing nozzles.
Our recommendation would be not to vary the allow-
able gradient either in the radial direction or in the axial
direction as the run progresses, even though coking does
cause some deterioration of gradients.
The real issue that you have to deal with is process
control. You want to be assured of having adequate process
control even in an upset condition. In a vertical or axial
direction you have criteria as to maximum temperature
rise based on your available quench gas. That is a function
of the recycle compressor and it may also be a function
of the quench valve actually providing the quench.
FLETCHER:
The radial temperature profile is an indicator of liquid
flow distribution through the reactor. Liquid flow distri-
bution is influenced by bed permeability resulting from
catalyst loading and is affected by the liquid distributor
and the liquid mass velocity in the catalyst bed.
Liquid distributors can become fouled with scale and
alter the liquid distribution. Irregular catalyst loading
tends to promote channeling or flow maldistribution. This
can result in increasing radial temperature differentials
as the catalyst cycle progresses. Units with liquid mass
velocities less than 2,000 lb/ft2.hr are especially prone to
flow distribution problems.
One approach to operation is to set limits for both
radial and bed delta temperature that never change. In
the event that variances exceed the limit, the cause for
the variance should be investigated and understood.
Quench and other strategies may be employed to reduce
the delta temperature within the limits. If a reasonable
understanding of the cause of the high temperature differ-
ential is found and a risk assessment is made, there could
be a decision to knowingly exceed these limits. In this
case, skin temperatures and gas makes should be closely
observed and guide the decision process. It is critical
that there are adequate skin temperature measurements
to make a sound decision.
SAMUELS:
At our Robinson hydrocracker, the bed delta tempera-
tures are critical operating parameters and are not changed
during the course of the run. We have reached maximum
bed delta T’s before and biased other bed temperatures
to maintain throughput and conversion without violating
critical operating parameters.
We have not reached our maximum radial delta tem-
perature of 30°F on each bed in the past. Before we would
TOC/INDEX
change any temperature limitation as mentioned earlier,
the unit quench capabilities would have to be evaluated
to ensure that in fact there is sufficient reserve quench
available in the event of a temperature excursion.
Typically, the number one hydrotreater bed delta tem-
perature limit of 115°F, on this hydrocracker, is the limit-
ing factor on how much cracked stock can be processed.
Hydrogen is also a limit as to how much cracked stock
can be processed.
TASKER:
I agree with everything people have said. For the radial
temperature delta, we typically see in the order of 9 to
11°F and feel that that is quite normal for start to end-
of-run.
In some cases we have seen that the delta T is consider-
ably less. In one HDS unit, 11.5 feet in diameter, we
have observed a radial delta T of less than 2°F at 1°C
even with very active catalyst.
ELIZABETH ALLEN (Criterion Catalyst):
There was a paper published by Shell in 1984 which
gives details regarding the temperature profiles in trickle
bed reactors. The paper discusses irregular flow patterns
which are relatively common in trickle phase hydrotreat-
ing. Their findings were that irregularities in catalyst pack-
ing density and flows of the different phases can lead to
abnormal flow patterns.
These flow patterns can lead to a situation where a
finger of liquid channels through the catalyst causing hot
spots due to lack of gas to carry away the exotherm, and
coking as well.
The paper derives an equation to calculate maximum
delta T allowed before these hot spots and coking can
occur. The equation shows that maximum delta T is a
function of inlet temperature, activation energy, bed
height, gas velocity and gas density.
In other words, for heavy feeds with the low vaporiza-
tion and low gas rates, the highest potential for excessive
exotherms can occur.
CRAIG HARVEY (UOP):
In hydrocracking service, good reactant distribution,
effective quench zone mixing and catalyst bed uniformity
are essential to minimize radial temperature spreads. An
extensive temperature monitoring system must also be in
place so that the operator has detailed knowledge as to
the radial temperature profiles existing within the cata-
lyst beds.
The operating severity within a hydrocracking bed
should be limited in accordance with the severity of the
radial temperature gradients. Of principal concern is the
capability to properly control reaction rates at all bed
locations in the event of an upset condition.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
As reaction severity or axial rise in a hydrocracking bed
is increased, it is generally expected that the radial spread
at the bed outlet will also increase due to the accelerated
increase in reaction rate that is experienced in the hot
zones.
As an operating cycle progresses, the relationship
between the catalyst bed axial rise and the severity of
temperature spread at the bed outlet may change. This
will depend as to whether the radial temperature spread
is due to poor liquid distribution, inferior quench zone
mixing efficiency or permeability variations within the
catalyst bed. If the radial gradients are the result of extreme
bed permeability variations, then it is expected that the
radial gradients at a given reaction severity will worsen
as the cycle progresses. In this situation, the bulk reaction
severity or bulk axial rise may have to be lowered as the
cycle progresses in order to properly control reaction rates
at all bed locations.
In certain hydrocracking bed environments, the hydro-
genation reactions may become thermodynamically-lim-
ited as end of cycle conditions are approached. In this
situation, the catalyst temperature response may change
towards end of cycle and this may result in a slight reduc-
tion in the reaction rate in the hotter zones of the cata-
lyst bed.
Question 28.
In co-processing coker naphtha with straight-run diesel,
what percentages of coker naphtha have been success-
fully run without using a low temperature first stage
pretreating reactor?
SAMUELS:
At Robinson’s 65,000 barrel per day distillate hydro-
treater unit, we have processed up to 7,000 barrels a day
of coker naphtha along with virgin diesel and FCC light
cycle oil since June of 1996. The unit limitation in pro-
cessing this coker naphtha has been handling the stripper
overhead naphtha production and is not related to
exchanger fouling or reactor exotherms.
The coker naphtha is fed hot from the cokers through
20 micron filters. Occasionally, the coker naphtha is stored
prior to processing. All storage is blanketed. The stored
feed is stripped with hydrogen, coalesced and filtered.
Along with the coker naphtha, it is common to process
about 25 to 30 percent of the feed as FCC light cycle.
The typical feed has a 32 API gravity, up to a 12 bromine
number, and an average of 0.6 weight percent sulfur.
Two parallel reactors contain over 600,000 pounds of
regenerated cobalt moly catalyst. There is no inner bed
quenching. The typical total delta T is about 65°F with
a 610°F inlet start of run temperature.
The coker naphtha itself has an API gravity of 60, a
0.5 wt % sulfur and a D3710 distillation five percent
point of 80°F and 95 percent point of 385°F.
117
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
We process seven percent heavy coker naphtha in one of
our diesel hydrotreaters. The coker naphtha is coprocessed
along with light coker gas oil, straight run diesel and FCC
light cycle oil. We see a 31⁄2 year run without any pressure
drop problems.
FLETCHER:
In addition to the routine processing of coker naphtha
with virgin naphtha, a few refiners process coker middle
distillate and/or coker naphtha with other middle distillate
streams. These units typically suffer from both silicon
poisoning and pressure drop build up problems. The
concentration of coker naphtha is usually not high,
(⬍30%). Appropriate grading at the top of the reactor
in conjunction with low inlet temperature is usually suffi-
cient to mitigate the pressure drop buildup tendency of the
coker naphtha. Since a few refiners have been successful
in running coker naphtha without a guard reactor (low
temperature diolefin saturation), it seems that the right
catalyst system at the correct operating conditions can
work.
HAHN:
We run about 20 percent coker naphtha combined
with virgin diesels and some coker light gas oil all in our
diesel hydrotreater without any problems. We do not have
a low temperature first stage, but our first reactor bed is
quite small, which may help us succeed in that endeavor.
Question 29.
What guidelines are used for setting bed temperature
profiles in multi-bed hydroprocessing reactors (e.g.,
equal bed outlet temperatures, equal WABT’s, ascending
or descending bed outlets)?
FLETCHER:
The proper answer depends on many factors, and as
such it is difficult to give a comprehensive answer. The
optimum reactor temperature profile for a unit wihtout
significant limits is dependent upon the feedstock, the
goals of the hydroprocessing unit and the time on stream
of the unit. However, recycle gas, quench rate and/or
makeup hydrogen contstraints usually significantly reduce
the reactor temperature profile options.
At SOR, one might decide to minimize the deactivation
in the first bed by running an ascending profile and not
using quench. This can also be driven by high activity in
the first bed requiring a low inlet temperature to reduce
the temperature rise across the first bed. In other units,
one might maximize the reactor inlet temperature by
operating with a descending profile. Descending profiles
are useful for maximizing the metals pickup rate of demet-
alization catalysts and maximizing aromatics saturation.
After the middle of a run, a descending profile is almost
118 Hydrogen Processing
always optimal until the unit hits the maximum allowed
reactor temperature. At EOR, one typically maximizes
the reactor WABT (inlet temperature plus 2⁄3 * bed dT) by
bringing all bed outlets to the maximum allowed reactor
temperature. Some specific cases are given below.
Diesel Hydrotreater—More modern diesel hydro-
treater designs will have two or more beds. Usually mini-
mum quench is used, but sometimes quench is used to
control reactor outlet temperature in order to keep a good
product color.
FCC Pretreatment—When the operating target is
HDS (constant HDS operation) and insufficient hydro-
gen is available, refineries typically apply minimum
quench or control the overall exotherm not to exceed
liscenser’s recommendation. On the otherhand, refiners
that want more mid-distillates, usually operate in equal
outlet temperature mode.
Resid Hydrotreater—Just after presulfiding, the cata-
lysts are so active that target sulfur is attained at very
low temperature. We recommend equal WABT mode of
operation to avoid metal poisoning of the down-stream
HDS catalyst for the first 2-4 weeks of operation. After
that, we recommend the following settings (as an
example):
Bed 1 (Guard Bed): Base WABT (below 720°F at inlet)
Bed 2 (HDM): Base Ⳮ 10-20°F in WABT
Bed 3 (HDS): Base Ⳮ 20-40°F in WABT
Bed 4 (HDS): Equal outlet of Bed 3
If the refiner requires high conversion, we recommend
a flat WABT for Bed 2, 3 and 4. In this case, product sulfur
increases gradually after the WABT reaches its maximum.
HAHN:
We run with a slight ascending temperature profile
across the first two beds of our hydrotreater reactor and
then all the rest have equal bed temperatures.
BARLOEWEN:
From a design point for a low to moderate heat release
feed, we would design for equal bed outlet temperatures.
We would adjust the bed sizes so that we have approxi-
mately the same temperature rise across the beds. The
effect is that all of the catalyst operating at the same
average bed temperature which is the most efficient from
the catalyst utilization standpoint.
However, when you are dealing with very reactive feeds
with olefins or very reactive sulfur aromatic compounds,
it may not be possible to live with those design goals and
you may have to accept a larger temperature rise for the
first bed.
Similarly, as was mentioned by Mr. Fletcher, in a resid
hydrotreater we would normally operate with temperature
TOC/INDEX
profile ascending in order to spread out the metals deposi-
tion and guard against excessive metals laid down on the
lead reactor.
The only situation, from our perspective, that we would
recommend a descending temperature profile is where
aromatic saturation is equilibrium limited.
JOSECK:
There is no single answer. How you set the temperature
profile depends on the process objectives and whether
multiple catalysts are in the unit. In general, our experience
is to run as close to ‘‘isothermal’’ as possible. We try to
keep the same ‘‘load’’ across each bed, same weighted
average bed inlet temperature or to control peak bed
temperatures, where the most side reactions occur. If there
is a profile, it is usually ascending.
TASKER:
I have a fairly similar response. Each process should
be treated according to the feed and processing objectives.
So there really is not a set answer to this question. Typi-
cally, we use the classical approach depending on the
actual process, and we advise equal outlet temperatures
from each bed for distillate hydrotreaters. Similarly for
pyrolysis feeds we try to maintain equal outlet tempera-
tures and a lower inlet temperature. However, you can
only go so far on that.
For residing feeds in fixed bed processors, we do use
different WABTs for demetalization and desulfurization
in order to maximize the cycle length at as low a tempera-
ture as possible. We like to use multi-beds within reason,
of course, to minimize the delta T per bed as part of the
design criteria.
For HDS operations with heavier feeds, we also use
equal WABT for multi-bed operation. For heavier feed-
stocks including partial residue and full residue feeds, we
have achieved two year run lengths for the lighter deed
and over one year for the heavier feeds. It may be necessary
to relax your processing objective to be able to extend
the run length. For one of our units running atmospheric
residue, we have achieved over one year run when reducing
the sulfur level from 4.0 percent to 0.5 percent.
Question 30.
What has been the experience with using liquid nitrogen
for accelerated reactor cool down? How is this normally
done, and what are the benefits, potential problems and
risks? How widespread is this practice?
CAIN:
As mentioned in Question 16, normally we hook up
a liquid nitrogen truck to vaporize the nitrogen to 0°F
for a once through pass and vent to the flare. From
the time nitrogen is introduced, the reactor temperature
decreases from 180-200°F to 105°F in 12 to 18 hours.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
The potential problems or risks are avoided if the
nitrogen is vaporized with the proper temperature and
pressure specification for your particular operation. The
cost of cooling down a reactor with over 150,000 pounds
of catalyst is less than $20,000. Without nitrogen you
could triple your time to cool the reactor down.
FLETCHER:
We see liquid nitrogen cool down becoming standard
practice for large units with significant cost of down time
except during cold weather shutdowns. The economic
benefit depends on the size of the unit and the product
upgrade value of having the unit onstream.
It is definitely important to stay within the metallurgi-
cal cooling limitations for the equipment. Usually, it is
beneficial to add the nitrogen through the furnace to
moderate temperature fluctuations. If inert entry is
required following the cool down, further temperature
restrictions may be required for the comfort of catalyst
handling personnel. It is actually possible to get the reactor
too cold for inert entry.
FOSTER:
We have been using this practice for 15 years, with
improvement of 2 days or more on T/A length. We also
benefit from improved safety for the reactor crew-much
less heat-related stress, because it’s pretty cool in there
when we get done.
The potential problems are compressor damage due to
operating a gas for which it is not designed, and heater
outlet piping embrittlement due to bringing the tempera-
ture too low at the point of liquid nitrogen injection.
But with good management of change processes, good
operating procedures, and a properly designed diffusion
zone, these risks can be reduced to near zero.
I recommend you work with your compressor experts
with particular attention to the limits on compressor suc-
tion and discharge conditions, compressor speed, and load
limitations. Also consult with your metallurgy group as
to the minimum temperature your particular piping can
sustain at the point of injection. I highly recommend the
thorough use of thermocouples (encircling the piping at
the point of diffusion). We use a stainless steel diffuser
on the heater outlet that is especially designed just for
this purpose and is unique for each application.
Once you have made the proper precautions and have
done this a few times, you can be quite aggressive. In our
case, downtime is always more expensive than nitrogen,
so we raise the system to maximum mass circulation and
minimum temperature on the heater outlet as quickly as
we can, even if we consume a few extra pounds of nitrogen.
It is a good idea to keep N2 pumper truck available
all during catalyst unloading. It keeps the temperature
down in the vessel, which the workers appreciate, and is
119
TOC/INDEX
more versatile in temperature and flow rate when vacuum-
ing, or dealing with hot spots.
HAHN:
I think the other panelists have covered most every-
thing. We also use nitrogen cool down as a routine process
and we would also caution that monitoring the tempera-
tures of the piping at the inlet where your nitrogen goes
in is very important. We cool down to at least 120°F
before inert entry.
JOSECK:
We have standardized on using liquid nitrogen, cooling
for rate limiting units. The time savings greatly outweigh
the liquid nitrogen costs and the additional down time
to cool the reactor. We have also incorporated nitrogen
cooling into the shutdown planning time line. We have
been using liquid nitrogen since the ’80s.
SAMUELS:
UCISCO’s NICOOL process was used for the first
time on the Unicracker in our March 1997 Turnaround.
For the first time, LEL’s were low enough to get an
immediate entry permit. Historically, nitrogen would be
purged upflow through the reactors for approximately
one day before an entry permit could be issued. As far
as accelerating the cooldown, it is difficult to provide an
exact time. At the previous turnaround we installed 12
additional thermocouple (GAYESCO) which provided
skin temperature in the H-C reactor. This additional
temperature monitoring showed that the catalyst and reac-
tor walls were not cooled completely when the middle of
the catalyst beds were ⬍100°F. We may have realized
approximately 4-8 hour reduction in time but achieved
a more complete cooling compared to historical cool-
downs and an LEL free reactor.
During the accelerated cooldown, the reactor wall tem-
peratures should also be monitored as well as the catalyst
bed temperatures. Once we started dumping the H-T
reactor, we found that the catalyst near the reactor wall
was still in the 150°F range when the bulk catalyst temper-
ature was ⬍100°F. In the Hydrocracking reactor the ther-
mocouples near the reactor wall cool much slower than
the middle of the bed. To sufficiently cool all the catalyst,
the reactor walls must also be cooled.
We injected the liquid nitrogen through a 1’’ valve at
the outlet of the H-T reactor heater and the H-C reactor
heater. The injection point was at grade level just upstream
of the check valves on the heater outlets. Liquid nitrogen
was injected into the recycle gas to achieve a combined
gas temperature of 40°F. Thermocouples were positioned
on the down stream piping to monitor the temperatures.
Visual and Audible alarms activated if the temperature
120 Hydrogen Processing
dropped 10°F below target, and the injection automati-
cally shutdown at 20°F below target. Temperature control
was not a problem. As long as the injection is in stainless
steel piping, no injection quill is needed. However, a quill
is needed if injecting into carbon steel piping.
The recycle gas compressor needs to be checked to make
sure it was designed for or can handle 100% nitrogen. In
particular, consider the higher discharge temperature, and
motor amps. For the cooldown, we dropped pressure to
600 psi initially (due to reactor MPT) and continued to
drop pressure as the motor amps increase as the recycle
gas neared 100% nitrogen. One additional precaution we
took was to have the Ultraformer vent H2 to flare during
our cooldown to ensure that the flare was not put out
with the large volume of nitrogen being purged from
the unit. Our injection rate ranged from 400,000 to
800,000 scfh.
UDAY PAREKH (Air Products):
Air Products pioneered the technology for liquid nitro-
gen assisted reactor cool down in 1978 at Amoco’s Texas
City refinery. Since then Air Products has done more
than 25 such cool downs in U.S. and Europe, safely and
with significant economic benefits as several members of
the panel have attested to. To ensure integrity of the
metallurgy, the nitrogen injection rate is controlled so
that temperatures remain above a predetermined set point.
The nitrogen is injected using a custom designed coil or
diffuser for each application. Typically, a refinery can
expect to reduce cool down times by a factor of three or
more using liquid nitrogen.
In a recent case, two reactors weighing in excess of
1.25 million pounds, that is reactor plus catalyst plus
support weight, were cooled down from 280°F to less
than 100°F in less than eight hours.
BEN GRIEB (Gay Engineering and Sales Co., Inc.):
When analyzing guidelines for setting bed temperature
profiles in multi-bed hydroprocessing reactors, a funda-
mental question should be examined. ‘‘Is our current
temperature measurement system capable of providing us
with the data points necessary for making these operat-
ing decisions?’’
In many cases, traditional temperature measurement
technology limits both the number and location of the
sensors. Additionally, the use of the traditional systems
can detrimentally impact response time and accuracy.
An increasing number of refiners and process licensors
are now utilizing the ‘‘Flex-R’’ radial temperature mea-
surement system to provide a solution to these limitations.
The ‘‘Flex-R’’ technology offers many attractive benefits
for temperature profiling in reactors. Attributes such as
faster response time, greater point density, complete reac-
tor coverage, and improved accuracy provide the operator
TOC/INDEX
with a valuable tool for setting bed profile operating
parameters.
For a full discussion of the benefits of this technology,
including user experiences, O refer you to NPRA Paper
AM-96-63, or contact Gay Engineering and Sales Co.,
Pasadena, TX.
MIKE HUNTER (M.W. Kellogg Company):
I have a followup question. Several of the panelists
mentioned the temperatures at which they stopped the
liquid nitrogen cool down. I would like to ask if that is
a process temperature or a vessel wall temperature. Also,
at what process temperature do you start the procedure?
CAIN:
As mentioned earlier, we started at 180 to 200°F pro-
cess temperature in the reactor. We stop it at 105°F.
JOSECK:
On some of our heavy wall reactors, we usually go to
a skin temperature and an outlet temperature due to the
reactor vessel metal mass.
HAHN:
The 120°F that I referred to was the process tempera-
ture (reactor inside temperature).
SAMUELS:
We would start the injection at 40°F process tempera-
ture and stop the process at 20°F process temperature.
Question 31.
What cleaning methods are used for multi-bed hydropro-
cessing reactors after unloading? If water is used, how
is it removed from the reactor before loading? What
special methods are used to clean interbed internals and
the mesh support for the catalyst?
FLETCHER:
1. Alkaline wash solution is used to protect austenetic
stainless steel and other austenetic alloys from
polythionic acid stress corrosion cracking. Solution
pH should be greater than nine for adequate neu-
tralization. These solutions may also contain an
alkaline surfactant and corrosion inhibitor.
2. The recommended wash solution is a 2 wt% soda
ash. A 1.4 to 2.0 wt% soda ash solution will provide
a sufficient level of residual alkalinity on metal
surface after the solution drains from the equip-
ment. Higher soda ash concentrations (5 wt%) are
desirable when the catalyst itself has wedded.
There is a paper from NACE (RP0170-93) that pro-
vides more details on the protection of austenetic alloys
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
from stress corrosion cracking. The reference will be put
into the transcripts.
CAIN:
Normally we vacuum and neutralize with the soda
ash solution. Although in some cases after unloading the
catalyst through the dump chute, the catalyst handling
specialists under fresh air clean out the catalyst pockets.
We then use high pressure wash with special spray nozzles
to clean and neutralize the vessel walls and hardware,
traces, beams, etc.
The spray nozzle spins 360 degrees and sprays soda
ash solution at 10,000 to 15,000 psig. Once finished, we
then lower a person inside and clean out any hard to
reach places with a hand-held high pressure lance. The
vessel is then allowed to drip dry. We then discontinue
the nitrogen purge. After checking for the oxygen content,
it is ready to be entered by maintenance personnel.
HAHN:
We do not water wash our hydrotreaters. We just dump
using an inert atmosphere by specialty contractors. They
also vacuum out any remaining dust or particles from the
reactor while under inert atmosphere. We get a satisfactory
cleaning using this mode.
FOSTER:
We us a high pressure orbital nozzle to spray all internal
parts with a soda-ash solution. This is to passivate 300
series stainless steel parts from polythionic acid attack, of
course, but also provides initial removal of residual coke
and scale. Once this phase is completed, contractors enter
with high pressure hydroblasting equipment for a thor-
ough cleaning of all internal parts—again we use soda-
ash solution here as well. Then the liquid that remains
is removed by vacuum or rags. We do a final dry out
with a high volume fan placed at the Rx outlet.
5. General Process
Question 32.
Is anyone feeding HCGO (FCC cycle oil or heavy coker
gas oil) to a hydrotreated gas oils hydrocracker/hydro-
treater? If so, what are the operating conditions (WABT,
H2 partial pressure, LHSV) and yields? Are there any
problems with FCC catalyst or coker fines? How are these
hydrotreated gas oils used?
ROMAN:
We hydrotreat RCC heavy cycle oil along with virgin
vacuum gas oil in a vacuum gas oil desulfurizer prior to
feeding it into a conventional FCC unit. A maximum
gasoline yield obtained from hydrotreated heavy cycle
oil is 60 percent compared to only 43 percent for non-
hydrotreated heavy cycle oil. We occasionally will feed
121
TOC/INDEX
either RCC or FCC light cycle oil into the VGO unit
and recrack it in the FCC if the gasoline distillate spread
is high enough.
The maximum gasoline yield from desulfurized RCC
light cycle oil was somewhat higher at 65 percent. As
would be expected, the sulfur in the gasoline derived from
heavy cycle oil is dramatically lowered from 1,580 ppm
to 78 ppm by desulfurizing this cut.
The economics for either mode of operation are not
straight forward and highly dependent upon pricing,
hydrogen availability and desulfurizer capacity. You need
to have a high degree of confidence in your linear program
yield vectors. We have had no problems with FCC cata-
lyst particles.
TASKER:
I hate to steal Mr. Cain’s thunder on this one. The
convent H-Oil unit operation does include FCC heavy
cycle gas oil in the feed. Obviously, there would be some
aromatic saturation taking place. But all of the recovered
gas oils, treated gas oils, are recycled back to the FCC
and effectively therefore we are recycling the heavy cycle
gas oil to extinction.
The advantages of doing this particular operation are
that we improve the asphaltene solvency even though
there is some partial aromatic saturation. Also when we
are heat input limited, the hydrogen consumed by the
heavy cycle gas oil does help us to adjust our reactor
temperatures and assist in getting the particular target
reactor temperature.
There have been problems with FCC fines on occasion
when the filters have not functioned correctly in the
FCCU. Impeller wear on the feed pump has been experi-
enced as catalyst fines lay down in some of the bottoms
exchangers. Proper and good filtration therefore in the
FCC will avoid those problems.
The gas oils can be injected upstream of the reactors
where the black oil feed can be used as quench oil in the
downstream vessel.
Now, for separate processing, the heavy cycle gas oil
is relatively refractive and pilot testing has shown that the
aeromatics saturate first. It is possible to crack, but this
requires quite severe conditions.
The conditions will be about or 150 atmospheres of
hydrogen partial pressure at a 0.2 to 0.3 liquid hourly
space velocity and a temperature of around 360°C.
For HDS and hydrocracking operations, we do not
have any commercial experience on this material , but we
think that a zeolite type catalyst would be the better choice
of catalysts for the pretreatment that would be required.
Obviously, the fines would be bad news and there would
be an impact on the operation. Therefore, it might be
necessary as we have previously mentioned to design a
guard bed and thereby increase the overall cost.
122 Hydrogen Processing
PETERSON:
We treat our LCO in either the DHDS unit or the
CFH unit as economics and available capacities allow.
One of our refineries hydrotreats FCC slurrry in a 400
psig, four bed hydrotreater. Operating conditions are as
follows:
Feed Sulfur, wt% 1.70
Product Sulfur, wt% 0.95
LHSV, Hr-1 1.0
H2/HC recycle, SCFB 1,000
H2 Consumption, SCFB 350
H2 Partial Pressure, psia 375
Cycle Length, months 24
SOR WABT, F 630
EOR WABT, F 725
In the past, cycle length had been activity limited.
However, since a portion of the reduced crude feed to
the FCC is typically now being hydrotreated, cycle length
has greatly improved. Feed sulfur used to be in the 2.5
to 3.0 wt% range with target product sulfur content at
1.0 wt%. The current cycle has nearly reached 2 years
with another year to year and a half projected before a
complete catalyst changeout is needed. A portion of the
product can be recycled to control severity with a lower
conversion per pass.
We do not have any trouble with pressure drop as it
seems that the FCC catalyst fines largely pass through
the reactor. The feed is not filtered. Dense loading is
critical to extending the life as sock loads suffer from
regions of coke formation from poor retention of feed
distribution. Catalyst pore size must also be consistent
with slurry molecule size as a load of small pore size
catalyst had a very short life. The dedulfurized slurry is
sold as No.6 fuel oil.
BARLOEWEN:
There are a number of refineries that feed FCC cycle
oils or heavy coker gas oils to hydrocrackers. These feeds,
as has been discussed, are very refractive. They are difficult
to treat. They put a premium on having a very high
activity denitrogenation catalyst and the higher the partial
pressure, the better.
As we discussed early today, there are a number of
problems associated with them dealing with solids han-
dling filtration. So the use of a graded bed is a big assistance
in processing them on the long term basis.
CAIN:
We feed the FCC heavy cycle gas oil and heavy and
light coker gas oil to a hydrocracker. We operate at 2,400
psi with the hydrogen purity of greater than 80 percent
and we target our weight average bed temperature to
achieve a 65 percent conversion.
TOC/INDEX

FLETCHER: are very aromatic and require high pressure and low LHSV
Both HCGO (FCC cycle oil) and HKGO (heavy coker relative to virgin streams. We have three such hydrotreat-
gas oil) are processed by refiners in hydrocracker/hydro- ers in Japan, feeding heavy coker gas oil. Operating condi-
treater units. We will let the individual refienrs comment tions are as follows:
on conditions and yields. Suffice it to say that these oils
Company KOA OIL TOA OIL FIJI OIL
Refinery Marifu Kawasaki Sodegaura
Unit Type FCC Pretreatment FCC Pretreatment FCC Pretreatment
Feedstock
SR VGO 70-80% 70% 90%
Coker LGOⳭHGO 20-30% 30% 10%
Feedstock Properties
Density 24.5 22.0 20.7
Sulfur (wt%) 1.9 2.5 3.0
90% BP( F) 1090 1020 1010
Operating Conditions
LHSV (1/hr) 1.02 0.45 2.0
H2/OIL Ratio (SCFB) 3600 1200 3000
ppH2 (psia) 1600 670 725
Cycle Length (month) 23 23 11
Bottom Product Sulfur (wt%) 0.01 0.1 0.08-0.15
Catalyst KF901H KF901H KF901H
Question 33.
2. More active catalysts are being used. Operation
Yield estimates from hydrocracking catalyst vendors
at lower temperature reduces gas formation. In
show a decreasing trend in formation of cracked gases.
addition, yield decline (SOR to EOR difference)
Do actual commercial performance data verify this trend?
is reduced significantly.
TASKER:
3. Improved zeolites.
Choice of zeolite type catalyst over amorphous catalyst HAHN:
will result in lower formation of cracked gases. We have We replaced catalysts in two of our hydrocrackers and
observed that the recycled gas purity has remained fairly in each case we found substantial reductions in our gas
constant from start of run to end of run over a two to make. When we switched out one unit that had about a
three year cycle and relative little purging was done. This four year old catalyst in it, we reduced gas make by almost
was for a middle distillate application. For naphtha crack- half. In the other one that had eight year old catalyst, gas
ing though, we have observed an increase from start of production was reduced more than half.
run to end of run.
In one of our units, we have reached 18 months into GEORGE HADJILOIZOU (Zeolyst International):
the cycle and the deactivation has been between 4 to 5°C We have observed both commercially and in pilot plant
or 7 and 10°F. This represents a high degree of stability studies repeatedly less total gas make with our base metal
in the operation. Gas production from the start of run nickel tungsten and nobel metal hydrocracking catalyst vs.
condition to the present end-of-run condition, is very sim- competition products. Typically, we have seen at least one
ilar. to two percent less gas make depending on feed and process
conditions. We believe this is due to the type of zeolite
FLETCHER:
technology and catalyst formulation techniques that we
The yield estimates are accurate. Commercial operating employ in all of our hydrocracking catalyst products.
data verifies the improvement. The reasons for these yield
improvements are a combination of what we believe to Question 34.
be three fundamental shifts. For hydrotreaters configured with separate liquid and
1. A shift from NiMo to NiW catalysts. The NiW gas preheat, it has been suggested that a small amount
catalysts offer greater hydrogenation activity with of hydrogen be injected with the liquid feed to reduce
less over-cracking. Hence, there is also a lower fouling on the exchanger train. Does anyone do this, and
and more stable gas make over the course of the if so, what is the ratio of hydrogen to feed charge? What
catalyst cycle. other issues should be considered?

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 123
TOC/INDEX
BARLOEWEN:
Some of the hydrocracking units and resid hydrotreat-
ing units designed by Unocal in the past had separate
heat exchanger trains to preheat the oil and the recycled
gas to the hydrotreating reactor.
For these units, it was common to add a small amount
of recycled gas to the oil feed upstream of the feed-effluent
exchanger increasing the hydrogen partial pressure. The
theory is to inhibit coking against the hot tube wall and
also incrementally increase the vapor velocity through
the exchanger.
BINFORD:
Yes, we have seen several refiners inject hydrogen into
the liquid feed to reduce fouling in the exchanger train.
The primary benefit as Mr. Barloewen said is the increased
hydrogen partial pressure and the increased velocity
through the exchangers, thereby reducing the deposition
potential of material inside the exchanger tubes. You need
to make sure that the hydrogen does not result in some
overall hydraulic limit or significant change in heat trans-
fer through the preheat exchangers that may limit your
heat duty.
Some units were initially designed for hydrogen injec-
tion. So these factors have already been considered in the
design of the unit. It is also our observation, through
feedstock characterization before and after hydrogen addi-
tion, that the hydrogen in the preheat exchangers does
not decrease hydrocarbon polymerization in many reac-
tive feedstocks.
This confirms that hydrogen is not able to saturate
any of the olefinic materials in the feed until it reaches
the reactor catalyst. As a result, understanding the cause
of fouling is extremely important before investing in capi-
tal to make this operational change if you do not already
have the capability.
Polymerization reactions may be decreased with the
addition of hydrogen, but only if the reactions are being
caused by high film surface temperatures on the exchanger
tube wall. If inorganic particulates are causing the fouling,
adding hydrogen ahead of the exchangers to increase the
velocity may simply push the problem downstream to the
reactor bed. As a result, if the fouling mechanism is not
properly identified, hydrogen addition may accelerate
reactor bed fouling resulting in premature catalyst
changeouts or more frequent skimming of the top of
the bed.
CAIN:
We have been successful at Delaware City adding
hydrogen to our hydrocracker feed to reduce feed side
fouling of exchangers. We do fix the hydrogen flow rate
at a small rate independent of the feed rate.
124 Hydrogen Processing
FUSSELL:
We have a distillate hydrotreater in Port Arthur that
we tried this on and it did not work. Basically, what
happened was exactly what Mr. Binford described. We
pushed the problem into the reactor. Instead of having
a down time after nine months just to clean some heat
exchangers, we had a down time after nine months to
dump the reactor and clean the heat exchangers. So we
are no longer injecting hydrogen into these heat
exchangers and we are continuing to troubleshoot the
problem.
HENKE:
We inject hydrogen into the liquid feed of one our
diesel hydrotreaters at a rate of 500 standard cubic feet
per barrel. The feed to this unit is very reactive, comprised
of light cycle oil and light coker gas oil. Design issues
that we consider when injecting hydrogen into liquid feed
include total recycled gas rate, thermal design and heat
transfer equipment, the metallurgy of the feed effluent
exchangers, the heaters and the associated piping, the
reactivity and stability of the liquid feed and finally, the
stability of the flow regime. I refer you to the 1993 NPRA
Q&A transcript page 97 Question 20. Syncrude Canada
reported some work that their research department had
done concerning the chemistry of free radical saturation
and other items there.
MALEK:
Just to reinforce some of the things that Mr. Henke
has said, we believe that the benefits of injecting hydrogen
are primarily related to velocity effects and better heat
transfer coefficients, perhaps preventing some fouling in
these exchangers.
However, a word of caution has been already pointed
out. Hydrotreaters that are configured with separate liquid
and gas preheat systems will sometimes have metallurgy
that is incapable of handling H2S that may be in the
recycle gas. So be careful where you inject it. If there is
no recycle gas scrubber or if it is only partially effective,
the hot H2S corrosion can occur in some of the exchanger
equipment if it is not 300 series stainless steels.
Also, potential flow distribution problems will develop
in the multipass heaters if some of you have designs that
do not have positive flow control and are relying on
symmetrical flow distribution. Two phase flow may give
you flow distribution problems across those heaters.
TASKER:
Pushing it one stage further, we do have the capability
in black oil processing of injecting hydrogen into the
heater, the oil heater. We do have separate gas and oil
heaters. However, the idea here was to improve the overall
heat transfer coefficient or the heat flux when you are
really pushing the unit.
TOC/INDEX
It was also there to minimize the possibility of coking
in the heater. However, we operate the heaters at low
enough temperature that we very seldom see any coking
potential occurring in that heater. What we have seen is,
as already mentioned, a tendency to cause flow instability
of the oil when hydrogen is injected. This facet has to
be done carefully. We have tried it but have really not
seen the benefit in reality.
Question 35.
Is biodesulfurization technology nearing commercializa-
tion? When do people think this might actually reach
the refiner?
HENKE:
We are optimistic about the commercialization of
biodesulfurization technology. We are working closely
with Energy BioSystems to incorporate Koch mixer tech-
nology into the design of the biodesulfurization reactor.
Koch also is working closely with Energy Biosystems to
develop a biodesulfurization process for naphtha streams.
We have been told by Energy Biosystems that they are
approximately 6 to 18 months away from commercial
commitment to build the first diesel biodesulfurization
unit.
SAMUELS:
I have similar information. Marathon believes that this
technology will be applicable for naphtha desulfurization.
We are currently completing a joint research development
agreement with a leading biodesulfurization concern
involving a collaborative research effort and application of
Marathon’s technology to the biodesulfurization process.
We estimate commercialization for naphtha desulfur-
ization within three to five years and diesel biodesulfuriza-
tion in as soon as 6 to 12 months.
SAMIR MOHAMMED HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
Could we have a brief description of the biodesulfuriza-
tion process?
HIGGINS:
There is a paper that was presented a couple of years
ago that had some of the introductory material on it.
MIKE PACHECO (Energy Biosystems Corp.):
As the two speakers have already stated, biodesulfuriza-
tion is very near commercialization. At Energy Biosystems
in Woodlands, Texas, we are working on a process with
several refiners to desulfurize petroleum streams with
genetically engineered microbes and air at ambient tem-
perature and pressure. Our current focus is on the com-
mercialization of diesel biodesulfurization. We hope to
have a commitment within the next 6 to 18 months
to announce the world’s first biodesulfurization process.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Biotechnology for naphtha and crude oil as well as
decanted oil desulfurization will hopefully follow shortly
thereafter. We are not aware of any other company that
is actively pursuing the development of a biological process
for removing sulfur from petroleum streams.
EDWARD SMITH (UOP):
UOP also considers biodesulfurization a very exciting
and interesting area with significant advantages and
opportunities if applied correctly in the refining and petro-
chemical industries. We have begun an active and aggres-
sive proof of principle investigation with a partner to
determine process feasibility and to quantify some of the
benefits and technical challenges.
The concept is truly in its infancy and realistically, we
believe it will be at least a few more years before ‘‘true
breakthrough’’ is achieved such that bulk desulfurization
can be offered commercially. UOP will be working on
specific projects in this area and we will seek refiners’
feedback during the development of this technology.
V.K. KAPOOR (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
What level of diesel sulfurization is expected for the
naphtha and diesel products particularly the diesel biode-
sulfurization process coming up in about a year?
HENKE:
For diesel it is a strong function of the residence time.
You can get product sulfur down to the lower ppmw
levels with enough time in the bioreactor. As far as naphtha
desulfurization is concerned, it is too early to tell what it
will be, but I assume that they will get it down to ppmw
level. Again, it will be a function of residence time.
Obtaining very low product sulfur levels may not be
economically viable. One of the things we are optimistic
about is the combination of biodesulfurization with con-
ventional hydroprocessing. In this case, we would be ask-
ing the biodesulfurization reactor to take out the more
refractory compounds that conventional hydroprocessing
currently has difficulty removing.
Question 36.
In start-up of hydrocracking catalyst, is anyone practicing
simultaneous presulfiding and ammonia passivation?
Are there any problems controlling NH2HS formation in
the effluent piping?
BARLOEWEN:
We know of one hydrocracker that used ex situ sulfided
catalyst to which a nitrogen containing compound had
been added before the catalyst was loaded. This did not
completely passivate the catalyst’s cracking function since
most of the ammonia was desorbed during the startup
and lost from the system. We would recommend separate
125
TOC/INDEX
sulfiding and passivation. The typical approach is to sul-
fide first and then proceed with passivation. Wash water
should be started before the ammonia or nitrogen contain-
ing compound is introduced for the passivation.
GEORGE HADJILOIZOU (Zeolyst International):
We offer both base metal and noble metal hydrocrack-
ing catalysts. We do not typically require ammonia passiv-
ation during startup or during normal operation. We have
found in our 50 plus startups that, through optimized
startup procedures, we can effectively activate and startup
our hydrocracking catalyst without the need to passivate.
Question 37.
What routes does the industry utilize to hydroprocess
DAO or blends including DAO? Please provide specific
details.
ROMAN:
We used to hydrotreat DAO in a vacuum gas oil
desulfurizer and we were limited to a 50 to 55 percent
lift on the SDA unit to keep the concarbon down to an
acceptable level. We subsequently converted the SDA unit
from a mixed solvent extraction operation to straight
butane solvent operation with the goal of achieving a
maximum lift of about 70 percent. Operation at high lift
forced us to discontinue hydrotreating the DAO due to
unacceptable catalyst life on the VGO unit.
Some preliminary LP work as indicated that we may
have an incentive to reduce this lift and hydrotreat DAO
during the summer months if asphalt prices are high
enough.
TASKER:
We do have some experience with DAO in hydrocrack-
ing operations. For propane DAO we find that it is easier
to crack than HVGO. The DAO should be a purer hydro-
carbon with the resins and asphaltenes removed. But if
some resins are left in the DAO, then it becomes more
difficult to crack and effects catalyst life. Therefore, the
ease or otherwise to process DAO will strongly depend
on the quality of the deasphalting operation. With the
units coupled, it is possible to control the relationship
between hydrocracking and deasphalting.
SAMUELS:
The Marathon Garyville refinery currently processes
LVGO, HVGO and up to 20 vol% DAO in a 900 psig
86,000 barrel a day FCC feed hydrotreater. Rose unit
operation, the charge rate, solvent composition and the
lift provide the desired throughput of DAO according to
operating targets established for the hydrotreater.
These are defined by past history, current operating
conditions and expected catalyst performance which is
closely monitored by a daily sampling of the feed and
126 Hydrogen Processing
product. Catalyst deactivation rates are calculated from
these data and compared to reference curves developed
through pilot plant studies conducted at our research
center.
The DAO quality and quantity is controlled to target
around a 1.7 to 2 wt % combined feed concarbon. The
hydrotreater product is typically .3 to .4 wt % concarbon.
Metals obviously, as well as concarbon, deactivate the
catalyst. We do not routinely test for metals, but correlate
those to concarbon. We achieve 15 month runs, but the
severity is dictated by economics. The unit has four reac-
tors in parallel with a 1.45 space velocity, a 670°F start-
of-run weighted average bed temperature, and a 770°F
end-of-run weighted average bed temperature.
BARLOEWEN:
DAO is typically fed to FCC pretreaters. One question
to really keep in mind is the deeper you dig in your
deasphalting unit, the more metals will come with it.
Those metals are going to be quantitatively laid down on
your hydrotreating catalyst. So the deeper you lift or the
more you lift, the more you have to provide metals removal
capacity at the front end of that hydrotreating unit, typi-
cally through the use of demet catalysts.
There also has been deasphalted oil fed to hydrocrack-
ers. However, on the particular unit that this occurred,
as they tried to raise the conversion on the DAO portion,
they found significant rate of deactivation and they
backed off.
FLETCHER:
DAO hydroprocessing resembles resid hydroprocessing
except that the metals removal load is lower and the
Conradson carbon content is lower. Hydrotreating deacti-
vation rates are high relative to gas oil processing. Catalysts
are selected based upon the combination of high activity
and high metals pickup capacity. One example:
Catalyst: KF901H-1.SE
ppH2: 620 PSIG
Feed: VGOⳭ5-10% DAO
H2/Oil: 1725 2CFB
LHSV: 2.6 1/H
Product Sulfur: 0.3 wt%
Cycle: 23 months
FUSSELL:
In Port Arthur, we have a UOP Demex unit. Our
colleagues at Diamond Shamrock at Three Rivers are
probably the only one that can relate to that statement.
But basically, it is a solvent extraction unit which uses
normal butane. We actually make three cuts off of the
Demex unit.
We make a DMO, a resin cut and an asphalt cut. We
run the unit at approximately 220°F softening point on
TOC/INDEX
the asphalt. Approximately five years ago, we started feed-
ing the resin and the DMO to our Unibon unit. Prior
to that we were only feeding the DMO along with heavy
vacuum gas oil. We are able to get approximately 80
percent sulfur removal, 50 percent concarbon removal
and 70 percent metals removal across our Unibon unit.
We do have a problem on the Unibon though as a
result of running this higher asphaltene containing mate-
rial. That is foaming in our high pressure separator. The
foaming has been a problem ever since we started running
the resin, mostly at end-of-run. On this particular catalyst
run that we are into right now, we seem to have a continu-
ous foaming problem in the separator and we are currently
working on installing an antifoam injection system.
We have done a couple of things to change the system.
We made some modifications in our Demex unit in
November. We also changed from a Criterion catalyst
system to an Akzo catalyst system on the Unibon. Now,
Criterion would probably say that it is that Akzo catalyst
system that is causing the foaming, but we really do
not know.
We do know that something has changed. I just want
to warn everyone that you may have that problem. We
have discussed it with UOP. They have recommended
that we install a larger high pressure separator. As you
might imagine, that has been very difficult to justify to
management.
MIKE HUNTER (M.W. Kellogg Co.):
Within our technology alliance with Mobil, Akzo
Nobel and Fina, we have recently completed a large series
of pilot plant tests, looking at hydrocracking deasphalted
oil from a Rose unit in combination with vacuum gas oil.
We have looked at blends consisting of 20 to 40 percent
DAO at conversion levels ranging from 20 to 70 percent
in a single pass configuration. We have published the
early results of this at the 1997 NPRA Annual Meeting.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Subsequent to that, we have done long term stability
testing where we have demonstrated 50 percent conver-
sion of a blend of 40 percent DAO and VGO. The
pressure level in that test was 2000 psi. I think what we
have learned is that it is very important to be able to
apply specialized individual catalysts to address the metals
content and carbon residue content of the DAO type feed-
stocks.
Question 39.
Drastic reductions in sulfur are required to meet Euro-
pean diesel fuel specifications or California clean air
regulations. These reductions, as well as seasonal
changes in diesel pool blend components, are making it
difficult to meet cloud, pour, lubricity, and other product
specifications. What processing, chemical treatment,
and blending options can be used to maximize diesel
pool economics in this environment?
FLETCHER:
The simple approach is to use kerosene blending and/
or additives in the diesel pool to improve the cold flow
properties. The problem is using high valued kerosene or
expensive additives in the winter diesel season.
In Europe several refineries have selected the Akzo-
Fina CFI Technology and Mobil Mid-Distillate Dewax-
ing Technology to bring the cold flow properties of their
diesel and heating oil into specs. The following process
options are being applied: (1) diesel dewaxing, operating
in HDS mode during the summer and in dewaxing mode
during the winter producing low cloud point or pour
point diesels with extremely low product sulfur; (2) high
conversion dewaxing. Dewaxing combined with a hydro-
cracking functionality which allows the conversion of
LVGO, HVGO to low sulfur, low pour point products.
These can be blended directly into the diesel pool; (3)
MAK-LCO, a process that converts LCO into high octane
gasoline and low sulfur high cetane diesel. In many cases,
these processes can be applied to existing units with only
minor hardware changes.
As you may have heard, Mobil, Akzo Nobel, Kellogg
and Fina have merged their MAK, CFI and Mid-Distillate
Dewaxing Technologies into one technology partnership,
offering the best and most flexible technology approach
to producing high quality diesel.
BINFORD:
I am going to focus on the lubricity portion of this
question. Mr. Fletcher effectively covered a lot of the
other issues. Severe hydroprocessing to meet sulfur and
aromatic specifications can result in low lubricity fuels.
This is certainly the case with Swedish diesels and
CARB diesels produced to meet the ultra low sulfur and
127
TOC/INDEX
ten percent aromatic specification. Newly developed non-
acidic lubricity improvers are one option to improve the
lubricity of these fuels.
Diesel lubricity can also be adversely affected by exces-
sive kerosene blending to meet winter cloud or low tem-
perature operability specifications, primarily due to low
viscosity. The lubricity of these fuels can also safely be
improved with non-acidic lubricity improvers.
Another option is to use a cloud point depressant and/
or low temperature operability additive to back out the
kerosene. This may safely meet both lubricity and low
temperature specifications. The resulting heavier fuels also
typically have a higher cetane number and are more dense,
resulting in better ignition properties, better cold starts,
and sometimes improved fuel economy.
We introduced a new cloud point depressant last year
and are currently field trialing several more new chemis-
tries this fall to offer the refiner more choice in cloud
additives that can be tailored to meet the overall CARB
diesel blend pool objectives.
In reference to diesel pool economics, my response in
Session 4, Question 42, will cover this issue.
LINAS JOKUBAITIS (Lubrizol):
The Lubrizol Corporation offers the refiners chemical
treatment options to meet cloud point, pour point, lubric-
ity and operability requirements. For example, there are
now chemistries available to thermodynamically lower
cloud point.
DAVID DICAMILLO (Criterion Catalyst Company):
Criterion and ABB Lumus offers Synflow as one of its
Syn technologies. I will give you an example of how it
can reduce cloud point. In one specific customer test, we
reduced cloud point from 34° to 16°F and maintained
100 percent distillate yield in the product. When we
reduced distillate yield to 98 percent, the cloud point
reduced further to 6°F. On this same feed, if the customer
cut the ten percent heaviest material out, he could have
reduced the cloud point to 10°F.
Question 40.
What experience have refiners had in processing atmo-
spheric reduced crude with VGO in low pressure hydro-
treaters to produce FCC feed? What percentage of
reduced crude has been processed? What levels of desul-
furization and CCR reduction are realized?
PETERSON:
One of our refineries processes reduced crude derived
from fairly sweet, light crude through a low pressure
distillate desulfurizer. About 45% of the reduced crude is
hydrotreated along with LCO and straight run distillates.
FCC flue gas Sox reduction is the main purpose for the
128
hydrotreating, although FCC performance has improved
as well. The operating conditions are as follows:
Feed Sulfur, wt % 0.60
Reduced Crude Sulfur, wt % 1.00
Product Sulfur (Frac Btms), wt % 0.35
LHSV, Hr-1 1.25
Pressure, psig 800
Recycle H2/HC, SCFB 1,670
H2 Partial Pressure, psia 730
Cycle Length, months 12
SOR WABT, F 650
EOR WABT, F 730
Reduced Crude Ramsbottom, wt % 2.50
Frac Btms Ramsbottom, wt % 1.51 to 1.88
Reduced crude as feed, % 45
The unit has performed better than initially expected,
achieving 65% reduction in sulfur and 25 to 40% reduc-
tion in Ramsbottom carbon. Trimetallic catalyst from
Akzo-Nobel is used. The feed is not filtered and most
recent cycle was cut short due to pressure drop after an
upset when the recycle compressor shut down. The pres-
sure drop across the first bed increased from 70 psi to
130 psi. Reduced crude was taken out of the feed and
the recycle hydrogen was reduced to get the pressure drop
below the maximum allowed 100 psi until replacement
catalyst could be installed. Compressor upsets in naptha
hydrotreaters have also resulted in sudden increases in
pressure drop. Our experience on our other FCC feed
hydrotreater shows filtration is quite important.
BARLOEWEN:
One refiner that we worked with has been processing
atmospheric resid in VGO hydrotreating unit. The unit
operates at about 700 or 800 pounds partial pressure.
They are able to achieve typically about 70 percent desul-
furization and 20 to 25 percent CCR reduction.
The level of CCR reduction is very much a function
of the hydrogen partial pressure of the unit and if this
unit were to try to dramatically improve on that CCR
reduction, we believe that they would run into problems
due to the lack of hydrogen partial pressure. What they
are really converting are the sulfur compounds and the
asphaltene compounds that are left in the VGO and as
they try to get to higher conversions they have a hard
time in that low system pressure to achieve very much
conversion on the asphaltene portion.
FLETCHER:
We are familiar with a number of units that are process-
ing reduced crude in hydroprocessing units with low
operating pressure relative to units designed for atmo-
spheric tower bottoms. In general, the cycle lengths are
low relative to gas oil in the same unit.
Hydrogen Processing
TOC/INDEX
Akzo Nobel is familiar with several cases in which the
reduced crude is operated in 600 to 800 psia partial
pressure hydrogen hydrotreaters. The concentration of
reduced crude is less than 50% in all cases. Up to 80%
desulfurization and 35% CCR removal has been achieved.
This type of operation is usually only practical when
reduced crude sulfur, CCR and metals (Ni and V), are
relatively low (S⬍1 wt%, CCR⬍2 wt%, NiⳭV⬍5 ppm).
Even in these cases, cycle lengths of less than 12 months
are typical. Cycle length is primarily dependent upon
operating severity (%HDS, %HDCCR and LHSV), since
this determines the deactivation rate due to coking.
The major benefit from this treatment is vanadium
removal and the resulting reduction in required FCC
catalyst purchase. In some cases, the FCC gasoline and/
or NOx emission limits also justify the shortened cycles.
ELIZABETH ALLEN (Criterion Catalyst Company):
A number of Criterion’s customers are processing
reduced crudes at low pressures in VGO units. Typically,
these units are processing about 25 percent resid in a
blend of VGO, although there are also a number of
customers who are processing with straight run distillates.
Typical desulfurization levels are about 80 percent and
CCR removals up to 65 percent. At very low pressure,
let us say at around less than 1,000 pounds, the significant
deactivation of the catalyst system from coking due to the
high CCR will be observed even at the low space velocities.
Question 41.
Is anyone successfully hydrotreating full range FCC gaso-
line to reduce sulfur? What are the product sulfur levels
and corresponding MON and RON octane losses. What
were the initial sulfur, MON and RON levels?
ROMAN:
We have done extensive work in this area. We used
commercially available cobalt moly catalysts to minimize
olefin loss and targeted a product sulfur level of about
250 ppm. The FCC naphtha experienced an octane loss
of 12 octane numbers. We also performed the same test
on our light RCC gasoline and experienced the loss of
19 octane numbers due to its higher olefinicity. Most of
the sulfur in cracked gasoline is in the 360° degree plus
cut. The way to minimize the severe octane loss is to
desulfurize the 360° degree plus gasoline only. This heavy
naphtha can either be desulfurized in a stand alone unit
or it can be dropped down into the light cycle draw in
desulfurized and middle distillate desulfurizer or DDS
unit. There is a three or four percent loss in total gasoline
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
yield to distillate which results from commingling heavy
naphtha with the much larger middle distillate stream.
TASKER:
IFP and HRI have licensed several units to hydrotreat
full range FCC gasoline to reduce sulfur. Typically when
the unit reduces the feed sulfur from about 275 to about
50 weight ppm and the feed olefin is 31 weight percent,
the road octane loss has been less than about five numbers.
If the feed sulfur was lowered from a level of say 4,200
ppm to 420 and the feed olefin content is 24 percent,
the road octane loss is less than 3.5 numbers.
CAIN:
We conducted a week long test at our Delaware City
plant. The inlet sulfur was reduced from 1966 ppm to
0.1 ppm. The RON was reduced from 88.8 to 77.6 and
the MON was reduced from 78.2 to 70.3.
RICHARD FOLEY (CDTECH):
CDTECH licenses a CDHES process for reducing the
sulfur content in full range FCC gasoline. Eight or ten
different customer feed stocks containing 2500 to 1000
ppm sulfur have been tested in the commercial demonstra-
tion unit at CDTECH. We have been able to reduce the
sulfur contents to 50 to 100 ppm level (95% desulfuriza-
tion) with octane loss (RⳭM)/2 of less than 1 to 2.
Catalytic distillation provides the opportunity to treat the
high sulfur and high olefin fractions of full range gasoline
from the FCC unit separately, at optimum conditions,
with lower octane loss and lower total installed cost than
fixed bed processes.
RICHARD ROSSI (Criterion Catalyst Co.):
There are some refiners on the West Coast and a
couple in the midwest who are believed to be successfully
hydrotreating FCC gasoline or have done so in the recent
past via several different options. While one can achieve
about 90 plus percent HDS on full range FCC gasoline
via conventional hydrotreatment, there will be significant
loss of RON and MON due to saturation of olefins in
the front end of the stream. With space velocities in the
range of 5 to 8 and 92 to 98 percent HDS, a 4 to 8
number loss in RON and about a 1 to 3 number loss in
MON are likely with the octane loss being more severe
at the higher desulfurization rates. Because of this, many
refiners have considered preferentially hydrofeeding just
the heavy FCC gasoline, as was mentioned before, which
is relatively sulfur rich and olefin poor and thus minimizes
the octane loss. In this case, one can target relatively high
HDS rates and hold RON and MON losses down to
perhaps 1 to 2 numbers.
129
TOC/INDEX
IV. LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
A. Alkylation-Sulfuric Acid
1. Feed
Question 1.
Does anyone have problems with ice formation in the
contactor feed nozzle piping where the ‘‘wet’’ iso recycle
joins the cold effluent recycle?
MALEK:
We are aware of people who have had freeze problems
with their recycle iso-olefin feed control valve or their
refrigerant recycle control valve. The cause has usually
been traced back to poor coalescing of the recycle isobu-
tane and the orefin feed. You can check the effectiveness
of your coalescer by analyzing the water content on the
inlet versus the outlet. I believe that STRATCO designs
for 98% removal of free water in their coalescer designs.
You should also check your orefin feed, makeup isobutane,
and recycle isobutane for water content. You may be
getting large amounts of water that impact the feed
coalescer and overwhelm its ability to withdraw water
away fast enough. The isobutane recycle can be a problem
if you have low residence time in your overhead accumula-
tor, which can impact effectiveness of the water boot.
BINFORD:
First, I would like to thank STRATCO for helping
provide answers to several of these questions, especially
those that dealt with the design and operation issues, and
Allen Moser of STRATCO deserves special recognition
for his help here.
Ice formation in the STRATCO contactor reactor feed
nozzle piping can occur when the temperature of the
combined wet isobutane recycle and the cold effluent
recycle is less than 32°F. Typically, this condition results
only when the propane content in the refrigeration loop
is about 20%. For this to occur, the refrigeration compres-
sor is usually oversized to allow higher discharge pressures
for total condensing.
FOSTER:
I agree with what Mr. Malek and Mr. Binford said.
We are planning to replace our coalescer in the next year.
Until that time, we are working around the problem that
we are having. We do not have a temperature indicator
here, but a calculation exists for the operator group so
that they can approximate this temperature on the run.
They use this calculation to maintain the feed nozzle at
around 34° by bypassing a slipstream around the feed and
effluent exchanger to heat the stream. A better solution, of
130 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
course, is to replace the coalescer, which we are planning
on doing next year.
THIERRY DARDE (Pall Corporation):
Since it has been mentioned that there is a need for a
good liquid-liquid coalescer upstream of the alkylation
plant, I would like to mention that Pall Corporation has
a viable liquid-liquid coalescer which can deliver below
15 ppm free water downstream, which in this case would
protect the alkylation plant very efficiently.
STEVE MATHUR (Chevron):
You could actually see freezing in the lines if you are
water washing the DIB a lot, because the water tends to
carry with the iso recycle when it meets the feed junction
of the refrigerant recycle, which could be at 17°F or 20°F.
The situation is worsened if the coaleser is not functioning
well. The actual freeze point happens right where the cold
refrigerant recycle meets the isobutane recycle (including
the feed). This can cause the flow control valve in the
iso plus feed line to fully open to compensate for the loss
of flow due to partial freezing.
Question 2.
What instruments have refiners used for the custody
transfer of spent and fresh sulfuric acid for the alkyl-
ation unit?
CAIN:
We have our acid regenerated by Dupont, which has
a plant adjacent to our Louisiana plant. They have an in-
line magnetic type flow meter manufactured by Foxboro,
and we agree with them that it is highly accurate and
very reliable.
HAHN:
Although we do not use them, we know of several
refiners that do use mass meters for acid transfers. More
common for us is to use tank gauges or traditional meters.
STRATCO does recommend mass meters for custody
transfers.
MALEK:
The bulk of the installations that we have seen use
weigh scales, either truck weigh scales or rail weigh scales.
Usually, the refinery will have truck weigh scales. The
rail weigh scales are a little bit less common, but they are
readily available. It is probably the most effective way to
reliably measure this material.
TOC/INDEX
FUSSELL:
At our Port Arthur refinery, we bring our sulfuric acid
into the plant, as well as out of the plant, in rail cars to
Olin. With the spent acid, we test the concentration, we
find out what the concentration is in the acid, and then
we take a strapping on the rail car. On the fresh acid, we
use the bill of lading and we strap the rail car.
GREG HALLAUER (Micro Motion, Inc.):
Micro Motion’s mass flow meters are successfully being
used for custody transfer of spent and fresh sulfuric acid.
Meter sizing and material selection are critical to ensure
the safety and longevity of the system.
Acid velocity should be maintained below 2 fps to 3
fps. Various metallurgies are available, including Tefzel-
lined meters.
Density and temperature, measured by the same meter,
are used to monitor concentration during transfer.
Question 3.
What levels of light ends (hydrogen through ethane) in
the alkylation feed have refiners been able to tolerate?
Do refiners with feed selective hydrogenation units have
product strippers, or flash separators only?
MALEK:
Most sulfuric acid units can handle small amounts of
C2 and lighter material. We have reviewed units that have
run as high as 3 liquid vol% and 4 liquid vol%. This
material will get purged via the refrigerant compressor
receiver pressure control valve.
Many selective hydrogenation units only have flash
separators, which is a potential source of light ends into
the sulfuric acid units. A typical unit that is using real
high quality or high purity hydrogen will have very little
inerts coming through with the treated material, because
the hydrogen consumption is very near stoichiometric in
this unit. We would recommend sending the vent stream
from the flash separator of these hydrogenation units to
the FCC wet gas compressor rather than the fuel system.
This will recover the olefins in this stream. This stream
is very small compared to the total flow of the wet gas
compressor.
You may consider sending the refrigerant compressor
receiver pressure-controlled vent to the FCCU, as well.
This stream will contain some trace amounts of SO2
and SO3.
TASKER:
In general, dealing with the second part of the question,
IFP and HRI design the selective hydrogenation units,
which we refer to as SHU’s. We design them to avoid
excess hydrogen in the reactor. With no excess, the pro-
duction of light ends is minimized. If the hydrogen stream,
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
as Mr. Malek indicates, is pure enough, then it is conceiv-
ably possible to have zero gas at the reactor outlet, and
hence, zero going to the alkylation unit. But in the real
world, we do approach almost stoichiometric proportion
of gas. But, there is always a little bit there.
Most of the units require only a flash separator. Use
of a stripper, of course, will ensure that the maximum
amount of light ends are stripped out, and that will be
a function of your incoming hydrogen. You need to try
to ensure that as much of the light ends as possible is
stripped before the feed goes to the alkylation unit.
HENKE:
The amount of C2 that can be tolerated in the alkylation
feed depends on the design of your particular alkylation
unit, and how much propane/propylene is in the feed.
The light ends will eventually end up in the depropanizer
section. If there is not much propane/propylene in the
feed, the C2 will significantly pressure up the depropan-
izer section.
We operate two UOP HF units with selective hydro-
treaters. Both units are equipped with product strippers.
Both units operate on butane/butylene feed. The only
propane/propylene that enters the unit is through varia-
tion in upstream fractionation. The C2 in the alkylate
feed must be kept very low. We target less than 0.02 liquid
vol% in order to avoid venting from the depropanizer
overhead receiver.
We also operate a STRATCO sulfuric acid unit. This
unit operates with 15% propane/propylene in the feed.
Several years ago, we ran for a short period of time with
a selective hydrotreater upstream of the sulfuric acid unit.
The only light ends removal was through two simple
flashes. The operation was runnable, but the light ends
did result in high pressures on the compressor discharge
receivers, which restricted compressor capacity. The selec-
tive hydrotreater operation was discontinued for numer-
ous reasons. If we had continued with that operation, the
131
TOC/INDEX
economics would have justified the additional provisions
for light ends removal.
STEVE MATHUR (Chevron):
One of the things that we have found necessary in HF
alkylation units is to have a condenser in the vent line
on top of the depropanizer overhead drum, because if
you do not condense the HF out of there, you are going
to blow a lot of acid out with the noncondensables, and
that could actually increase the acid consumption rate
substantially. The situation gets a lot worse if you have
a lot of noncondensables (C2 etc.), and also, if you are
not operating the HF stripper correctly so that the ethane,
instead of coming out with the propane product, goes
overhead and pressures up the unit.
2. Process
Question 4.
What is the recommended water content of circulating
acid in HF and H2SO4 alkylation units? What are the best
ways to control this?
ROMAN:
At Ashland, we operate three HF alkylation units. In
all of them, we try to maintain 0.5% to 0.8% water in
the circulating acid. We try to maintain the olefin feed
moisture at less than 5 ppm. Higher moisture levels can
cause problems via two different mechanisms. Carbon
steel in the unit is normally protected by dense, hard,
adherent iron fluoride scale. Dilute acid will convert this
iron to iron fluoride tetrahydrate, which has a specific
volume of 3.5 times the original scale. This expansion
causes the scale to fall off the underlying metal. Continued
exposure will convert the scale to iron fluoride octahy-
drate, which is actually soluble in hydrofluoric acid.
Another problem is the formation of azeotropes in the
stripper. The settler effluent contains several hundred ppm
of dissolved, concentrated HF acid. This acid will be
driven off as it flows down the stripper, until a maximum
boiling azeotrope forms at 36% HF in water. This azeo-
trope is extremely corrosive, and if the concentration is
high enough, it will enter the side reboilers and cause
failure. We have recently begun to use seamless tubes on
our side reboilers to avoid the possibility of this type of
corrosion at the tube seam welds where there is always
some residual hardness.
MALEK:
As a general guideline for operating HF units, you
need to keep the water content in an HF acid below 1
wt%. This is done by external acid regeneration.
For a sulfuric acid unit, a good operation will be 3
wt% to 4 wt% maximum water. As discussed previously,
132 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
proper coalescing of the feed has a major impact on the
water content in the circulating acid.
PETERSON:
In one of our refineries, we have a dimersol unit that
processes most of the propylene. But, at times, we can
put propylene, or the rest of the propylene, to the alkyl-
ation unit, so we have a common feed drier for the pro-
pylene.
In another refinery, we have a fractionation dehydrator
downstream of the MDEA and Merox treating system
which dries propylene along with the butylene.
When only alkylating butylene, we may not need to
run this dehydrator tower in front of the system. But,
because of the severely hydrotreated feed to the FCCU,
we do not have to run the Merox system. MDEA is not
perfect at getting all of the H2S, so this partially condens-
ing tower acts as an H2S back end stripper to help prevent
sulfur consumption of the HF.
BINFORD:
For units operating with full mixed butylene feedstocks,
STRATCO recommends typical water content of 2% to
3%. Typical water content is 3% to 5% for units with
an MTBE raffinate feed. Water content of the feed is
controlled by monitoring the efficiency of the feed
coalescer through tracking the water knockout rate. Oth-
erwise, water content is controlled by reducing water in
the fresh acid or in the olefin feed.
Water precursors, such as methanol, need to be con-
trolled as well. Besides decomposing and forming water
in the reaction zone, methanol is a cosolvent which allows
more water to get past the feed coalescer.
Question 5.
Is anyone using alkylation co-catalysts? What are the
benefits?
FUSSELL:
In our STRATCO alkylation unit, we have been using
the Betz Alkat product for approximately 2 years. We
have seen a 10% to 15% decrease in our sulfuric acid
consumption. We knew we were making progress there
when Olin gave us a call. We have also seen a 2% to 5%
increase in the alkylate production off of the unit.
We have not seen any significant octane gain that we
have been able to quantify. That is part of what is adver-
tised, but we were not able to see that.
We have calculated about a 200% return on investment
with the use of the Alkat.
We have also noticed that it has made our operation
a lot more stable than the operation was before. We receive
our feed to our alkylation unit from Huntsman, and it
varies quite a bit, and we used to have a lot of operational
TOC/INDEX
problems. The Alkat seems to have stabilized the unit
for us.
We are getting ready to do a trial using the Nalco/
Exxon product. We are not doing this because we have
a problem with the Betz product; we just feel like doing
some experimenting.
BINFORD:
The numbers that Ms. Fussell quoted are pretty typical
of what we see with our cocatalyst product. We have
evaluated it in 21 commercial alkylation units, which
equates to about half of the alkylation units in the United
States. Typical performance improvements quantified are
3% to 7% improvement in unit yield; 10% to 27%
reduction in unit acid consumption; and a 0.3 to 0.7
number increase in alkylate octanes. That small value
octane increase can be very valuable, but as Ms. Fussell
mentioned, it may be very hard to see in the unit, and
hard to quantify. Reduction of undesirable side reactions
in the unit, as a result of using the co-catalyst, has also
reduced corrosion in the downstream DIB tower and
reduced alkylate end point. Units alkylating higher levels
of propylene in their feedstocks or mixed propylene-butyl-
ene-amylene feeds, and generally those units operating at
more severe conditions, exhibit the upper end of the
improvements I quoted before.
We are evaluating a new product that is specifically
targeted at higher acid reduction numbers. In our pilot
plant, we have seen acid reduction in the 25% to 35%
range. We do have a commercial test on-going, and
another just about ready to start.
CAIN:
We have conducted several trials in two of our plants
with alkylation aids. We have been unable to quantify
the benefits. So, we are still working with them, and we
will try to get those quantified.
FOSTER:
We have done several trials of BetzDearborn’s Alkat
XL. We have seen a reduction in acid consumption of
about 9%, and an increase in alkylate yield of 3%. We
are not sure that these results are 100% statistically sign)fi-
cant, however. After the final Alkat XL trial, we intend
to conduct a trial of the Alkat AR. I think that Mr. Binford
was talking about Alkat AR with the higher reduction in
acid consumption, somewhere between 25% and 30%.
MALEK:
The data that I have reviewed on the various catalyst
systems do indicate that there is some improvement. One
refiner told me that he thought that a lot of it might
have been attributable to the fact that his engineers were
looking at the unit a lot closer while they were evaluating
the use of the catalyst. But I really do believe there is an
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
improvement. It is probably justified when you weigh the
additional cost of more isobutane versus the catalyst cost.
The numbers that I have reviewed indicate that the use
of these catalysts is cost-effective.
Question 6.
What experiences, if any, have people had using capaci-
tance probes to determine the settler acid level and the
acid-to-hydrocarbon ratio in the reactor?
FOSTER:
We currently have capacitance probes on four settlers
and DP cells on two others.
We have had good experience with the capacitance
probes. They more accurately identify where the top layer
of foam exists, and they show a good trend of the acid level.
Question 7.
We have had occasional foaming in our alkaline water
wash system. Could it be caused by poor make-up water
quality (TDS) or aromatics in the feed or something else?
What type of makeup water do you use (BFW, conden-
sate, process water), and what is the quality? If the
problem is aromatics, at what level does it occur?
BINFORD:
STRATCO has noted, in their experience, that the
alkaline water wash will have a tight emulsion when a
surfactant enters the water wash with the olefin feed. Seal
oil and lube oil leaks into the process can also cause tight
emulsions. Aromatics, ethylene, or ethyl mercaptan can
all cause a detergent or soap formation in the alkaline
water wash at levels as low as 50 ppm in the olefin
feed stream.
To prevent the formation of solids in the alkaline water
wash, they recommend that the makeup water contain
less than 20 ppm hardness as magnesium plus calcium
carbonate. Continuous water makeup is required to main-
tain a conductivity in the circulating water in the range
of 5000 to 8000 micro moles per centimeter.
CAIN:
We use clarified water as makeup water, with a total
hardness of less than 80 ppm in two plants.
FOSTER:
Mr. Binford mentioned the 5000 ppm to 8000 ppm
range for TDS. Our utility water happens to run about
4000 ppm, so it is a very good quality and we use util-
ity water.
Condensate can also be used as makeup water, but the
hotter it is, the more it tends to absorb hydrocarbon, so
it causes the TOC to go up in the water purge stream.
We also use an antifoam by Baker Petrolite, it is IPC
5120. We use it at about 2 ppm in the caustic wash
133
TOC/INDEX
drum in order to control the amount of foaming in the
neutralization section.
HENKE:
We have not experienced foaming problems due to
makeup water quality or aromatics in the feed. We did
have a foaming event that we attributed to high caustic
concentration in the alkaline water wash vessel. This con-
dition was corrected by repairing the makeup water flow
meter and reestablishing an adequate makeup water flow
rate. We use softened well water as makeup water to the
alkaline water wash. The TDS of this stream is approxi-
mately 1000.
MALEK:
You would have to have a fairly large amount of aromat-
ics in your feed, probably greater than 2% to 3%, to see
a foaming problem. If you are using reformate to start
up your unit, or as a seal flush, you may have a problem
during those times. However, you should also see emul-
sion problems in your acid settler emulsion level gauges.
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
For over 10 years, Merichem has operated a Fiber
Film娃 water wash system in Aquafining SM service which
is downstream of a conventional caustic wash on the
alkylation reactor product. We have seen extremely good
results with this service. Merichem recommends that the
makeup water to the water wash be steam condensate,
boiler feed water, demineralized water or equivalent. The
total dissolved solids not exceed 100 ppm weight as cal-
cium carbonate.
STEVE MATHUR (Chevron):
We have found that if you have high TDS in the
overall alkaline water wash, higher than 10,000 ppm, you
will tend to carry the alkaline water with the reactor
effluent to the DIB.
Hardness is another matter, however. With hardness,
what you do is foul up your alkaline water exchanger. If
the hardness is very high, within three weeks you will
end up cleaning that exchanger on a continual basis. The
only long term solution is to use either condensate or soft
water as makeup water to the alkaline water wash.
Question 8.
What effects are seen in the DIB operation when chlorides
come in with make-up isobutane? Has anyone experi-
enced severe tray fouling in the DIB and-or pluggage in
the feed/isobutane recycle coalescer as a result of it?
MALEK:
If chlorides are present in your isobutane, you can be
assured you are going to have problems in the DIB col-
umn. In order to make sure that you do not have chlorides,
134 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
check the source of your isobutane. It is probably coming
from the butane isomerization unit stabilizer. This prob-
lem is usually due to an over-injection of chloride in
the butane isomerization unit, and to improper stabilizer
operation. Get the licenser to review your chloride injec-
tion rate and make sure that you are refluxing the stabilizer
adequately, and thereby reboiling and stripping this tower
properly. This tower is not an area where you should be
trying to save reflux energy.
BINFORD:
I agree with all of Mr. Malek’s comments on the chlo-
ride issue. While I was researching this, I did gather a
lot of information on corrosion in the overhead of the
depropanizer and in the debutanizer.
Corrosion in fractionators of alkylation units is becom-
ing a more prevalent problem for most refineries. Many
U.S. alkylation units are running above 110 % of design
capacity to meet the refiner’s need for alkylate in the
gasoline pool. The increased loading on the reaction sec-
tion creates more side reaction products, acids and neutral
esters, and acid carryover. Acids and esters carrying
through from the reactor are the most common cause of
corrosion in the fractionators. Poor mixing and lower
residence times in the reactor effluent treating section
allow more of these components to enter the fractionation
section. Corrosion in the DIB comes from not aufficiently
neutralizing the alkyl sulfates in the water/caustic wash
upstream. The alkyl sulfates may break down to form tars
and SO2. The wash needs to be at least 120°F to thermally
decompose the dialkyl sulfates.
Corrosion in the depropanizer on the alkylation unit
is the result of SO2 and SO3 liberation in the fractionation
section. SO2 and SO3 end up in the refrigeration loop
where they can react with water to form acids. Proper
operation and sizing of the depropanizer feed treaters
can minimize corrosion. Units without depropanizer feed
treaters are at the greatest risk for severe corrosion. One
alkylation unit does not operate its depropanizer due to
this corrosion problem.
Corrosion problems in these fractionators can be effec-
tively controlled through the use of chemical neutralizers.
Neutralizers can be applied to the feed or the reflux of
these columns. The neutralizer used in the deisobutanizer
must be nonvolatile at the overhead conditions of this
column so that it does not enter the reaction section with
the isobutane recycle. Nonvolatile neutralizers will also
protect the reboilers in the fractionation section. Neutral-
izers used in the depropanizer should partition to the
water phase in the overhead accumulator to prevent them
from recycling back to the reaction section.
Reboiler fouling in the alkylation unit is typically the
result of corrosion problems in the unit. The corrosion
products can migrate down the column and concentrate
in the reboilers. Corrosion products can also come in
TOC/INDEX
with the fractionator feed from upstream equipment. The
corrosion products become bound to the reboiler with
polymers and ester decomposition products. While most
refiners have a routine of water washing the reboiler on-
line, this tends to be a short term solution (the bundles
get less clean each time). Routine water washing must be
continued until the reboiler can no longer perform as
required. Chemical antifoulants can be applied that will
help prevent polymer formation and keep the corrosion
products dispersed. In most cases, we have been able to
economically extend reboiler run lengths to the desired
turnaround schedule with a properly designed antifoul-
ant program.
CAIN:
We have had fouling problems in our alkylation DIB
side and bottom reboilers.
We are currently using a Nalco/Exxon dispersant with
good results.
Question 9.
What are your experiences with, and the causes of foam-
ing in spent acid tanks or acid trucks/railcars?
CAIN:
At Port Arthur, we do not have any problems with
foaming in our spent acid tanks or trucks. Foaming usually
occurs due to the presence of hydrocarbons in the
spent acid.
FUSSELL:
We have had occasions where we have had foaming
problems in the spent acid railcars. We have determined
that this is caused by alkylate in the spent acid, so we
have several steps that we go through to try to get all of
the alkylate out.
Question 10.
How do you troubleshoot the acid wash electrostatic
precipitator to ensure that it is working efficiently? Does
anyone test for acid in the effluent? What procedure
is used?
HENKE:
The operation of our acid wash electrostatic precipita-
tor has been basically trouble free. The operators monitor
performance by watching level, temperature, amps, and
volts. Acid carryover is maintained below 10 ppm. We
have found that, in our unit, operating at a lower level
improves overall performance of the electrostatic precipi-
tator.
We do not test for acid in the hydrocarbon effluent
on a routine basis. We have obtained semi-quantitative
data on the acid in the effluent by direct sampling of the
hydrocarbon, followed by titration in the lab.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
BINFORD:
Troubleshooting the acid wash is typically done on an
indirect basis. The inlet and outlet acid strengths should
be monitored on a weekly basis to see how much non-
acidic material is absorbed. There is a test method for
measuring free acid in the effluent from the electrostatic
precipitator. The method involves centrifuging a weath-
ered sample and volumetrically determining the amount
of acid that separates from the hydrocarbon.
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
Merichem offers EsterexSM technology, which uses fresh
sulfuric acid along with a Fiber Film娃 contactor to
remove both the acid and neutral esters which cause foul-
ing in the downstream DIB. Since the Fiber Film娃 con-
tactor has no moving parts or electrodes that short out
with emulsions and corrode in the acid environment,
virtually 100% on stream time between turnarounds is
achieved, along with minimal acid carryover.
Question 11.
Discuss experience with running above 0.6 olefin space
velocity in sulfuric acid alkylation units. Specifically
comment on reaction zone temperature limitations, cor-
rosion problems, alkylate yields and acid consumption
effects.
HAHN:
Yes, we operate both of our alkylation units above 0.6
space velocity. We suffer a little because of that. Our
corrosion rates are somewhat high. Our temperatures are
a maximum of 65°F, and we routinely run at 65°F for a
large part of the year.
Our worst corrosion occurs in our lowest strength acid
system. That final contactor operates at 88-89% sulfuric
acid. We have experienced contactor tube leaks as fre-
quently as every 4 months to 12 months. A lot of this is
due to a very localized corrosion, sort of like an impinge-
ment effect. We are designing a splash plate to protect
that nozzle entry point.
Our octane numbers are somewhat lower than what
may be desirable. But overall, our alkylate production is
much higher, and we accept these less than perfect condi-
tions in order to maximize our alkylate production.
FOSTER:
We have had some similar experiences. We have two
of our contactors that operate at this space velocity. Cur-
rently, we have not seen any corrosion problems. Our
C10Ⳮ molecules are about two times what they normally
would be, and we see a slight increase in the 90% point
and in the endpoint. Acid consumption does not seem
to have been affected.
135
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
Operation at or above 0.6 olefin space velocity is profit-
able in our case, provided that we maintain contactor
temperatures below 65°F. We have extensive DIB feed
pretreating that includes a fresh acid wash system. This
tends to minimize the corrosive impact of the esters
formed at the high space velocities. Our acid consumption
is higher and our alkylate yield is slightly lower. I also
refer you to page 120 of the 1993 NPRA Q&A Transcript,
where there is a substantial amount of information on
this topic.
FUSSELL:
I would just like to say that about 5 or 6 years ago,
we did operate our alkylation unit at maximum charge
rate. That was our whole goal in life—to put as much
charge through the unit as we possibly could. We were
running very warm on our contactor temperatures. We
were using over 1 lb of sulfuric acid per gallon of alkylate.
That was, in our opinion, the right way to run the unit.
We brought KBC in to do one of their famous yield and
energy surveys. They told us that we probably did not
want to run the unit that way.
We did a series of test runs and a lot of economics
and determined that yes, they were right. That was one
thing we were not doing properly. We totally changed
our philosophy on running the unit. We cut the rate
back, got the contactor temperatures down, and we cut
our acid consumption in half. We definitely got phone
calls from Olin at that point. The octane on our product
went up quite a bit. Our alkylate yield per barrel of feed
went up. We were actually making almost as much alkylate
at the lower charge rates as we were at the higher charge
rates. So overall, that was definitely the right move for
us to make.
Question 12.
Is there much industry experience with using bauxite for
effluent treating? What benefits and costs can be
expected from switching to bauxite? Since our refinery
is short on isobutane, can anything else be used for dry-
out during bauxite regeneration?
PETERSON:
We have a bauxite treater downstream of a reactor in
one of our refineries. It removes any residual acid and
neutral esters from the stream prior to the fractionation
in the deisobutanizer. There is very little tray corrosion
and very little fouling in the deisobutanizer. No chemicals
are needed in the overhead system, since all the bad mate-
rial is taken out upstream. The two bundles and reactors
have a service life of over 25 years.
A further benefit is that the isobutane recycle stream
is dry, which decreases the acid consumption. Alkylate
136 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
quality is improved by removing the side reaction prod-
ucts.
BINFORD:
STRATCO notes that it is generally not cost-effective
to switch an existing unit to bauxite treating, unless the
existing treating system is wholly inadequate and has to
be replaced away.
In bauxite treating, the bauxite is regenerated (dried)
by recirculating an isobutane stream. This typically does
not affect the isobutane consumption appreciably. How-
ever, there is some capital investment required for the
equipment to condense, vaporize and pump the isobutane
through the circuit. An alternative is a once through sweep
of natural gas, if the natural gas is dry enough.
Question 13.
Discuss what corrosion has been experienced in sulfuric
acid or HF alkylation alkylate splitter tower overhead sys-
tems.
HENKE:
We have no significant corrosion in our alkylate split-
ters or aviation gasoline towers.
PETERSON:
We have a yes and no answer. In one of the refineries,
we have not seen any problems in the HF alkylate splitter
overhead. This system has a fired reboiler.
In another system, we have had some problems with
the fluorides apparently breaking down (it is an HF unit).
The chrome parts of valves in the overhead system have
had some problems. This tower is reboiled with an AGO
pumparound.
FOSTER:
We use a corrosion inhibitor and a neutralizing amine
in the overhead system to maintain a pH of about 7 and
in the overhead water boot, and our iron levels are down
below 10 ppm. That normally keeps us down to a corro-
sion rate of about 2 mils. Under normal operating condi-
tions, the corrosion rate is very low. We have experienced
some upset conditions where we have eaten up overhead
condensers pretty quickly.
DAVID S. McCAFFREY (Exxon Research & Engineering Co.):
In sulfuric acid alkylation splitter towers, corrosion is
due to the breakdown of neutral esters releasing SO2. The
SO2 in the overhead system will combine with free water
and give you a corrosive environment. In a modern ER&E
auto-refrigerated sulfuric acid process, neutral esters are
not formed to any significant extent by proper setting of
operating conditions, and thus the problem is precluded.
TOC/INDEX
STEVE MATHER (Chevron):
In HF alkylation plants, if you have corrosion in the
overhead, there is a likelihood of the reboiler steam leaking
through. If the water is reaching the overhead with the
fluorides, it will cause low pH. It could be a very small
leak that may not be really evident, but we have seen it.
Question 14.
Has anyone experienced plugging problems on the flash
drum side of the suction trap/flash drum? If so, what
was the cause and/or solution? Has anyone documented
a case of hydrate formation?
MALEK:
If you are getting plugging in the flash drum side of
the suction trap/flash drum, it can be caused by ice or
hydrates. This happens when water gets into the bottom
of the depropanizer. Check the depropanizer operation
and make sure that you are not getting any carryover
from the depropanizer feed treating section, and that you
are running the depropanizer effectively.
BINFORD:
When a small amount of water is returned to the flash
drum in the depropanizer bottoms, the water will freeze
at the temperatures and pressures in the flash drum, result-
ing in plugging of the suction screens for the pumps. The
solution is to increase the overhead temperature of the
depropanizer—which increases water removal poten-
tial—or to increase the pressure in the flash drum such
that freezing does not occur.
CAIN:
We have had the same problem with water leaking
into the system from an exchanger.
Question 15.
Has anyone experienced fouling or plugging in the alka-
line water wash heater or depropanizer feed heater? If
so, what was the cause and/or solution? Was any of
the material that fouled the exchanger collected and
analyzed? If so, what was the composition?
FUSSELL:
We have recently commissioned a caustic wash system
upstream of the depropanizer on our alkylation unit. It
is actually upstream of the feed heat exchanger prior to
the depropanizer. We have had a lot of plugging problems
in the heat exchanger as well as in the depropanizer. We
are slowly but surely troubleshooting our way out of these
problems. We have determined that the plugging has been
caused by the caustic salts.
BINFORD:
Some analysis provided by STRATCO, based on their
experience, is that the foulant is typically 50% organics,
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
based on the loss in ignition analysis, with the remainder
being inorganics comprised of calcium and magnesium
carbonate. Plugging in the alkaline water wash heater is
usually due to hardness in the makeup water, and thus
the deposits.
FOSTER:
We have found that fouling in the alkaline water wash
heater is almost always preceded by an upset in the reactor
section. If the iso/olefin ratio falls below 7 or if the spent
acid strength falls below 88%, we tend to see polymeriza-
tion in the reaction section, and polymer collection in
the alkaline water wash heater. Our analysis of the material
in the fouled exchanger shows it to be about 60% inor-
ganic (mostly iron) and 40% organic (mostly C 4 -C 6
organic acids, C3-C9 aldehydes, and C6-C8 substituted
alkanes).
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
Merichem recently replaced a conventional caustic
wash for a major European refiner with a Fiber Film娃
caustic wash ahead of the sulfuric acid alkylation unit
depropanizer. The unit has been on stream less than 1
year, but the benefits have been significantly reduced
caustic carryover resulting in improved life of the trays
and the reboiler.
3. Mechanical
Question 16.
What is the experience on erosion/corrosion of nozzle
tips and candles in olefin feed distributors of alkylation
units? What materials and/or coatings have refiners used
to prevent this damage? Our unit is equipped with an
Alloy 20 spray nozzle on each candle with a tungsten
carbide insert. The candle is a carbon steelpipe nipple
with a ‘‘greycoat’’ appled. Our unit is fitted with ‘‘Light-
ning’’ turbine type mixers.
CAIN:
In our Port Arthur plant during our last inspection,
we noticed some slight cracks on the feed nozzles and the
spider vanes. The impellers were checked, but they showed
no signs of erosion or corrosion.
4. General
Question 17.
What are the panelists’ thoughts on preneutralizing the
spray mitigation water? Has anyone used sodium silicate
in this service?
ROMAN:
We think the best approach is to allow the runoff
flow to a nearby impoundment area where it can be
137
TOC/INDEX
subsequently neutralized with lime. If there is no local
impoundment area adjacent to the unit, we would recom-
mend installing a pump pit and pumping the overflow
into a nearby diked area, again, for subsequent neutraliza-
tion. Pre-neutralization would be our last choice due to
its high cost and problems associated with spray nozzle
plugging.
ROBERT E. DAVIS (R.E. Davis Chemical Corporation):
Years ago, I worked for a company that manufactured
HF. One of the products used for any spills was sodium
silicate. It forms a sodium silica fluoride, which is totally
insoluble and can be swept up and disposed of.
Question 18.
What is the current ‘‘best’’ practice for washing the resid-
ual H2SO4 from an alkylation unit after draining for turn-
around? Is a neutralizing circulation used, or is deluging
with water to the sewer a common practice? If a circulat-
ing basic water wash is used, what is the typical flow
diagram for it, and how is the pH of the water monitored
and controlled?
CAIN:
We inject 50 baume caustic into the wash, carefully
time the wash, check pH to determine whether to add
more caustic or stop, and then check to make sure that
the pH is in a safe and legal range to drain. We dump
from one settler to another to conserve the caustic.
FUSSELL:
We also circulate caustic through our three contactor
systems. We have a 25 wt% caustic solution. We take
the waste caustic to our waste treatment facility.
B. Alkylation-Hydrofluoric Acid
1. Feed
Question 19.
What problems are caused by alkylating amylenes? What
contaminants cause the different problems, and how can
the problems be mitigated?
PETERSON:
There are several concerns with the alkylation amy-
lenes. It depends on your balance of RVP reduction needs
and your operating costs associated with the amylene
processing. The inclusion of heavier hydrocarbons with
the amylenes sometimes can occur, particularly where you
are really running your FCC debutanizer very hard, as
we run ours. If our GC shows a component called ‘‘C6Ⳮ,’’
we know we have gone too far. We think it is probably
something like cyclopentenes and other heavier items.
138 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
Higher molecular weight sulfur compounds can also
come through if your Merox system has some problems.
Isobutane consumption increases not only from the alkyl-
ation of the olefin, but also because of the significant
hydrogen transfer that occurs with amylene. Again, this
is all a balance between what you really want to do with
RVP reduction and these other operating costs. The iso-
pentane and normal pentane are going to end up in the
gasoline pool anyway. But maybe you would rather have
them go there with the FCC gasoline as opposed to the
alkylate, depending on how you are using your alkylate
for octane optimization.
SAMUELS:
I like some of the things Mr. Peterson said here. With
amylenes, of course, you usually have a large amount of
dienes which, if not removed, will form light ASO in the
alkylating unit. Also, the C5 mercaptans are harder to
treat in a standard Merox unit. Selective hydrogenation,
operated to remove sulfur, can have the added benefits
of saturating diolefins and converting 1 butene to 2-
butene to improve alkylate quality. So there are some
advantages there. It should also be noted that to get the
amylenes, a lot of saturated pentane must typically be
taken. Normal pentane lowers alkylate octane while iso-
pentane increases the vapor pressure. Also, for refiners
who have ether units, if you have not prefractionated,
you are going to make TAME and dilute your ether with
unconverted C5’s.
STEVE MATHUR (Chevron):
A long time ago we did a test alkylating large amounts
of amylenes in an HF unit, and were astonished to find
that the hydrogen transfer of the C5 olefins could be as
high as 65%. In other words, 65% of the C5 olefins was
going to make isopentane instead of alkylate. So the point
of alkylating was almost disappearing due to the high
vapor pressure of isopentane.
2. Process
Question 20.
What has been your experience with HF and HC sensors
for vapor detection? Please give your overall philosophy
of selecting different technologies and extent of success/
reliability with each type and make of sensor.
ROMAN:
Ashland has had good success with our current sensors.
There are 23 phototype sensors scattered throughout the
HF unit in our largest plant, and there are 4 quasi-mass
spectrometers that sample ambient air around the pumps.
The phototype sensors made by Molecular Analytic
bounce a light beam off a mirror. When the mirror
becomes distorted with acid, the light pattern changes
TOC/INDEX
and alarms. The quasi-mass spectrometer pulls ambient
air into a cleaning and drying system, and actually analyzes
the air. This instrument can detect Zero ppm to 10 ppm
of hydrofluoric acid. The philosophy in selecting the sen-
sors was to get inexpensive, proven sensors for general
monitoring, and get a more sophisticated instrument for
monitoring areas which are more likely to experience
a leak.
Question 21.
Now that some of the new vapor suppression additive
systems have started up, what has been the experience
with their performance?
HAHN:
In July, 1997, Texaco and UOP completed the latest
field test on a new, more cost effective additive called
Alkaid, at Texaco’s El Dorado refinery. This test was very
encouraging. The main objective was to determine the
increased operating costs, if any. There were no substantial
increases in operating costs as far as they could determine.
The flash chamber testing of the unit circulating acid
sample taken during the additive operation shows substan-
tial reductions in aerosol formation, in comparison to the
circulating acid without the additive operation.
We are very encouraged by these test results, and intend
to conduct a more extensive field test this fall. After a
successful field testing period, we intend to go commercial
with this product next year.
LARRY W. SHOEMAKER (Phillips Petroleum Company):
Phillips started up their reduced volatility alkylation
process (ReVAP) at the Woods Cross Refinery near Salt
Lake City, Utah, in early August. Since that time, the
process has worked extremely well. The alkylate product
quality and yields have been observed to be equal to or
maybe slightly better than that seen with traditional HF
catalysts. The operability and the reliability of the unit
have been good, with only one minor piece of mechanical
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
equipment having to be modified from the original design.
In addition, the early data indicate a possible reduction
in HF consumption, and we expect to have additional
data over the coming weeks to further prove the viability
of this new process.
Question 22.
For HF alkylation systems, what instruments are refiners
using to indicate acid regenerator column bottoms lev-
els? We currently use a temperature indicator with
some success.
PETERSON:
We are still using the temperature indication method
in the Ardmore Refinery to control level in our HF regen-
erator. Our Alma Refinery, however, is a little more
advanced than we are on this. They have a radiation
system aimed diagonally across the level control region
of their regenerator, and they have seen some very encoura-
ging results from this. They do not overdraw too low, so
they are able to save some acid. They can also stabilize the
operation, because they know where the level is, instead
of waiting for a temperature to indicate-almost like a
batch system.
SAMUELS:
In Robinson’s HF alkylation unit, we successfully oper-
ate a Texas Nuclear fixed source detector level indicator
at the bottom of the acid regenerator. Temperature indica-
tors above and below this instrument act as a backup
system.
HAHN:
At E1 Dorado’s HF alkylation unit, they also found
that temperatures and DP cells were not very reliable.
They also have installed nuclear detection devices, and
have found them to be much more reliable.
Question 23.
For HF alkylation systems, what instruments are refiners
using to indicate acid settler levels other than sight
glasses and DP cells?
SAMUELS:
At Marathon’s Garyville Phillips HF unit, we use an
OHMART nuclear level indicator to monitor the acid
level in the settler. The instrument continuously measures
the density in the settler and physically travels from the
top to the bottom of the vessel about every 1.5 hours.
The instrument plots the density versus level in the vessel.
The difference in density between the acid and the hydro-
carbons is very distinct making this a very useful level
indicator. To date, the instrument itself has been very
reliable, but has been somewhat subject to mechanical
problems, due to the physical nature of the instrument,
e.g., the detector moving up and down.
139
TOC/INDEX
At Robinson’s UOP HF alkylation unit, we also use
an OHMART nuclear detector profiler for the mixer
settler and for the acid storage drum. On the HF acid
boot levels, we have used a combination of capacitance
probes, as Mr. Foster has described, and a displacer unit.
We have actually removed the sight glasses from these
boots for safety reasons.
The dual technology combination has proven effective.
The capacitance probe does not suffer from hangups asso-
ciated with the displacer. But the capacitance probe has
had problems reading emulsions during start-ups—prob-
lems that the displacer has not had. We have also com-
pleted a trial installation of a nuclear guage designed to
be mounted in a level bridle, to supplement a displacer,
with success. The capacitance probes are preferred, how-
ever, due to substantially lower initial cost.
PETERSON:
We currently have nuclear level detection in our acid
settlers. We are looking at some other technologies. We
do not know the results, yet.
ROMAN:
We currently use OHMART gauges, which were pur-
chased directly from OHMART, and which use a cesium
nuclear source. This is a two-tube system. One tube is a
source on a pulley, and the other contains a Geiger detec-
tor. These systems are now considered obsolete, and we
are evaluating replacing them with newer back-scatter
technology, which uses a single tube and a much
smaller source.
We have also installed several Pro-Mag units, which
are magnetically coupled to external systems that use a
monel tube and an internal float. We have had problems
with some of the monel tubes due to the low and variable
Curie point of monel. It can become magnetic if the
Curie point happens to be above the settler temperature,
rendering it useless.
K-Ray also makes a back-scatter system, but we have
no experience with it.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
UOP offers a density profile system that uses a low
strength radioactive technology to indicate the settled
acid, the emulsion and the settled hydrocarbon levels.
The instrument has been widely used in the industry in the
current density profile system version and other density
profile versions for many years.
3. Mechanical
Question 24.
How successful have magnetic drive pumps been in HF
service? How do they compare with other sealless
pumps?
140 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
SAMUELS:
Fresh HF acid pump seal failure is a classic problem
in HF units. Even with much effort over the years, Mara-
thon has not been able to solve this problem. We are
currently evaluating two upgrades for this service. First,
sealless magnetically coupled HF acid pumps were
installed in Garyville. At this point our success with these
pumps has been marginal, and I probably could not rec-
ommend this design based on Garyville’s experience. The
initial capital cost is high compared to traditional designs,
the failure rate has been higher than expected, and the
repair costs are high, in the $10,000 to $13,000 per
event range.
An alternative, new technology has been developed and
installed in Robinson. This technology is the application
of an eductor system to educt fresh acid from the storage
drum into the mixer settler. A flash acid eductor trial was
successfully completed on November 15, 1997. Obvi-
ously, balancing the system flows and pressures is key to
operating the eductor successfully. We plan to design and
install a 150 8pm eductor for unit start-ups.
Just to add a little bit about the eductor design, it
educts HF using a slipstream of 225 8pm of cooled, high
pressure (325 psi’’) iso recycle from upstream of the HF
reactor as the motive fluid into the eductor, and it draws
25 8pm from the acid storage drum, which operates at
50 psi’’. The fresh acid and isobutane mixture (250 8pm)
is then discharged into the mixer settler at 210 psi’’. The
eductor is inherently sealless. There are no moving parts,
so it is more reliable than a conventional pump. The
installed capital cost of the eductor is about half the cost
of a sealless magnetically coupled pump.
Finally, I just want to mention that in our emulsion
pump, or circulating acid pump, in the UOP unit, we
do use a tandem seal, and have had very good success
with that, and have no plans to change that design.
C. Reforming
1. Process
Question 25.
What is the operating experience of reforming units being
controlled by advanced controls and optimizers? What
operating parameters are utilized for control to optimize
performance?
CAIN:
In our Louisiana plant, our reformer has advanced
controls, including DMC. It has been in place for almost
a year now, with good results. The controls maintain
inferential and analyzer variables on reformate octane,
RVP, and light end cuts by manipulating reactor tempera-
tures, the tower operating pressures and temperatures, etc.
TOC/INDEX
We also have purchased and are in the process of installing
an Applied Automation FTNIR analyzer. We hope to
have that installed by year end. It will model RON,
benzene, aromatics, and RVP. Also, in our Port Arthur
plant, they have been using advanced control since 1985,
and are in the process of starting up an on-line optimizer.
PETERSON:
One of our refineries introduced advanced controls in
the semiregenerative reformer about 10 years ago, and
they have worked quite well. They do inferential octane
controls by looking at the WABT, the feed rate, and other
variables. They minimize the hydrogen recycle ratio in
both the reformer side and at the hydrotreater side. They
minimize pressure in the reactor section, all, of course,
relative to the constraints of the catalyst system.
In the stabilizer system, pressure is minimized to match
a predetermined allowable off-gas rate. Reflux ratios and
pass balancing controls on the towers are used. The big
key to making this successful is to make sure the operators
understand what the systems are doing. Operators tend
to really get concerned when they see an automatic system
start changing the pressure on a tower.
ROMAN:
Ashland has had good experience with reformer
advanced controls. General advanced control design calls
for control of the reformate octane by resetting reactor
weight average inlet temperatures against both charge and
interheater constraints. A bed profile controller maintains
an operator-entered specification and temperature profiles
across the bed. Reactor liquid hourly space velocity is
used as a feed forward parameter in reformate octane
predictive controllers. Most success has been found in
those systems using Ashland’s NIR on-line technology to
measure reformate octane. Some reformers rely upon a
calculated octane value, which is updated with laboratory
values. Optimization parameters include temperature pro-
file across the beds, final reformate octane, and the amount
of naphtha, which bypasses the reformer to achieve an
overall octane demand, as dictated by gasoline blending.
The quality of the feed being introduced into the
reformers is also an optimization parameter, which is, of
course, controlled by the split at the dehexanizers or naph-
tha splitters upstream of the units.
All of our CCR units have on-line equations which
are used to calculate coke on catalyst, which is based upon
an oxygen balance around the regenerator.
H. C. KLIESCH (Treiber Controls Inc.):
We have implemented advanced control and on-line,
closed-loop unit optimization on a catalytic reforming
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
unit. We used our multivariable predictive control soft-
ware, OPC (Optimal Predictive Control), to control reac-
tor weighted-average reactor temperature and inlet tem-
perature profile by manipulating furnace outlet tempera-
tures. Furnace tube temperatures are constraint variables:
the controller will attempt to meet the desired temperature
profile through the reactors while respecting maximum
limits on tubeskin temperatures. For optimization, like
the alkylation model I discussed yesterday, we used our
CRO (Closed-loop Reconciliation and Optimization)
software to perform an economic optimization using a
first-principles, non-linear chemical engineering model of
the entire plant. The model is in simultaneous equation
form, so the same model is used for a full reconciliation
and parameter update, followed by an economic optimiza-
tion. What is unique about this reformer application is
that the model starts at the crude unit atmospheric tower
and includes the hydrotreater and the naphtha splitter.
The current crude slate is known, so the optimizer rigor-
ously calculates the naphthenic and paraffinic content of
the reformer feed and calculates the change in weighted
average temperature required to maintain a target octane.
The crude slate changes every 3 days and the octane target
changes twice weekly. The optimizer also computes and
implements the optimal feed 95% point on the atmo-
spheric column, and the optimal feed 5% point on the
naphtha splitter. New values are calculated for up to 25
setpoints and sent to the controllers every 45 to 60
minutes. The application has shown high uptimes and
had a payout in the range of 6 to 9 months
LEE E. TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
Advanced process controls on catalytic reformer units
have been very effective in stabilizing unit operations and
pushing constraints such as feed rate, equipment limits
and carbon make. We have installed on-line closed-loop
optimization on several units, including multiple reformer
simultaneous operations.
I would like to point out that the flat profile of profit
versus operating conditions may result in an optimizer
eventually downgrading to just a constraint pusher, some-
thing that needs to be watched very closely. I would
like to note another problem: we see some optimization
problems have been put on reformers where the unit is
varying octane as an independent variable, which is a local
optimization, but it does not fit into the refinery’s general
operating plan and results in a non-optimization of the
plant. The summer edition of Hydrocarbon Technology
Quarterly contains an article I wrote that reviews the
different operating parameters for optimization of reform-
ers, and includes some economic data on the impact of
moving independent variables.
PARIMAL KANTI BISWAS (Indian Oil Corporation Limited):
For a semiregenerative type of reformer, with the oil
plate heat exchanger, how are feed and effluent leaks
detected?
141
TOC/INDEX
HENKE:
In our refineries, we commonly use radioactive tracer
technology to detect leaks. I suggest that you can contact
the people at Tru-Tec in LaPorte, Texas. They provide
innovative leak detection solutions.
FUSSELL:
If you are talking about the feed effluent exchanger,
we look for isohexane in the product. If it makes it that
far, we probably have a leak.
ROMAN:
We generally use sulphur hexafluoride and inject it
into the feed, and then look for the peaks, using gas
chromatography to find that leak. If you see just one
peak, or if you see two peaks, you know you have a leak.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
I would like to forward this question to Peterson. We
have a semiregenerative UOP reformer, which runs on a
pneumatic control. My question is, what is required to
have an optimization on the reactors, or on the octane,
as you mentioned?
PETERSON:
The refinery that has the advanced controls is on a
DCS; it is a Bailey system. The Ardmore refinery has not
done advanced controls on a Bailey system, and we have
not attempted anything on pneumatics. We are in the
process of converting the rest of our refinery over to
distributive control, and we are also in the process of
going back in some of these units and looking at advanced
controls. But at this point, we have done nothing with
pneumatics.
TERRY D. TUCKER (MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.):
Helium can be used to detect tube leaks in feed/effluent
exchangers while they are in service. Helium is injected
on the tube (feed) side of the exchanger. A gas chromato-
graph is connected to a bleeder on the shell side, outlet,
of the effluent exchanger. After the helium has been
injected into the feed side of the exchanger, the gas chro-
matograph will indicate multiple spikes of helium if any
of the exchanger’s tubes are leaking.
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
The summation of the panel’s responses is a good place
to start. UOP has been involved with many APC projects
in recent years. The implementation of APC in reforming
projects incorporates the use of UOP’s proprietary reform-
ing models to provide setpoints and constraints for the
advanced control layer, typically a multivariable predictive
controller (MPC). More than 30 projects for both fixed-
bed and CCR platforming process units have been com-
pleted.
142 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
Typical unit operation requires conversion of the
octane or aromatics target specified by the refiner’s Eco-
nomics and Scheduling Group into a weighted average
inlet temperature (WAIT). Using a nonlinear model of
the reaction system, UOP as developed a model that
provides that target over a wide range of operating condi-
tions. Since the platforming process unit is often critical to
the refiner’s ability to produce gasoline and/or aromatics,
maximum throughput can be achieved by pushing unit
constraints typically to maximize unit charge rate. The
constraints may include furnace tubewall temperatures,
feed and recycle gas reactor hydraulic limits in CCR units
and coke production (either to match burn capacity of
the CCR or hit a run-length target on a semiregenera-
tive unit).
Coke production is strongly influenced by the hydro-
gen to hydrocarbon ratio, but is difficult to control because
of the time horizons involved compared to other process
variables and the fact that only the coke production rate
can be controlled. Once coke is produced, it can only be
removed by combustion.
Process units typically fall into two classes regarding
optimization potential. constrained optimum or global
optimum. For a standalone reformer, operation to con-
straints is typically the only optimization potential. Since
the constraints can be identified by either unit parameters
(valve positions, temperatures, etc.) or calculated variables
(the tubewall temperature, pinning or coking), the use of
an MPC that can push constraints is typically sufficient
to realize maximum potential from the unit. However,
when the reformer is part of a ‘‘naphtha complex,’’ which
might include a naphtha splitter and an isomerization
unit (such as UOP’s Penex process unit), there are oppor-
tunities for trade-offs in feed rates and compositions that
can only be evaluated by more complex optimization
calculations. To make these calculations, rigorous, kinetic
models of the units and detailed simulation of separations
and other unit operations are necessary. This form of
optimization is significantly more complex in develop-
ment and execution, but offers sizable benefits to the
refiner.
I agree with Mr. Roman with regard to the use of NIR
technology, except that we would use UOP Guided Wave
analyzers for this aspect of the information feedback sys-
tem. NIR is still considered a ‘‘secondary method,’’ as
opposed to octane number determination via an engine
which is a ‘‘primary method.’’ That being said, NIR is
being used for routine on-line control and analysis func-
tions today in refineries around the world as it can rapidly
and accurately mimic (‘‘statistically equivalent’’) many of
the analyses now required and performed by primary
methods on gasoline blends.
Two ASTM practices/methods have been developed
covering the use of NIR analyzers and their calibration.
The first is ASTM E1655 which covers the chemometric
TOC/INDEX
calibration of an NIR analyzer. The second is ASTM D6
122 which has just passed ballot and will be published
soon. This standard covers the validation of an NIR ‘‘sys-
tem’’, in other words ‘‘assuring that the analyzer system’s
results are statistically equivalent to the primary method.’’
Question 26.
What has been the industry experience using density
grading to recover CCR catalyst that was contaminated
with ‘‘heel’’ catalyst? Has anyone attempted to ex situ
regenerate ‘‘heel’’ catalyst for reuse?
FUSSELL:
In 1995, we used this process with CRI here in Louisi-
ana. I would refer you to the 1995 NPRA Q&A Transcript
where Mr. Dale Emmanuel provided a very comprehen-
sive answer.
HENKE:
We have no direct experience with density grading.
However, we have been told that this process is well
proven and has been used successfully by several rehmers.
We have completed an ex-situ regeneration of our heel
catalyst. The carbon content on the heel catalyst was
between 40 wt% and 50 wt%. After inspection of the
catalyst, we determined that it was not suitable for reuse.
We question the viability of regenerating and reusing heel
catalyst with this much carbon.
CAIN:
When dumping the reactor, we separate out the last
50 drums or so. We send them to CRI for density grading,
and the heel catalyst will be sent out for metal recovery,
while the good catalyst is returned to the unit and
reloaded.
PAUL FISHER (TRICAT, Inc.):
TRICAT has performed three off-site regenerations of
CCR catalyst containing ‘‘heel’’ catalyst that was returned
to the CCR unit for reuse. In each case, carbon levels
were reduced to below 0.4 wt% with excellent surface
area retention. We do not believe that density grading is
necessary. Each catalyst lot contained ‘‘heel’’ catalyst with
over 40 wt% carbon that would have been separated
through density separation. An ex situ regeneration of all
of the catalyst from the reactor saved the expense of density
grading, and all the catalyst was returned to service in
the CCR. The regeneration in TRICAT’s unique ebullat-
ing bed reactors returned a greater amount of CCR catalyst
from the reactor section, including heel catalyst, than
would have been available after density grading, and saved
the cost of purchasing fresh catalyst for makeup.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Question 27.
What process variables can improve the hydrogen purity
from a CCR reformer contactor? What process add-ons
have been used to further increase purity for high purity
uses, such as hydrocrackers and resid hydrotreaters?
PETERSON:
We use an absorption of the net offgas from the
reformer with refrigerated low pressure separator liquid.
The primary purpose of installing the system was to
recover the LPGs that used to go to fuel gas or to the
hydrotreaters. Because the purposes is LPG recovery, we
take the debutanizer or stabilizer overhead gas and recycle
it back in front of this absorber to recover what would
have been lost in that stream. If you get too cold or too
high in pressure, you can set up an ethane recycle, where
you absorb it in the front end and reject it out the back
end. It just comes around and around and the debutanizer,
in our case, would have been undersized to handle this.
Another caution: if this hydrogen is going to a unit
downstream that has a centrifugal recycle compressor, it
may need a few heavy ends just to build enough pressure
from the density of the gas. With gas too pure, we have
had some problems toward end of run in a hydrotreater
with high reactor delta Ps holding back recycle ratio.
The hydrogen purity upgrade is on the order of 3%
to 6%.
MALEK:
The CCR unit makes a higher yield of hydrogen com-
pared to a semiregeneration unit. The hydrogen tends to
be of a higher purity, because there are a lot less cracked
gases associated with the hydrogen. These gases can be
further upgraded downstream, to whatever purity level is
required in your hydrocrackers, using PSA systems.
BARLOEWEN:
My answer is with regard to which process variable
can improve H2 purity from a CCR reformer. The only
significant handle you have is pressure. Reducing pressure
improves purity, and that has been the whole thrust of
CCR technology. However, in a modern CCR, you do
not have very much room to move down in pressure.
That answer may apply more to an old, fixed-bed, semire-
generative reforming unit.
Question 28.
What are typical targets for moisture and chloride in the
recycle gas for semiregenerative, cyclic, and CCR units?
Are these targets dependent on catalyst type or age?
Now are chloride/water levels controlled, and what is
the typical variability?
TASKER:
We generally recommend the same water and chloride
on the catalyst for both the semiregenerative and CCR
143
TOC/INDEX
processes. We try to maintain the water level to about
15 ppmw to 25 ppmw, and the HCL levels between 1
ppmw to 2 ppmw. The ratio of water to chlorine is
therefore usually in the range of 10:1 to 25:1. The real
target is to maintain a chloride level on the catalyst
between 0.9 wt% and 1.1 wt% of chlorine.
On the question of type and age, we do not generally
differentiate between catalysts. But there is a difference
on age, since the chlorine retention ability reduces with
age. Therefore, we should maintain a higher chloride level
with a lower ratio of about 20 to 25 for fresh catalyst
and a 10 to 15 ratio on the other aged catalysts. The
targets in the recycle gas stream are dependent upon the
type and the age of a catalyst being used. Chloride reten-
tion is determined by two main factors: the type of impuri-
ties that are in the alumina used to make the catalyst,
and, of course, the surface area of the catalyst.
For control, it is important to be able to sample cor-
rectly. This calls for a sampling device, or a sample thief,
which can be used to extract samples. Then, the chloride
levels on the catalyst can be measured, and the operations
adjusted. If there is no sampling device, then the control
becomes more of a black art.
As an alternative to sampling the catalyst, normally the
water and chloride levels are controlled by measuring the
water and the HCL in the recycle gas and adding the
appropriate amount of alcohol and/or chloriding agent.
To achieve a constant water to chloride balance, it is
important to keep a constant moisture level in the feed.
If the moisture level in the feed varies, then you will
always be chasing that water to chloride balance.
There continues to be difficulty in measuring or in
getting instrumentation for proper analysis of the water
content. However, we have to be very careful with the
instruments requiring re-calibration. With the CCR pro-
cess, it is not required that a sample has to be taken from
the reactor, since a sample can be taken at the regenerator.
This sample device can be mounted on the 4 in. dump
line.
PETERSON:
I would agree with the comments and the general
ranges of control and the means of control. I would stress
that taking a sample of the catalyst be used to calibrate your
licenser’s recommendations as to correlating moisture and
chloride content in recycle gas. It is far better to know
what you really have than to be thinking that you are
doing okay.
We had also another case where we had poor stripping
of the carbon oxides from the CCR catalyst coming back
into the system. The carbon oxides were apparently under-
going the shift reaction and making some water in the
reformer, which was making moisture control more diffi-
cult there. This carbon monoxide was also getting over
to our isomerization unit where it was shifting there and
144 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
making water and deactivating the isomerization catalyst.
This is not easy for us to find.
You can try to Drager tube for CO, but hydrogen in
the system interferes in the test. So we have actually had
to send samples off to places that can find the CO in the
recycle gas.
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
For semiregenerative operation, UOP generally recom-
mends effective feed stripping (to less than 1 ppmw H2O)
and injection of 4 ppmw H2O into the feed. This practice
normally results in 15 mol ppm to 20 mol ppm H2O in the
recycle gas. Some moisture is recommended to facilitate
chloride distribution, but more than 30 mol ppm in the
recycle gas has adverse selectivity and stability effects. The
chloride (HCl) content of the recycle gas depends on
catalyst type and age, but generally varies from a trace to
1 mol ppm to 2 mol ppm. The chloride injection rate is
varied according to catalyst type, reactor temperatures,
performance indications, experience, and analytical results
if made possible by catalyst sampling devices.
Cyclic units tend to have high and variable moisture
as a result of freshly regenerated catalyst being returned
to service at intervals. There is rarely if ever a need to
inject H2O into a cyclic unit. The variability of recycle
gas moisture content and varying amounts of chloride
being released from freshly regenerated reactors makes
chloride control very difficult and the recycle gas HCl
concentration highly variable. The catalyst age and type
also affect the recycle gas HCl concentration. UOP does
not design cyclic units.
For CCR platforming units, there is no need to inject
H2O or chloride into the reactor section, except for periods
of extended regenerator downtime. The regenerated cata-
lyst chloride content is controlled by injection into the
regeneration tower to a target value which depends on
catalyst type. The spent catalyst chloride content is slightly
lower due to loss of chloride in the reactors. The amount
of chloride lost is a function of catalyst residence time in
the reactors, the recycle gas moisture content, and the
reactor temperatures, but is normally relatively small. Nor-
mally, there is sufficient moisture from the regeneration
so that no water injection is necessary. Recycle gas HCl
concentration depends on catalyst type, catalyst age and
recycle gas moisture content, and can vary from less than
1 mol ppm to as high as 8 mol ppm or 9 mol ppm if
the catalyst surface area is very low and/or the recycle gas
moisture is abnormally high. UOP’s surface areas stable
catalysts help to limit chloride loss.
Y.K. KUCHHAL (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
The water content of recycle gas for S-R bimetallic
catalyst is targeted in the range of 15 ppmv to 20 ppmv.
For this value of moisture, chloride dosing may be done
intermittently to maintain chlorine content in the catalyst
TOC/INDEX
at around 1.0 wt%. For recycle gas moisture of 20 ppmv
to 30 ppmv the chloride in the feed is kept at 1 ppmw.
It is further increased to 2 ppmw for recycle gas moisture
of 30 ppmv to 45 ppmv. For higher moisture content in
recycle gas, the reactor inlet temperatures are reduced as
per the advice of the catalyst supplier. When the moisture
content increases, it becomes necessary to look into strip-
per operation.
In order to meet a minimum target of 15 ppmv mois-
ture in recycle gas, it may be desirable to inject water
with feedstock (3 ppmw to 5 ppmw). Water injection is
done after thoroughly confirming the moisture content
of the recycle gas.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
What is the latest technology in moisture analyzers on
a recycle gas for a semiregenerative reformer?
CAIN:
Dupont 560
Sensitivity: 0.5 ppm by vol.
Accuracy: Ⳳ10% of reading or 2 ppm, whichever is
greater, on all ranges.
Repeatability: Ⳳ3% of reading or 0.5 ppm, whichever
is greater.
Calibration: Has a built in moisture generator for cali-
bration.
Note: Very accurate, and dependable.
Range: Normal running zero ppm to 50 ppm moisture.
Used for normal running on the CRU because of the
low concentration of moisture in the gas.
Ranarex Moisture Analyzer Model XMA-72 1 B
No specifications in the manual on accuracy or repeat-
ability.
Calibration: using a separate moisture generator source.
Range: 0 ppm to 1000 ppm moisture.
The larger range allows us to utilize this meter during
startup. Also, the reading on this meter is usually 5 ppm
to 6 ppm lower than the Dupont meter when the concen-
tration falls down to normal operations. Plan to replace
this one with a Meeko moisture analyzer.
Question 29.
Do operators wait until breakthrough on their sulfur and
chloride guard beds to decide when to change out the
beds? Is there a better method?
HENKE:
Our strategy with chloride guard beds is to wait for
breakthrough. We recently began to monitor both organic
and inorganic chlorides using Sensidyne tubes (these are
model #14L for hydrogen chloride, 0.2 ppm to 40 ppm).
We found that Draeger tubes only detect the inorganic
chlorides. This is an important distinction since the
organic chlorides also contribute to fouling in hydrotreater
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
exchangers. I am unaware of a safer or better method at
this time.
PETERSON:
We normally wait for a breakthrough in our sulfur
guard bed. We detect this either with laboratory analysis
of the splitter bottoms, the heavy naphtha, which is not
always real precise at these low sulphur levels that you
see out of a sulphur guard bed. A more reliable test, but
with a little time lag, is to look for the H2S in our debutan-
izer offgas. This gets magnified in the Ardmore Refinery,
because we recycle this gas back to the reactor effluent
system for LPG recovery.
As far as catalyst sampling down the bed in the sulfur
guard bed goes, we had installed catalyst samplers designed
after the method used for the vapor phase reformer catalyst
samplers. This did not work very well on the liquid system,
so we have abandoned use of those.
As for chloride traps, we have one on the LPG from
the reformer going down to the saturated gas fraction-
ation. That was put in to help control corrosion in the
line to the saturated gas and in the saturated gas unit itself.
We probably have grossly oversized this vessel, because it
has run about 3 years, and it was designed for 9 months.
But the reason for that is probably the difficulty of actually
pinning down how much HCl is in an LPG stream. It
is not real easy to do that with Drager tubes.
TASKER:
Well, as you heard, and based on our experience, most
operators do wait for breakthrough to replace their sulfur
and chloride guard beds. There are other techniques which
are involved, including monitoring the pickup and so
on, but those methods tend to be somewhat inaccurate.
Acreon Catalysts has helped to resolve this problem by
allowing companies to have a spare charge of material
on-site at no charge until it is placed into service.
BARLOEWEN:
I agree with the comment that most people, in fact all
people that I know, go to breakthrough. I would echo
Mr. Peterson’s comment that the debutanizer offgas is a
real sensitive indicator when you are starting to see sulfur
breakthrough. It is magnified, and you will see a detectable
change there faster than anywhere else.
CAIN:
In Port Arthur, we have two guard reactors in series.
Once we spot a breakthrough in the lead reactor, we
switch to the lag reactor, then change the catalyst out in
the lead. We monitor the Delta T across the second guard
bed as the first line of defense against breakthrough. If
the Delta T becomes too large, it is time to change out
the lead guard bed. Furthermore, if the nitrogen in the
145
TOC/INDEX
second guard bed effluent becomes high, we know we
need to do an emergency changeout of both beds.
FLETCHER:
One of our customers has a strategy which is slightly
different than what has been described so far. With respect
to the sulphur guard, the cost of guard catalyst is minimal
compared to its benefit. An estimate of bed loading is
therefore made based upon the inlet sulfur loading and
feed rates. Change out is done prior to the calculated end
of run. With respect to the chloride guard, it is less critical,
which allows for testing of the breakthrough before chang-
ing the catalyst.
FUSSELL:
In Port Arthur, we do not have a sulfur guard bed.
We do have chloride beds on our gas and our liquid
streams on our reformer, and we do run them until we
see breakthrough.
Question 30.
In the reformer recycle hydrogen gas there is a fairly
high quantity of heavy hydrocarbons (we have measured
over 2%). How does this affect the reformer catalyst in
terms of coking and conversion?
ROMAN:
It is important to know the composition of the heavy
hydrocarbons. If the material is aromatic, there should
be very little effect. The hydrogen to hydrocarbon ratio
will decrease slightly, and this will tend to lower conver-
sion to aromatics and also increase coke laydown. How-
ever, if the heavy material contains appreciable amounts
of orefins, as can occur in low pressure units, they can
undergo Freidel-Crafts alkylation with the aromatics and
form a heavy green oil. This normally occurs when the
aluminum bed used to remove the chlorides ages and
becomes saturated with aluminum chloride. It then acts
as a Freidel-Crafts catalyst, and the result is severe valve
fouling in downstream compressors.
PETERSON:
We have an old reformer, which we have been con-
stantly trying to push more and more through. We have
a fairly high velocity and a fairly small low pressure separa-
tor. We do see a little bit of full range material coming back
around. This concerns us, because we have reciprocating
recycle compressors, and they do not like to pump very
much liquid. We have had to look at the design of the
piping system into these compressors, and put a little trap
pot on the one that has the worst piping to help catch
the liquids to keep us from having compressor problems.
CAIN:
We operate in a 0.7 to 1.7 range without any bad
effects.
146 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
ZIYAD AZZOUZ (Saudi Aramco):
Mr. Cain, regarding nitrogen in the feed, because this
is a difficult product, how do you know if your test
is effective?
CAIN:
The N2 test is ASTM D4629. We test the Naptha
hydrotreater product before it is charged to the platformer.
Our specification is greater than 0.5 ppm. We then adjust
the reactor temperature accordingly to remove N2 and
sulfur.
THIERRY DARDE (Pall Corporation):
Very recently, one of our customers in Europe asked
us to do a survey because he was experiencing recycle
gas compressor breakdown due to liquid carryover. We
installed a test system made up of a high efficiency liquid
gas coalescer. We installed this downstream of the knock-
out pot and upstream of the compressor. We measured
indeed between 1% and, on peak condition, up to 6%
of liquid hydrocarbon carryover with the recycle gas. The
good news was that our liquid gas coalescer was able to
remove all that liquid carryover down to a level of below
0.1 ppm of liquid in a gas.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We have a slightly different problem, that is the con-
densation of reformate downstream of the chloride treater
in the hydrogen at inlet to the PSA. So, we would like to
know how, in cold countries, you avoid the condensation
there which ultimately plugs the catalyst and reduces effi-
ciency?
HIGGINS:
No reponse.
HEROS DERGREGORIAN (Valero Refining & Marketing
Company):
My question concerns the problem of an accurate ana-
lyzer to detect the moisture level in the recycle gas in
TOC/INDEX
order to control the chloride and water balance. It is quite
common, and I want to ask the panel and the audience
what other method is available to check the approximate
water level in the recycle gas in order to adjust either the
chloride or water level to reach the balance? As you know,
you might see a high chloride level in the recycle gas.
Does this mean that your chloride level has increased or
is it because a high water level has leeched out chloride
from catalyst? Unless you know the approximate quantity
of water in the recycle gas, the action taken could be
either adding additional chloride or reducing water.
HAHN:
On water detection in the recycle gas, we have tried
moisture on-line analyzers but they have not been very
effective for us. So, we have resorted back to an old
technique, called the dew point analyzer, which is just a
stainless steel cup. You put dry ice in it, and then you
pass the gas over it and watch for the dewpoint change
with a thermometer. That works fairly well, once you
become proficient in the technique. We use that to moni-
tor our moisture level.
TASKER:
Yes, I would support that wholeheartedly. The old
technique often works best, and it is actually quite accu-
rate. You should poll licensees to find out what success
they have had with the moisture analyzers. If you do have
a problem with them, go back to the old technique. It
is a really good one.
JOSECK:
We do have moisture analyzers. We use them more
for detection of spikes in the feed or upset conditions.
We usually add alcohol as water and control it based on
feed, and find that much more reliable than the ana-
lyzer itself.
HEROS DERGREGORIAN (Valero Refining & Marketing
Company):
Is anybody using analysis of recycle gas, methane to
heavier ratio, to estimate the water level?
PETERSON:
We have used that as a trending tool. We have looked
at the methane to methane plus ethane and propane ratio,
and if we see that ratio going up, then we are probably
drier than we want to be. If we see that ratio going down,
we could be wetter than we want to be. We generally use
this in areas where we do not do a lot of moisture injection
and control, like some semiregeneration units where we
do not have a lot of upsets and do not change octanes
all that much. But it has been helpful in the past to find
some problems.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
SAMUELS:
In regard to the gentleman who asked the question
about low nitrogen level detection in the reformer feed,
we recently got into this topic because of a Penex unit
where any kind of nitrogen level is undesirable. You defi-
nitely want to target below a 0.5 ppm range, because of
the destruction of the catalyst. In a reformer, of course,
you want to stay below 0.5 ppm, because it is the limiting
reactant in salt formation.
We found that detection below about 2 ppm was not
accurate. As a matter of fact, we involved our research
center. We continue to do the nitrogen test, but it is more
for looking for blatant nitrogen problems than actually
controlling nitrogen in a 0.5 ppm or below range. We just
do not think it is accurate in that range. After checking, we
use the ASTM D4629 test method but have not been able
to achieve the results described by Mr. Johnson of UOP.
FOSTER:
We found a GC specifically for very low levels of
nitrogen. It is manufactured by J.Y. (Jobin Yvon Emission)
Corporation, and it is a spectrophotometer method utiliz-
ing ICP (Inductive Coupled Plasma) with a nitrogen
channel.
We hope to be able to measure it down to the 100
ppb range and lower with that.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
We have typically used a chemluminescence method
for determination of total nitrogen in light naphthas for
isomerization units. The method is ASTM D4629. In
that procedure, the limit of detectability is listed as 0.3
ppmw. Our lab has been able to push that level down to
0.1 ppm by adjustment of sample size. I suggest that those
of you who have not used this method will find it to be
a fairly easy method to analyze for nitrogen in the feed.
Question 31.
Where in the reforming process is the precipitation of
ammonium chloride a problem? What effect does the
reactor section operating pressure have on the chloride
deposition problem?
FOSTER:
We have had a lot of problems with ammonium chlo-
ride deposition since going to 100% Venezuelan crude
operations. Ammonium chloride precipitation tempera-
ture is directly proportional to the product of the partial
pressures of hydrogen chloride and ammonia. Depending
on your reformer feed nitrogen content, these salts can
plate out anywhere between the feed/effluent exchangers
and the recycle compressor, and includes your reform
stabilizer, as well.
This can occur at 200°F for low concentrations of
ammonia and HCl to as high as 260°F for higher concen-
trations. In order to determine where in your system the
147
TOC/INDEX
deposition can occur, you need the sublimation curve for
ammonium chloride. This is based on the product, of
course, as I mentioned a minute ago, of the ammonia
and HCl partial pressures. UOP has a good graph of this.
These partial pressures can be reasonably estimated from
knowing the nitrogen content in the reformer feed and
the HCl concentration in the hydrogen recycle. You check
where this sublimation condition coincides with the tem-
perature conditions in the reformer, then you can deter-
mine where the precipitation will take place. If you are
increasing the nitrogen content of your feed, or if you
suffer a nitrogen upset or a chloride upset, this precipita-
tion will tend to occur in the cooler regions of your
reformer.
As far as pressure is concerned, lower pressure can move
the deposition to the cooler part of the system, and higher
pressure can move the deposition to a hotter part of the
system. It all depends on where the least painful place to
deposit your salts is. Most of us do not have that much
room to move on pressure, and yield considerations usu-
ally dictate where we run our pressures.
FUSSELL:
We have experienced some ammonium chloride salt
plugging in our refinery on the reformer. The first place
we have seen this is in our depentanizer on our reformer.
We periodically have to do an on-line water wash to clear
this up. It is pretty obvious when we need to do this; the
tower starts acting up. So we wash it and everything lines
out fairly well.
We have also had problems in our downstream hydro-
processing units. Specifically, we have a toluene dispropor-
tionation unit, and the compressor on that unit has a
suction screen. The compressor quit operating—basically
quit working. We pulled the screen and discovered a good
layer of salt on that screen. We went back to our reformer
and discovered that we had some blocked valves around
our chloride bed that were partially open, and that we
were actually bypassing material around it. Once we got
those blocked in, we no longer had that problem. We
also periodically feed reformer hydrogen as fuel gas to
our gas turbine. We have also seen some salt deposits on
the filter on the fuel gas upstream of that gas turbine.
I believe that the cause for the salt is, as Mr. Foster
mentioned, in large part due to the nitrogen in the feed
to the reformer. We do not analyze for this nitrogen, so
I would be very interested in hearing about how his
analyzer works out. I know that we run more nitrogen
in our feed than UOP would recommend, and that is
something that I am going to continue to work on, as
far as getting that nitrogen down.
As far as the chloride side of it, I believe that the causes
of the chloride carrying through on a CCR are more
related to the design of the unit. Our particular unit was
designed in the mid-to late 70s, and it does have a problem
148 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
of chlorides being carried out of the reduction zone into
the reactor and on through the system. I believe UOP
did modify their design to correct that problem.
BARLOEWEN:
I just wanted to put in a pitch to keep the chloride
in the reformer via traps, and do not export it to the
hydrotreater where it is going to cause plugging and corro-
sion, as well.
CAIN:
At our Louisiana plant, our problems show up in our
absorber de-ethanizer tower, so we take an opportunity
to wash our tower whenever we can. At Port Arthur,
the depropanizer is occasionally affected by deposition of
ammonium chloride, and we have a caustic wash tower
to remove the chlorides in this propane stream.
JOSECK:
We have noticed problems downstream of the semire-
generative reformer with precipitation of ammonium
chloride in the stabilizer shortly after start-up and mid-
cycle. The salts were attributed to high nitrogen in the
feed. The ammonium chloride was removed by injecting
water into the stabilizer feed—a very simple procedure.
We have ammonium chlorides in the recycle during regen-
eration which are washed out after the regeneration pro-
cess. We have not encountered ammonium chloride
deposits in the reformer during the high nitrogen in the
feed associated with salts in the stabilizer. We have ammo-
nium chloride in one of two hydrogen booster compres-
sors. The ammonium chlorides are predominantly in the
booster compressor operating at a lower cylinder jacket
temperature. Ammonium chloride problems in the
reformer are a nitrogen problem. There are usually enough
chlorides available in the system to react with all the
nitrogen in the feed. The temperature at which ammo-
nium chloride sublimes is a function of the concentration
of HCl and ammonia. It is also a function of the water
in the vapor phase. If the salt is present on the pipe
upstream of the compressor, and if the mole fraction of
water increases in the recycle, the salt can and does move.
It can vaporize and then form again downstream. As
operating pressure increases, the temperature at which
sublimation occurs also increases, thus making the salt
problem worse. In our case, the sublimation is occurring
in a booster compressor operating at a low temperature.
PETERSON:
Our biggest problem is in the debutanizer stabilizer,
and we occasionally have to do a water wash. On the
water wash, we reduce the temperature so that the brine
can leave the bottom of the tower. Otherwise, we just
may rearrange where the salt is if we do not let the salts
go out the bottom. When you are done with this, you
TOC/INDEX
want to make sure that you get all of the water out of
your overhead receiver, so that you do not have new
HCl coming up and forming a very low pH and highly
corrosive situation in the receiver.
We would agree that good denitrification is important.
We do not have a real good naphtha hydrotreater. We
have a 300 psi separator, so we have to be quite careful
in what crudes we buy and how much nitrogen is in the
naphtha portion.
ROMAN:
We occasionally get problems on our recycle compres-
sors due to deposition of ammonium chloride salts. We
will inject a small amount of naphtha on the run to try
to wash them out or redistribute them. On occasion, we
have even used a couple of gallons of water for a wash.
Obviously, that has to be done through a quil so that it
is properly dispersed.
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
SM
Merichem offers Chlorex technology with a Fiber
Film娃 contactor to remove hydrochloric acid and ammo-
nium chloride upstream of the stabilizer by means of an
alkaline water wash. We have four units operating on
CCRs in Japan. The results have been a significant
decreased fouling of the stabilizer trays and the reboiler.
THIERRY DARDE (Pall Corporation):
We have installed several of our very high efficiency
liquid gas coalescers on the recycle gas line on reformers,
both in the U.S. and in Canada. Installing these high
efficiency liquid gas coalescers results in dramatically
improved reliability of the compressor by removing the
ammonium chloride.
Y.K. KUCHHAL (Indian Institute of Petroleum):
Ammonium chloride in the recycle gas can deposit
in coolers, separators, stabilizers cold trays and recycle
compressor creating fouling, under deposit corrosion or
mechanical problem. It is worth remembering that 0.5
ppmw of organic nitrogen in the feed leads to approxi-
mately 2 tons per year of NH4Cl for a million ton plan.
Question 32.
Have the high yield catalysts lived up to their expecta-
tions? What yield improvements have been realized?
Does the yield improvement decrease at lower pres-
sures?
TASKER:
There is a publication on the RG-582 promoted bime-
tallic catalyst. This catalyst has been very successful. The
publication is by ProCatalyse and Acreon.
This particular publication summarizes the overall
yields obtained. The high yield 582 catalyst has met per-
formance expectations in all of the units to date. The
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
C5Ⳮ yield benefits have been on average 2 vol% to 4
vol% points over the incumbent catalyst. The hydrogen
yield benefits have, on average, been about 150 scf/bbl
to 300 scf/bbl above the performance of the incumbent
catalyst.
For lower pressure operation with this catalyst, the
more the difference is enhanced. In other words, there is
a greater yield benefit. However, this could be masked
by more catalyst deactivation by coke which occurs more
rapidly, of course, at the lower pressure. The least that
could be said about the unit operating pressure is that it
has not affected the RG-582 catalyst yield benefits.
FLETCHER:
One customer reports recently loading UOP R-72 and
having seen a 1.5% increase in liquid volume yield. They
feel the catalyst has lived up to its promise.
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
UOP offers high yield catalyst systems for both CCR
platforming and semiregenerative platforming units. In
CCR platforming, one unit is operating with UOP’s R-
170 series high yield catalyst. This catalyst met perfor-
mance guarantees and matches predicted performance.
There are now 27 platforming units operating with UOP’s
R-72 staged loading catalyst system which provides a yield
advantage without sacrificing stability. The expected yield
advantage has been observed commercially. For either
catalyst system, there is no significant effect of pressure
on the yield advantage within typical operating ranges.
MICHEL ROY (Petro Canada Products):
We have been using RG582 for 2 years now. It has
lived up to expectations. We have seen the higher hydro-
gen yield. Also, I would like to comment on the robustness
of the catalyst. We operated it severely and it still survived.
It has gone through major sulfur and humidity upsets
and its activity recovered quickly.
Catalyst loading was done using a proprietary catalyst
dispenser supplied by the manufacturer. Yield predictions
were conditional to this type of loading.
We are presently in our second cycle with RG582.
The regeneration procedure for this catalyst has been
simplified compared to our past experiences. The catalyst
was regenerated successfully and is again performing
within the yield projections. These results were obtained
despite periods of higher than normal N2 in our feed and
a 15% increase in unit charge. Compared to selectivity
projections, we have seen an increase for certain aromatics
which has benefitted our operation.
Question 33.
What are the problems associated with reducing the
pressure in either a CCR or cyclic reformer, and do the
yield benefits justify the lower pressure operation for a
gasoline or an aromatics unit?
149
TOC/INDEX
MALEK:
This question deals with the problems in reducing
pressures in catalytic reformers, specifically a CCR or
cyclic reformer. The overwhelming success of UOP’s CCR
process dramatically illustrates the benefit of operating at
low pressures in reforming. Economic and other reasons
have resulted in UOP settling in, it appears, at a separator
pressure in the range of 45 psi to 60 psi on the latest
generation of CCRs. If you are trying to operate at lower
pressures than that, you are going to probably encounter
some problems that are associated with dehydrogenation
reactions. You will see olefins showing up in your products
while operating at very low pressures. As you lower the
pressure, if you have the ability to do that with your
compressor, you are going to lower hydrogen to oil recycle
ratio. This will accelerate coking and dehydrogenation
reactions.
One refiner reported to me that he did a little experi-
mentation on his own. He had excess capacity in his
reformer CCR recycle compressor, and he began lowering
the pressure. He saw a continued increase in liquid yields
and hydrogen production. When he got down to about
30 psi pressure, however, he got into a situation where
olefin and diolefin formation was so rapid that he was
fouling the compressor and experiencing vibration. He
brought the pressure back up.
PETERSON:
One barrier we have reached trying to lower pressure
in our unit, which we have generally been trying to do,
is some harmonics in our vertical feed/effluent exchanger.
Apparently, we get into a flow regime where, at the lower
pressures, the velocities are just right and we get some
tube vibration. We can kind of play the exchanger. We
can get the vibration from different places in the exchanger
as we raise and lower the pressure. Obviously, wearing a
hole in the tube in the exchanger is not a good idea, so
we run the pressure as low as we can, but just above
where we can hear the noise. It is a noise that kind of
sneaks up on you. It is not like a bang or an alarm. Your
operators may have to be warned to listen for obscure
noises.
ROMAN:
At our Cattletsburg refinery, we have two CCR units,
one that runs at 110 psig, and a second unit that runs
at 50 psig. We normally run the lower pressure CCR at
higher severity to take advantage of the better yields. We
see a rapid decline in clay treater life in our sulfolane unit
when we switch the feed from the 110 psig unit to the
50 psig unit due to olefins. This is a particular problem,
since this clay treater on our sulfolane unit is undersized,
and operates at a 1.8 liquid hourly space velocity. We
would normally design these clay treaters for a 0.5 liquid
hourly space velocity. This forces us to actually lower the
150 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
percentage of aromatics in the feed to the sulfolane unit
when we would prefer to feed the higher aromatic material
from the 50 psig CCR.
TASKER:
I reflect some of Mr. Malek’s comments, except I am
promoting the IFP technology. With the lower CCR
pressure, there is no real operating problem, but the rate
of coke make, of course, will rise. As long as the regenerator
is large enough, the increased coke make is no problem.
There is an increase in hydrogen production, and of
course, more reformate, typically about a 1% gain in
production of the reformate. However, from an economic
standpoint, lower pressure will result in an investment
cost increase, due to the size of the recycle and net gas
compressors, the size of the lines, size of the furnaces, etc.
From operating cost viewpoint, there will be an increase
in power consumption of the recycle and net gas compres-
sors. There will be limitations, as have been pointed out,
for ultra-low pressure operation and, typically, that is the
recycle gas compressor. At ultra low pressure units, that
are presently designed for catalyst turnovers in 3 to 4
days, (100 regenerations per year), reducing the pressure
will require a high regeneration frequency with an eventual
detrimental effect on the catalyst’s ultimate life.
At low operating pressures and high severity, when you
are running about 100 RON, the olefin and diolefin
contents in the reformate do significantly increase. Reduc-
ing the average reactor pressure from 10 bars to 3.5 bars,
or let us say, 150 psi down to about 50 psi, virtually
doubles the amount of olefin and diolefin contents of
the product.
The problems that you get are typically the following.
For gasoline production, there will be greater instability
of the gasoline and increase in additive that will be
required. For aromatics production, there will be an
increase, as already mentioned, and the need of clay treat-
ment, which gives rise to clay life and clay disposal prob-
lems.
For this last point, we do have the Arofining process
licensed by IFP and HRI, which is the selective hydrogena-
tion of orefins and diolefins in the reformate. We feel
that that is a good solution.
For the other points on the yield benefits resulting
from further pressure reduction, we do not consider those
to be attractive enough compared to the associated prob-
lems which have already been highlighted.
FUSSELL:
On our UOP CCR, we have plenty of room left in
our regenerator. Several years ago, we took a hard look
at running lower pressure. Our unit currently runs at
approximately 110 psi on the product separator. We have
two 100% booster compressors that have not been known
for their reliability over the years. In order to run a lower
TOC/INDEX
pressure, we were going to have to run these two machines
in parallel. After doing a very thorough economic evalua-
tion, we decided that the reduced reliability associated
with running both machines 100% of the time would
pretty much overcome all the positive benefits of the
increased yields and increased hydrogen production.
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
The panelists have provided some excellent informa-
tion with which UOP generally agrees. Regarding Ms.
Fussell’s comments on the net gas compressors, UOP has
reviewed this situation with customers, and many with
the same concern have decided to add a third reciprocating
compressor in parallel to handle the additional net hydro-
gen production that results with the higher reformate
yields and/or higher severity operation following the
revamp. Based on more modern compressor designs, the
reliability of reciprocating machines is now in the 90Ⳮ%
range, reducing maintenance concerns.
Revamps must be designed to accommodate the con-
straints put forth by the customer. In general, you try to
save as much heater as possible, as well as the recycle
compressor. UOP has performed dozens of process unit
revamps, either to upgrade existing older CCR platform-
ing process units, or to convert semi-regenerative reform-
ers to the CCR platforming process. UOP has found that
most concerns can be overcome, and performance and
financial objectives met, through detailed studies that
include good communications with the customer.
As noted by the panel, lower pressure operation
improves catalyst selectivity, increasing yields, but com-
pressor limitations coupled with lower operating pressure
will decrease the available hydrogen recycle (H2/HC ratio),
thus increasing coke make. The effect of the improved
selectivity on the heat of reaction needs to be accommo-
dated. The increased coke production due to lower pres-
sure and H2/HC needs to be accommodated. The effect
on gas/liquid separation also needs to be considered. UOP
has a lot of experience in revamping platforming and CCR
platforming units to lower pressure and in revamping
regeneration sections to higher capacity.
STUART GRAY (Criterion Catalyst Company):
Criterion has recently commercialized a new CCR cata-
lyst, PS-40, which is generally targeted for first generation
units with coke burning capacity limits. However, it can
also show benefits in more recent generation units due
to its increased stability. In pilot plant tests, the catalyst
has shown a 30% to 50% reduction in coke on catalyst.
Refiners will be able to use this to either reduce pressure
and increase yield, bringing the coke back up to the
precatalyst changeout level, increase feed rates or process
different low grade feedstocks. The catalyst is a modified
platinum/tin version of PS-20.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
2. Mechanical
Question 34.
What methods have been used to control salt build-up
in the recycle compressor, other than washing it? How
effective have they been?
FOSTER:
For control of salt build up in the recycle compressor,
we have tried several methods with some success:
● liquid hydrocarbon injection at the compressor suc-
tion;
● dispersant injection at the compressor suction; and
● installing demister mesh at the compressor suction.
These have all worked to some degree, but none with
raving success. I can recommend any of those, but before
you do any of them, be sure to wash your compressor,
because you do not want to start dispersion injection into
a running compressor that is not clean. You may flake
off pieces of salt with significant problems afterward.
These are all treating symptoms of a problem. The
problem is that if nitrogen gets into your system, and if
you maintain a HCl concentration in the reformer, you
are going to form ammonium chloride salts somewhere,
and they will deposit somewhere. The best method is to
minimize nitrogen entering the reformer section.
Since we went to a higher nitrogen feed content, we
have had to revisit our HDS reactor and operate it more
as an HDN reactor. One example of a discovery that we
found was that over the years, we had neglected to run
it at as a high a pressure as we were capable of running
it, because as an HDS reactor, it was not that big a deal.
As an HDN reactor, it was. So we found that we had
some room to move upward in our hydrotreating pressure,
and we were able to raise the pressure 50 psi, with a
few very minor modifications. Our goal, ultimately, is to
control total nitrogen content to the reformer down below
250 ppb.
151
TOC/INDEX
I talked a minute ago about the method for analysis
and UOP did, too. The overall thing I would advise
you to do is to start looking at your hydrotreating as a
denitrification operation. That means looking at your
catalyst, as well. There are catalysts on the market now
that do a much better job of denitrofication than what
you may have used in a reformer hydrotreater in the past.
BARLOEWEN:
I would reinforce the statement about catalysts. The
California refineries have been dealing with high nitrogen
feedstocks in the reformer hydrotreaters for many years.
Much of the rest of the country has tended to use naphtha
hydrotreaters as a place to reuse spent catalyst in a second
or third service. As you shift your feed slate, it is important
to put in a high activity, fresh, Nickel Molybdenum cata-
lyst. You will be surprised at how much better you can do.
BINFORD:
I agree with the previous comments about trying to
treat the cause and not the symptom, and instead getting
at the root cause. For those refiners who are still having
problems with fouling, dispersant-based antifoulant pro-
grams can be very effective. It is very important that you
start those up on a reasonably clean system. Once the
system gets too fouled, you just stand a real risk, especially
on a centrifugal machine, of creating imbalances that can
tear a compressor apart.
I did want to note a couple of things that are very
important to designing a program that is going to be
successful. Most of the programs that are unsuccessful, I
think, are because of poor thought going into them. For
any dispersant program going into a compressor, good
atomization of the product is a key to success. Using a
pneumatic atomizing nozzle, with recycling a small
amount of the gas from the discharge of the machine, is
one way to go. This would be applicable to reciprocating
compressors, especially where you can not tolerate any
liquid. Obviously, the entire system needs to be well
designed and built to withstand constant vibration and
potential metal fatigue. The last thing you want is some
small piping around that compressor that is going to
break loose. If you can tolerate some liquid (a centrifugal
machine), using a light naphtha as a carrier through an
atomizing nozzle can be very effective as a means to
disperse the product. In this case, you have some naphtha
carrier going through the machine, which will also help
carry the dispersed salts out of the compressor. The choice
of the product itself is very important. It must be compati-
ble not only with the carrier, but also must have good
light hydrocarbon compatibility and good salt dispersing
capability. These are a few of the things that you really
need to look at closely if you are going to consider a
chemical treatment alternative.
152 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
CAIN:
At Star, salt build-up on the recycle compressor has
not been a big problem for us. We normally water wash
with hot condensate whenever we are down.
THIERRY DARDE (Pall Corporation):
I guess at this point I should just reiterate the statement
I made earlier. Our high efficiency liquid gas coalescer
can really protect compressors, and remove any trace of
ammonium chloride and then suppress any extensive
maintenance.
KEVIN FERRAL (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
There is one thing to be aware of, too, when you use
dispersants in washing systems to move the salts. When
you do your MOC review, check the metallurgy of your
equipment downstream, because we did experience metal-
lurgical problems and severe corrosion problems with
injecting various inhibitors to try to prevent salt deposi-
tion.
Question 35.
For continuous catalyst regeneration systems using
stainless steel instead of Inconel, have there been prob-
lems with stress corrosion cracking? What precautions
need to be taken?
ROMAN:
We did not use 18-8 austenitic stainless steel materials
in any of our regenerators since they are susceptible to
stress corrosion cracking in hot chloride environments.
The presence of chlorides can be particularly harmful
when the unit is down and free water might be present.
Increasing the nickel content above 32% increases the
resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking and is rec-
ommended. Monel, Inconel and Incoloy are all accept-
able. We use Inconel 600 material and have not had
any problems.
Question 36.
What is the typical life of the vertical combined feed
exchanger (not Packinox) in reforming service? What
type and frequency of inspections and maintenance are
recommended?
CAIN:
At Port Arthur, we inspected ours after a 10 year run,
and it did not show any problems. At our Delaware City
plant, we also did not have any problems. Typically, the
bottom baffle and distributor are inspected during every
turnaround, which is approximately every 4 years.
FUSSELL:
At our Port Arthur refinery, we have two parallel verti-
cal feed/effluent exchangers on our CCR. They have been
TOC/INDEX
in service for 12 years. In 1995, we had a major turnaround
on the unit, and we strongly considered pulling these
exchangers. We actually put together a pretty detailed
plan on how to pull them. But as we got closer and closer
to the day of the turnaround, we decided against pulling
them for several reasons. Number one, they would take
up space, and the equipment required to pull them would
also take up space required for other activities during the
turnaround. We made phone calls to UOP and to other
refiners and determined that very few people have actually
pulled these exchangers.
So, instead of doing that, we did a pretty extensive
inspection. We did acoustic emissions; we also did ultra-
sonics. We removed the insulation and did ultrasonic
testing in order to determine that the exchangers were fit
for service. We have not seen any heat transfer loss on these
exchangers, so we have never really had any requirement to
pull them for cleaning reasons.
HAHN:
We also have two vertical feed exchangers in service.
One is 8 years old in our service, and it was a second-
hand to us, so it has several prior years service in addition
to our service. Another unit has an exchanger that is over
10 years old now. The only problem we experienced was
one leaking baffle, about 2 years ago. Now we inspect
the bellows about every 5 years during turnaround. There
are manufacturers recommendations for how to pull these
bundles. We studied these but we decided that we could
not justify it, either. We have not seen any heat loss either.
MALEK:
Our experience with these exchangers with our clients
has been very good, also. As a matter of fact, one mainte-
nance supervisor recently told me that his exchanger had
already outlasted four refinery managers.
PETERSON:
We have 17 years of operation on our feed/effluent
exchanger. We have had three leaks of the expansion
bellows at the bottom end. The first time one was found,
we were successful at weld repair for a while, but that
weld repair later failed again. The last time that we had
the exchanger open, we replaced the bellows. We have
never pulled the exchanger to look at the inside of the
shell or to look at the outside of the tubes. We did do
acoustical emissions testing to help us determine that
the shell did not have any active indications (to use an
inspector term).
We had some heat transfer loss this last time, and we
were overjoyed when we took the dollar plate off the top
to see that we had a bunch of tubes plugged. We were
able to wash that out and get all of our heat transfer back.
As far as looking for leaks on-line, Mr. Roman pre-
viously mentioned using the sulfur hexafluoride method.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
We do not have the GC detection method. We use a
beta particle generator and a little ammeter that measures
the electron absorption by the sulfur hexafluoride tracer
in the system. This system had also been used in one of
our refineries to find reactor bypass in a reformer. We
were able to determine that, yes, we had to get in these
reactors and seal the tops of the beds.
Our turnaround cycles on the exchangers themselves
are in the 3 year to 7 year range.
ROMAN:
Our experience is the same. These are the exchangers
that never get pulled. We have not had any leaks. They
do not foul.
One further item on the leak detection, we have used
all three methods: radioactive tracers, helium, and sulfur
hexafluoride. We stopped using radioactive detection due
to the handling problems. If you have the capabilities, the
sulfur hexafluoride is much more sensitive than helium.
SAMUELS:
In our Robinson refinery, we have not pulled the
exchangers in their 16 years of service. However, due to
loss of heat transfer prior to a spring turnaround this year,
we did try to chemically clean the shell side of these
exchangers without pulling them. We used a potassium
permagenate solution and an acidizing wash. Coming
back on-line, we actually lost heat transfer. We believe
the problem was due to lack of velocity of the circulating
solution, and we think we moved some of the deposits
around. So we do, in fact, plan to pull those bundles in
the near future. The way we intend to do this is to actually
build a superstructure at the unit site and suspend the
bundles for cleaning, rather than laying them down.
Since the Q&A session, we have pulled and cleaned
these bundles. The primary cause of fouling was tube-
side pluggage of heavy hydrocarbons. The tubes had been
hydroblasted without dropping the tubs and tube-side
internals. This is a must for hydroblasting the tubes.
Hydrocarbon on both tube and shell sides was poly nuclear
aromatics, with a higher molecular weight on the shell
side than on the tube side.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
Did this question address only the non-Packinox
exchangers?
ANGELO FURFARO (UPO):
The CCR platforming process unit at Mangalore has
a Packinox welded plate exchanger. Those exchangers
have, in CCR platforming service, shown excellent non-
fouling operation.
However, in regard to this specific question, the life
of VCFE’s is similar to that of other process equipment.
Typical life can extend well past 15 years, but that can
153
TOC/INDEX
be shortened by internal vibration (especially in early
vendor designs), improper maintenance, corrosion, and
so on. Inspection generally consists of pulling the shell
cover, dropping the floating head and dye checking the
bellows. Exchanger component metal thickness readings
are also taken. In fixed bed reforming service, corrosion
can occur at the bottom inside surface of the shell cover
(a dead area) if this area is not regularly drained during
regeneration and unit restart. Also, there is another poten-
tial area for corrosion on the outside diameter of the tubes
at the very bottom, just above the floating head tubesheet.
You can see this without pulling the bundle. UOP does
not require the pulling of this bundle unless necessitated
by process reasons (fouling), or dictated by the regulatory
agencies, company policy or a real need to do so. If the
bundle is pulled, proper support of this piece is mandatory
to avoid damage when handling or placing the bundle in
the horizontal position.
D. Aromatic Extraction
Question 37.
What methods are available for removing chloride from
a solvent system?
CAIN:
In our Delaware City plant, we operate a solvent vac-
uum regenerator on a continuous basis to remove chlo-
rides from the solvent. We target approximately 100 ppm
chloride level in the solvent.
TASKER:
In HRI’s sulfolane aromatic extraction process, we do
have a continuous slipstream to solvent regeneration. The
amount that you put through is a function of just how
well you are controlling your pH and oxygen ingress into
the recovery tower.
In one of our licensed processes in Japan, we have run
18 months with water white sulfolane, which is most
unusual. It is an extremely tight unit. The two things
that affect solvent degradation most are the build-up of
acidic compounds due to high temperature operation and
the oxygen ingress. You get acidic compounds forming
quite readily when you have oxygen leaking in. It is often
very difficult to detect the oxygen ingress except by looking
at the degraded solvent that you pull from your continuous
on-line regenerator.
We generally advocate removal of a small quantity
every few weeks, like up to 5 gallons, but this is directly
a function of how well you are operating the unit. We
are not specifically looking at the chloride content as such.
We are just maintaining good pH control in a carbon
steel system, and we see no corrosion. So one thing, based
on the question, that I am going to do is explore doing
154 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
some testing on the spent Sulfolane to check the chloride
content, and then I can compare notes with Mr. Cain.
JASON NOE (UOP):
Traditionally, UOP has removed chloride from the
solvent systems by passing a slipstream of solvent through
single stage vacuum distillation or single stage steam strip-
pping. More accurately, we allow mostly chloride salts
to accumulate in the bottoms material of this type of
equipment which is manually removed intermittently.
UOP recommends the injection of monoethylamine
(MEA) to neutralize the acid contaminants that can form
in extraction units as a result of the breakdown of the sol-
vents.
Some operators have used ion exchange to remove ionic
species in general from the process units. This appears to
be a very efficient method for those who have difficulty
maintaining a clean solvent stream, but this practice is
not the norm for the majority of process units.
A slipstream processing of solvent through activated
carbon has also been pursued by some operators, but this
method, also, does not appear to be widely-practiced, and
would tend to produce more solid waste than the previous
two strategies.
E. Polymerization
Question 38.
Where is Dimersol catalyst injected, and what ratio of
alumina to nickel do you maintain?
TASKER:
The Dimersol process uses two different types of cata-
lysts. One catalyst is injected into the feed line and the
other is routed to the recycle stream before entering
the reactor.
The ratio of these catalysts is somewhat proprietary
information, but the range is typically in the order of 12
to 16 on a molar basis.
The injection points have been changed. Injection is
after the pumparound system at the coldest point of the
loop. The nickel ‘‘soap’’ is injected to either the suction
or the pumparound pump or into the feed. The nickel
‘‘soap’’ is usually where the highest concentration of pro-
pylene in the feed occurs. We have found that quill injec-
tion is the best method for mixing. Previous use of static
mixers has been dropped from our designs.
PETERSON:
Our EADC is injected in the air cooled reaction recycle
or pumparound cooler with the outlet returned back to
the reactor. Our aluminum to nickel ratio is currently
being run within the range that Mr. Tasker mentioned.
TOC/INDEX
Question 39.
Has anyone had problems with forming sludge in Dimer-
sol pumparound coolers? If so, how have you con-
trolled it?
TASKER:
Some of our licensees have problems with sludge in the
Dimersol pumparound cooler. IFP and HRI recommends
purging some of the reactor bottom stream to the down-
stream neutralization section, occasionally, to minimize
the sludge deposits.
In efforts to improve the overall situation, we are now
proposing a slightly different and new philosophy. We
now look at having the process fluids in the tubes for
high velocity. However, this may not meet the client’s
requirements and therefore, we may have water on the
tube side in the U.S.A. This is a client choice.
In addition, the design and type of the pumparound
cooler is important. It is important to avoid the dead
areas which occur in the box headers in air coolers, since
this is where sludge can accumulate. Our experience is
that sludge comes from impurities in the C3 feed. The
main contributors are water and dienes and, therefore,
driers can be justified. Levels of contaminates which can
cause problems are about 5 ppmw with diene and the
saturation level of water, which is about 1000 ppm in
the C3 feed. So, the solvent needs to be dry. Therefore,
in start-up procedures, a lot of emphasis is placed on
ensuring that the unit is as dry as possible before operation.
Corrosion has been a problem in the units, as well
as erosion.
PETERSON:
We are one of the units that has a problem with sludge
formation. We see it in our recycle cooler, or pumparound
cooler. This is an air cooler, so we do have the material
on the tube side of the exchanger. About once a year, we
have to shut the unit down and clean the cooler, the lines,
and the reactor. We determine the need to shut down
by a decrease in recycle flow and a decrease in the cooling
capacity of the system.
A basket strainer has been installed in front of the
cooler, and I do not know how much of a change this
has made to the situation. The cleaning is done by hydro-
blasting, and because the system is intolerant of water,
we do a hot nitrogen purge or strip of the system to
get all residual moisture out of the system before we
reintroduce the feed and catalyst.
CAIN:
We monitor our feed quality for diolefins, sulfur, and
moisture. We regenerate our molecular sieve driers every
24 hours, and we have lowered our reactor temperature
from 125°F to 110°F, which seems to have helped. We
also blow down our reactors, about 50 bbl/hr, for 5
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
minutes every shift through the pumpout line to the
caustic treating section.
STEVE MATHUR (Chevron):
What we have found is that sludge is a way of life with
a Dimersol circulation loop. I suggest that if you are
seeing a lot of sludge, and your catalyst consumption is
high, especially the EADC, then you probably have a
problem with the molecular sieve driers. Check the regen-
eration cycle, the state of molecular sieves, the regeneration
temperature, etc. That is where we found our problem,
and were able to reduce the catalyst consumption by half.
Question 40.
How frequently do you check for contaminants (ammonia,
water, diolefins) in Dimersol feed? What test methods
are used?
HENKE:
We have an on-line water analyzer that checks moisture
in the discharge of our feed dryers. This analyzer can be
switched to sample the dryer inlet as well. We only check
for ammonia occasionally with Draeger tubes, and have
only had one or two minor upsets with ammonia in the
last several years. Generally, if the water is kept out, the
ammonia will not be a problem.
We have not detected diolefins in our Dimersol feed.
While diolefins are difficult to detect and measure, we
have found gas chromatography to be a reliable method.
When testing for contaminants in the laboratory, we
use ion chromatography for ammonia, and Karl-Fischer
titration for water.
PETERSON:
We probably do not analyze as often as we should for
some of these contaminants. We do try to control the
amount of diolefins that get into the system by running
our C3/C4 splitter in such a way that quite a bit of the
propylene goes down the tower, so that we do not have
a very good chance of getting any of the diolefins going
up the tower into the Dimersol. We do have driers on
the system, and we try to keep the operation of the
depropanizer or the splitter, the drier, the Merox system,
and the LPG aiming system running very steady, and just
try to mind our business there to keep the dirt out of
the system.
CAIN:
We have on-line analyzers for water and diolefins. We
use a Panametrics analyzer for water and a GC for the dio-
lefins.
TASKER:
I agree with everything that has been said. You can
use an ASTM method to check for ammonia. IFP and
155
TOC/INDEX
HRI recommend testing the feed for contaminants on a
daily basis. For the moisture, the DuPont and Panametric
type have been quite good for measuring the moisture in
the Dimersol feed. For diolefins, we recommend the IFP
D2-77 method to test the diolefins.
F. Isomerization
Question 41.
Have the new high activity zeolite and chlorided isomer-
ization catalysts proven to be a significant improvement
over their predecessors?
FLETCHER:
Two new high activity chloride catalysts produced by
Akzo Nobel, named AT-2 and AT-2G, have proven com-
mercially to be more active than existing amorphous cata-
lysts. Presently, a 13,000 bbl/d C4 isomerization unit in
Dubai has been running very satisfactorily on AT-2 for
more than 2-1/2 years with an estimated activity improve-
ment of approximately 40%. This leads to higher isobu-
tane formation due to the improved thermodynamics at
the lower reactor temperature, or to higher throughputs
with the same yield.
For C5 and C6 isomerization, two refineries, one in the
U.S. and one in Europe, have chosen to use AT-2G. Both
are reaching their targets while using less catalyst than
before. Other ways to exploit the catalyst improvement
include: l) increasing isomerization capacity with the same
product quality, or 2) treating more severe feeds like
benzene. In the latter case, the heat formation penalty,
which is caused by treating more benzene, is compensated
for by the lower operating temperature of the catalyst.
FUSSELL:
We are currently using the UCI Isopar catalyst in our
TIP unit. We loaded it about 11⁄2 years ago, and we have
been very happy with it. It is still holding close to start-
of-run activity after 500 days on stream. Conversion is
also higher than with the catalyst we previously had in
the reactor. Another plus is that the catalyst is more
moisture tolerant—with excursions up to 800 ppm with
only a temporary loss in catalyst activity.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
UOP has recently commercialized the LPI 100 catalyst.
This catalyst is based on a novel sulfated metal oxide
formulation. The catalyst is approximately 150°F more
active than the industry standard zeolites. This means
that the operating temperature for this catalyst is in the
350°F to 400°F range. It is also fully regenerable, and
tolerant to such contaminants as water. The new catalyst
is used in the Par-Isom process, and represents a very
156 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
attractive revamp opportunity for improving the perfor-
mance of existing oncethrough zeolitic units and TIP
units.
Question 42.
Have any refiners experienced excessive yield loss in
isomerization units? To what has this loss been attrib-
uted?
PETERSON:
The biggest impact that we have seen on yield loss in
isomerization units has been when we go into a Clean
Air Act benzene destruction or benzene prevention mode,
where we try to include all of the benzene precursors (i.e.
C6 compounds) into the isomerization unit instead of
down into the reformer. Our naphtha splitter was not set
up for a perfect splitting between C6 and C7, so we get
a considerable amount of heptane type material into the
feed. A considerable amount of this apparently cracks the
propane, and this propane is lost to the fuel system, since
we do not have an LPG recovery system on the stabilizer
offgas. We looked at putting in an LPG system, just to
collect this propane, but with the caustic wash to control
the HCl, we have not been able to justify it. Occasionally,
when we feed some natural gasoline that has a little bit
of normal butane in it through our naphtha hydrotreater,
and on through the isomerization unit, we get enough
butanes that, coupled with the propane, may make recov-
ery justifiable. We are studying this at this time.
Question 43.
How are refiners addressing salt deposition and corro-
sion in their isomerization units?
PETERSON:
We think we have seen ammonium chloride deposition
in the reactors that has led to higher pressure drop in the
system. The salt ties back, as discussed previously, to the
naphtha hydrotreating section, and with the nitrogen in
the feed. We have a 300 psi separator naphtha hydrotreater
with space velocity of about 12, and are running some
fairly high sulphur crude. We cannot really go to the
nickel-moly catalyst in this case, as Mr. Barloewen had
suggested. So we have had to limit the amount of high
nitrogen crudes that we run. We have been fairly successful
at keeping the ammonia levels down in the reformer and
in the isomerization unit since then.
As for corrosion in the downstream part of the unit
in the offgas scrubber from the stabilizer, we used to have
a lot of leaks in the caustic system. What we now do is
test the caustic for free caustic on a daily basis. In the
past, however, at times we more than spent it. We went
to an operator pH test of the system on their rounds
through the unit every 4 hours. We are not trying to run
to a 7 pH or anything like that. If they see anything less
TOC/INDEX
than 12 pH, they are going to be in trouble in a few
hours, so they change the caustic right then. That has
worked very successfully for 7 years. We have not had an
additional leak since we started looking at the pH.
Startup procedures are very important to follow, as far
as making sure we get rid of all the water in the system
before we cut the reactors in is concerned. We did have
some corrosion in the stabilizer overhead receiver a few
years ago resulting from trying to start up a little too
soon. The time you save in starting up is not worth the
problems of having to go back and full weld and change
the operation of your unit.
SAMUELS:
Concerning corrosion, I certainly agree with Mr.
Peterson’s comments on the startup, particularly for the
fractionation section. You must get it dried out.
We have had problems in the Penexate rundown piping
with actual pipe failures.
To solve the problem, we use a corrosion inhibitor in
this rundown line to combat chloridebased corrosion. The
corrosion appears to be caused by trace chlorides in the
stabilizer bottoms where the wet regenerant stream from
the feed driers combines with this rundown stream. Since
we do not see corrosion at dew point in the piping from
the driers to the rundown line, we do not believe that
the source of chlorides is coming from the regeneration
of the hydrogen driers. The platformer wet gas wash tower
does a reasonable job of removing Penex feed gas chlorides.
We are replacing carbon steel with hastalloy in some of
the piping, particularly in the product stabilizer overhead
around the water boot area.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
Just a couple of comments on stabilizer corrosion. This
tower operates perfectly dry and any water that gets into
the tower, either during a shutdown or during normal
operation, will cause corrosion. This is because there is a
high concentration of HCl in the upper portion of the
stabilizer. If the tower is kept dry, you will keep the
corrosion under control. We strongly recommend against
adding an amine or anything to the overhead receiver
because of the high concentration of HCl in that system.
The key to the scrubber operation is to maintain the
caustic strength at a level of about 2% before you change
the caustic. Most of the scrubbers are a batch type opera-
tion, and you do not want to drain all of your hydroxide
neutralization capability every time you change the caus-
tic. So it is very important to maintain that caustic strength
in the scrubber.
PETERSON:
In conjunction with what Mr. Johnson just said, I said
before that we were checking the caustic strength about
every other day. We do it daily now, and this pH is only
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
a backup system that we use in case something happens
or the laboratory analysis is showing too high a number
G. Etherification
Question 44.
What are the experiences with advanced controls on
ether units? What are the key control parameters?
CAIN:
We recently installed DMC controllers in both the
MTBE and TAME units, and have had great success in
controlling these units. The key control parameters are
methanol, and optimization of the depentanizer on the
TAME, as well as controlling the purity on both units.
BRIAN JOHNSON (UOP):
Several producers of MTBE have used advanced pro-
cess control (APC) to augment the control of the butane
MTBE column. The azeotropic mixture formed between
methanol, the various C4s, and MTBE, enhances the diffi-
culty in controlling the separation of the C4s and methanol
from the MTBE. APC has been used to adjust the column
pressure, the reflux rate, and the reboiler duty. This opti-
mizes the MTBE purity and minimizes MTBE carryover
into the overhead.
Question 45.
What impact does feed sulfur content (particularly
dimethyl sulfide) have on MTBE catalyst life? What solu-
tions exist for reducing the impact of sulfur in the feed?
TASKER:
MTBE is an acidic resin and is sensitive to basic com-
pounds with the feed and to sulphur compounds also in
the feed. The sulphur compounds which do impact mostly
are mercaptans, sulfur, dimethylsulfide, and DMS. DMS
has a very bad impact on the catalyst since it irreversibly
deactivates the catalyst.
There is really no good solution to the problem except
to accept the feed as is. The catalyst is relatively inexpensive
and there is less economic impact if you do deactivate it
fully. Obviously, upstream improvements can be made
by Merox treatment of the feed, or by using a selective
hydrogeneration unit in front of the TAME or MTBE
units. But this, of course, will take planning and capital.
CAIN:
We found that 70% of the TAME catalyst poisoning
is a result of feed DMS. DMS poisoning has reduced the
catalyst life by 1 to 2 months based on analysis of the
spent catalyst. We are considering an ALCOA process
that removes poisons from the feed, using regenerative
molecular sieves.
157
TOC/INDEX
ERIC SCHWARTZ (CD TECH):
DMS has been identified as a diffuse catalyst poison
for MTBE and TAME catalyst. Sulfur species, such as
mercaptan sulphurs, do not present this problem with
resonant catalyst. The exact mechanism of the deactiva-
tion is unclear. However, the deactivation rate is known
to be sensitive to temperature, DMS concentration, and
methanol concentration. For example, at the 150°F range,
and 60 ppm DMS, the deactivation rate can be measured
in terms of percent conversion loss per day.
Solutions include running at minimum reactor temper-
atures and ensuring adequate methanol flow to the system.
In the case of MTBE units, minimize the amount of C5s
in the feed, as DMS distills with C5s. For TAME units,
absorption systems are available which will remove DMS.
DAVID L. SMITH (Alcoa Industrial Chemicals):
To further elaborate on potential solutions, either in
a stand alone mode or as a trim to water wash systems,
there are activated alumina-based selective adsorbents that
can remove mercaptans, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disul-
fide, propionitrile, and acetonitrile from either the isobu-
tylene or isoamylene streams, thereby protecting the
etherification catalyst.
H. Environmental Control
Question 46.
What has the experience been with scrubbing the CCR
regeneration vent gas? Are many refiners scrubbing
this stream?
158 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
HIGGINS:
The panel did not have an answer to this question.
Does anyone from the floor have a response?
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
Nearly all UOP CCR platforming unit designs in the
past 10 years have included vent gas scrubbing, which we
have offered since the early 1980’s. The scrubbing is very
effective. More than 99% of the HCl and 90% of the
chlorine in the vent gas is removed.
UOP now offers for sale a scrubbing system with an
innovative contacting method.
More and more grass roots and revamped units, regard-
less of location around the world, are including vent gas
scrubbing in the project scope to address environmental
concerns and local environmental codes.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We have installed a fairly expensive caustic scrubbing
system for the offgas, as recommended by UOP. They
recommended that free caustic should be maintained at
about 1% to 2%. We found that caustic consumption
was extremely high, not because of chloride content,
which was in the ppm range, but more because of CO2.
So what we did was that we dispensed with caustic and
started scrubbing with demineralized water with a little
caustic that will maintain the pH of 7.5. We have had
no problem since then.
TOC/INDEX
V. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
A. Sulfur Recovery
1. Amine Plants
Question 1.
What are typical carryover/amine losses in LPG amine
treaters, and how do they vary by amine type (MEA,
DEA, MDEA, DIPA)? Review the current best practices
for design and operating techniques.
ROMAN:
Solubility data is readily available for amines in hydro-
carbon. At 77°F solubility of a 30 wt% solution in LPG
is roughly 5 ppm for DEA, 10 ppm for MDEA, and 30
ppm for MEA. This can be misleading however, since
the most important physical property is interfacial tension,
which determines the amine droplet size and subsequent
entrainment. This needs to be addressed by proper con-
tactor design. Amine distributor hole velocity should be
between 1 fps and 2 fps and hydrocarbon superficial
velocity through the contactor should be less than 10
gpm/sq ft. If the contactor is a liquid/liquid contactor,
reducing amine and hydrocarbon temperature will also
increase interfacial tension and increase amine droplet
sizes. Keeping circulating amine free of hydrocarbons and
suspended solids is essential. Minimizing flow rate surges
which disrupt the amine/hydrocarbon interface at the top
of the contactor is also desirable. Acceleration caused by
the change in flow provides additional surface energy to
generate smaller droplets. If the feed is from a depropan-
izer or debutanizer overhead accumulator, the level control
should have a large proportional band and no reset. Allow
the accumulator to take as much of the swing as possible.
Amine carryover can be realized with the installation of
a coalescing vessel on the sweet hydrocarbon exit stream.
An injection stream of water upstream of this vessel can
also be used to aid recovery. We are also looking at
installing a coalescing media inside the exit head of one
of our contactors.
HENKE:
In general, amine losses when treating LPG in a refinery
are much larger than amine losses when treating only sour
gas. These losses are difficult to quantify due to the many
variables involved, such as the ratio of amine to hydrocar-
bon, temperature, level control, mixing efficiency, solubil-
ity of amine in hydrocarbon, and the availability of a
water wash and coalescing system for the treated LPG.
Amine losses will typically range from 0.03 lb to 0.10 lb
pure amine per barrel LPG treated. Generally, amine
losses from LPG systems increase as the amine molecular
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
weight increases. Also, higher amine concentrations usu-
ally result in higher losses.
Current best practices for LPG contactors to reduce
amine losses include: the ability to maintain the inlet
solvent temperature to the LPG contactor at least 140°F ,
with the capability to go to 150°F; and installation of a
coalescer downstream of the LPG contactor for separating
amine from the treated LPG stream. Upstream of this
coalescer, we would also recommend a water wash stage
and provisions to add emulsion breaker and raise the
temperature of the sweet LPG.
Regarding the contactor vessel itself, level indication
is very critical and on a single packed bed or trayed
contactor, we want to have level taps at both the top and
the bottom of the vessel. For multi-packed beds, we also
recommend placing an additional set of level controller
taps between the bottom two packed beds. Finally, proper
attention must be placed on the design of the contactor
internals to ensure proper mixing.
MALEK:
Most of the points have already been stated. The proper
design criteria are important. I would emphasize that if
you have a lot of foaming and fouling problems in your
contactor, this is going to accentuate carryover problems
and cause additional problems. So, keeping the solvent
clean is absolutely important. Most of these basic design
parameters have been published in the literature. I think
Dow Chemical has done an excellent job over the years
of documenting and tracking the performance of liquid
and gas units in the United States, and they have published
quite a few articles on this subject. The 1994 May and
June issues of Hydrocarbon Processing have articles by
E.J. Stewart and R.A. Lanning which present a good
summary of this issue.
BINFORD:
I think most of the points have already been covered.
I wanted to cover just a little bit on different amine
solvents. A good rule of thumb for DEA is 20 lb of DEA
per 1000 bbl of LPG if there are no significant problems
in design or operation. MEA and MDEA losses are usually
a little higher under the same conditions. Some refiners
who have done a very good job of controlling losses in
their LPG have been able to get that down to 5 lb of
amine per 1000 bbl of LPG.
Factors that have the greatest impact on carryover and
amine losses include amine type (which I just covered),
amine concentration, contamination, disengaging time,
velocity, temperature, and additives. I think most of these
topics have been covered. It is also important to note that
159
TOC/INDEX
antifoams and defoamers can cause real problems with
LPG/amine separation. Typically, these are not the best
way to get disengagement. Some of the products do have
a positive effect, while others, such as silicone, can provide
short term relief, but over time actually increase emulsifi-
cation tendency of the amine, and can cause absorber tray
and exchanger fouling as well. Last year we commercially
tested a chemical disengaging aid in Canada to quickly
separate amine/LPG emulsions and reduce carryover. This
first commercial test increased throughput by 25%, while
decreasing losses by about 50%.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
We had a DEA LPG and tail gas treater and we had
severe carryover. We went for several years using huge
quantities of antifoam. Finally, we resolved all of these
problems by three main things. First, the amine concentra-
tion was raised to 20%. Second, we installed a knock out
pot for the tail gas to get rid of the hydrocarbon liquid.
Third, we used a corrosion inhibitor in the amine system.
CARLOS ROLANDELLI (Merichem Company):
We share the views of the panel. I would like to address,
in particular, the free amine carryover concern. Free amine
carryover is controlled by the design and the effectiveness
of the mass transfer device employed in the absorber. In
general, as temperature increases and pressure decreases,
more amine is carried out by the hydrocarbon. However,
the most important parameter to control losses is the
treater design.
If the treater design produces large amounts of amine
carryover, a settler and, perhaps, a water wash is recom-
mended down stream of the absorber. If high solubility
is the main source of amine losses, the best operating
practice is to operate at low amine concentrations. A water
wash down stream of the absorber is recommended, and
the amine rich water should then be processed in the
regenerator, if possible. A Fiber Film娃 contactor system
may be used to eliminate carryover, clean up equipment,
or to remedy these problems in existing units.
BRUCE SCOTT (Bruce Scott, Inc.):
The Amine Best Practices Group (ABPG) did a survey
a while back of about 100 amine units, but we did not
look at losses from liquid treaters specifically. We were
able to correlate gross loss rate with the proportion of
lean amine going to liquid treating. So the focus on liquid
treaters is appropriate. We did not find any statistical
difference between MEA, MDEA, and DEA gross losses.
We did look at units that had water wash of some kind
after the liquid treater and found that they averaged about
25% of the loss rate of the group as a whole.
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
160 Energy & Environmental Management
Pall certainly agrees with Mr. Henke: a high efficiency
liquid gas coalescer can remove this amine carryover down
to less than 0.01 ppm in the effluent. This material could
be recirculated back to the amine system.
RICK W. BIRNBAUM (Union Carbide Corporation):
Union Carbide has examined the solubility MDEA in
cracked and saturated LPG and found that the solubility
of MDEA varies with the concentration of MDEA in the
amine solution, the temperature of the system and the
concentration of unsaturates in the LPG stream. For
example the solubility of a 45 wt% MDEA solution in
cracked LPG can be as high as 175 ppm, while for satu-
rated LPG, the solubility of MDEA approaches 30 ppm.
Losses that are higher than indicated by the solubility
limits of MDEA are a sign of mechanical problems and
some or all of the mechanical changes suggested by the
panel should be considered. Soluble losses, on the other
hand can be reduced by choosing a solvent that is less
soluble than MDEA in cracked LPG streams.
Union Carbide has developed two formulated solvents
that are inherently less soluble than MDEA in cracked
LPG stocks.
Question 2.
Describe operating, design, and chemical application
solutions to reduce tertiary amine system fouling caused
by corrosion, heat stable salts, and hydrocarbon contami-
nation.
SAMUELS:
In the area of operations and design, you need an
amine/oil separator designed to remove entrained gas and
liquid hydrocarbon. Residence time is important; there
is some debate as to the proper amount of residence time.
We have experience between 10 and 30 minutes and,
obviously, longer is better there. Carbon filtration is
important to remove dissolved hydrocarbon, and we have
successfully seen both rich and lean side filters work. Our
TOC/INDEX
Garyville Refinery currently has particulate filtration on
the rich MDEA system plantwide and has had good suc-
cess with 3M bag filters. The Robinson Refinery also uses
3M bag filters upstream and downstream of all the carbon
beds in the system. Additionally, it is highly recommended
to water wash the refinery fuel gas upstream of your
fuel gas absorbers to remove impurities such as hydrogen
cyanide, thiosulfuric acid, naphthenic acids, formic acids,
and oxygen. All of these, of course, form heat stable salts.
The problem with heat stable salts, is foaming and fouling.
The type of salt that you have in your system will impact
the absolute number—the percentage that you can toler-
ate. We typically keep our salt level below 2%, and that
has been reasonably successful for us. There is a lot of
vendor information on this to guide people.
When it comes to SCOT amine systems the key is
making sure that you have excess hydrogen on your tail
gas reactor effluent and no SO2 in that system. When
heat stable salts are present, you generally also have degra-
dation of the amine in solution. This can cause corrosion
problems also, and should be carefully considered before
purchasing reclaimed amine. Our Garyville Refinery has
tried both vacuum distillation and ion exchange reclama-
tion of their amine, on-line. While both work, Garyville
feels that the ion exchange offers advantages when dealing
with low levels of contaminants, and in controlling the
reclaiming process.
We have also tried sodium hydroxide to neutralize heat
stable salts. We do not think this was very successful as
it does not really remove heat stable salts; it just tends to
make them less corrosive. From our experience, other
than the above, corrosion can result from excessive high
amine loadings, high temperature, certainly, high velocity,
H2S flashing out of solution, and improper metallurgy.
HENKE:
Fouling caused by corrosion is often controlled by
using special alloy metals, primarily series 300 stainless
steel, in highly corrosive areas. These would include the
lean/rich exchanger, the reboiler, the reboiler vapor return
line, the rich amine feed line, and the overhead condensers.
A very important part of reducing corrosion is the proper
regeneration of the amine. This is especially true when
CO2 is present in the system. Target regeneration effi-
ciency should be at least 90% for primary and secondary
amines, and at least 95% for the tertiary amines.
Heat stable salts in all amine systems, including tertiary
amines, are usually caused by acids in the feed stream to
the amine contactor. Water washing is the best method
to remove most of these acidic compounds which create
heat stable salts.
Hydrocarbon contamination is best controlled by
maintaining the lean amine feed temperature to the con-
tactor 15°F above the incoming gas or liquid stream.
Another practice to reduce hydrocarbon contamination
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
in the amine stream is to provide an adequate rich amine
flash drum upstream of the lean/rich amine exchangers.
CAIN:
At our Port Arthur plant, we use a 95% MDEA solution
plus 5% of MEA for CO2 control. We try to maintain
our heat stable salt level below 3 wt%. We are fortunate
because we have two flash drums in the rich amine return
to the regenerating units, plus two 10,000 bbl rich amine
tanks to allow a residence time for any hydrocarbons to
settle out. We try to keep the rich amine temperature
below 120°F to prevent amine stress corrosion.
FUSSELL:
The only thing I would add is the importance of having
someone in your facility that is responsible for these amine
treaters. We are a small facility; we do not have a lot of
engineers and these units tend to be the last things that
people want to worry about. As a result, approximately
5 to 6 years ago we got ourselves into a tremendous
amount of trouble with the EPA, because we were not
paying enough attention to these units. Since we do not
have a large engineering staff, we changed our amine
supplier and went with Union Carbide. We have seen a
major turnaround in the performance of our amine
treaters.
THOMAS R. BACON (Dow Chemical Company):
We agree with everything that has been said. The points
are well covered. I would take issue with the question
itself as it suggests that tertiary amines have more degrada-
tion than primary and secondary. That is not true. From
a chemical point of view, the tertiary amines have fewer
reactions, and, therefore, should have less degradation.
So, I would suggest that all of the comments made apply
to any amine system no matter who your supplier is or
what you are using.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
Could I have some more details on the water wash of
the tail gas prior treating?
SAMUELS:
The refinery fuel gas water wash removes impurities
that cause the formation of heat stable salts in the amine.
The contactor is located directly up-stream of the fuel
gas amine treaters. At the Robinson Refinery 2mm SCFH
of fuel gas is washed with 50 gpm of circulating stripped
sour water in a 26 foot tangent to tangent, 7 foot diameter,
packed column, (1 pall rings are used). Enough make-
up stripped sour water is added to compensate for satura-
tion losses.
MARK O. WIMBERLY (Union Carbide Corporation):
The design of any amine system should include equip-
ment to remove feed stream contaminants, such as water
161
TOC/INDEX
wash towers, coalescers, and particulate filters. Also, the
formation of corrosion products and heat stable salts can
be mitigated by eliminating oxygen incursions, but for
the most part, heat stable salts do not result from oxidative
degradation of the amine. Also, use high quality makeup
water and avoid the use of inhibitors and additives that
are incompatible with the amine. Furthermore, Union
Carbide has technology for removing heat stable salts on-
line. This is the UCARSEP威 process which employees
electrodialysis. With respect to hydrocarbons fouling, we
usually can control that by skimming the flash and
reflux drums.
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
Foaming and fouling in amine systems is caused by
hydrocarbons and particulate matter in the system. The
hydrocarbon itself creates the foam; the particulate in the
system will stabilize that foam and help make it foam
over. By handling it by a two stage approach, namely a
high efficiency liquid gas coalescer before the amine sys-
tem, will allow you to remove the hydrocarbon in its
aerosol form prior to it ever getting into the amine system
and causing the foaming problem in the first place. How-
ever, if it is in there, the removal of the particulate material
will allow the foam not to become stable and, therefore,
eliminate a lot of the problems within the system. Usually
if you bring the particulate level down to 1 ppm or less,
it will not stabilize the foam. In every system where we put
high efficiency cartridge filters to remove the particulate
material down to this level, there was no foaming.
Question 3.
What has been the experience with using higher capacity
amines (MDEA, DIPA) to increase refinery sulfur handling
capacity, and what success have refiners had in convert-
ing to these amines from non-compatible amine (such
as MEA) on the run? What advice can be shared on the
conversion process?
SAMUELS:
Mr. Bacon may not agree with my first statement
here, but in our experience high capacity amines tend to
perform as advertised. The down side, for us at least, has
been controlling the higher potential losses of the tertiary
amines. Converting from MEA to MDEA on the run
was necessary at the Robinson Refinery in order to take
advantage of capital investments we had made to allow
the refinery crude sulfur to be raised from a 0.75 wt% to
1 wt%. The refinery’s objectives in this on-line conversion
were no environmental violations or injuries during the
conversion, no process upsets, less than 5% MEA left in
162 Energy & Environmental Management
the system after the conversion, and to minimize cost.
Four vendor proposals were reviewed in detail. UCAR-
SOL威 LE713, which is an MDEA with some additives,
was selected because of the projected product perfor-
mance, cost, and Union Carbide’s experience with on-
line conversion. Basically, the on-line conversion was a
plug flow exchange of MDEA with MEA. Twelve tempo-
rary tanks were piped up to the system and a 45 wt%
solution of LE713 was blended in several of the tanks.
In order to minimize mixing in the system, the olefin
and LPG absorbers were emptied and bypassed and other
system vessel levels were minimized. Pumping rates of
the LE713 into the system and the MEA out of the system
to the remaining tanks were matched. Union Carbide
had predicted that a measurable pH change would be
seen when the LE713 was leaving the unit versus the
MEA. The conversion was successful and safely completed
in 3 hours from the beginning of the swap. There were
no environmental violations, no unit upsets, the resultant
MEA quantity was 4.3% of the unit solution after the
conversion.
A lesson learned for those who are going to try this,
is not to expect plug flow even if you do the things
that we have described and try to minimize your system
volumes. Expect a good deal of wasting of your new
amine, particularly if you are desiring a low percentage
of the old amine. We would recommend that you hard
pipe your temporary piping. You can use carbon steel
screwed piping. We had some problems with stainless steel
flex hose; not from the amine itself, but just mechanical
problems with the hoses. I would just hard pipe it to
begin with.
The expected pH change was never seen, in fact, the
greatest pH change that we saw was 0.2, which led to
more LE713 losses than planned.
Another lesson learned is that the temporary storage
tanks that we filled from the unit were filled in parallel,
just for ease of operation. We should have filled those in
series. Because of the unit mixing, it would have allowed
us to segregate the amines as they came out of the unit
for better disposal. The final solution contained 17%
MEA and 14.5% LE713. Although the refiner that was
scheduled to take the waste amine finally did accept it,
make sure that you have a contingency plan if the waste
amine contains a higher quantity of MEA than you have
advertised. Disposing of the amine as a waste could be
extremely expensive. And lastly, make sure that you can
operate at these low levels. We did have some problems.
If you push amine levels out of your carbon beds, for
instance, you are going to push some hydrocarbon into
your system, which will introduce foaming. Below is a
table which is on 30 minute intervals the percentage of
MEA and UCARSOL威 LE713 leaving the unit, so that
you can get a feel for the extent of mixing that takes place.
TOC/INDEX
Discharge Amine Samples
Time Wt% MEA Wt% LE-713
10:50 (t⳱0) 24.0 1.3
11:20 (t⳱30) 25.0 1.0
11:50 (t⳱60) 18.3 11.4
12:20 (t⳱90) 11.5 24.1
12:50 (t⳱120) 6.9 31.0
13:45 (t⳱End) 3.6 36.9
PETERSON:
We switched from DEA to MDEA when we were
going to put on our diesel hydrotreater and our FCC feed
hydrotreater in one refinery. We simply started adding the
MDEA in April for a need for it in December, and never
took anything out of the unit except for the normal
losses. This was quite successful: everything was in proper
proportion when we needed it. Since the MDEA slips
more CO2 and if you are running a Merox system on
your LPG you might consume a lot more caustic with
the CO2 that gets through that used to get picked up by
the DEA.
Our conversion was successful in that we did not have
to revamp the amine system, the contactors, the absorbers,
or anything. We were able to increase the capacity of the
sulfur unit from about 60 tons up to about 98 tons. We
did go to oxygen enrichment, but that was to destroy the
sour water stripper gasses, i.e., the ammonia that came
in. A small inventory in our system was the key to doing
this. We had very small surge flash drums, very small
contactors in a couple of our services. These got enlarged
when we put on the hydrotreaters, so that was almost
like a shot of MDEA into the system at that point.
CAIN:
In our Delaware City plant, we switched from MEA
to DGA to run at a higher strength and increase capacity.
This conversion was done on the run. DGA is a cleaner
amine than MEA and will initially result in a higher filter
usage when the system cleans itself up. Our filter usage
was high before the conversion, but as the conversion
process started, we could not keep up with the filter
change outs. As a result, the flash drum accumulated a
lot of solids and had to be cleaned out. We did not have
a reclaimer when the conversion process was started. Once
the reclaimer was installed and the solids diminished, the
performance improved. Our losses, originally in the 20
lb to 30 lb per MMSCF range, are currently under 10
lb per MMSCF.
HAHN:
We also did a conversion from MEA to DGA, but
after hearing some of our sister refineries and the various
difficulties they had with on-line switching, we elected
to go with a shutdown mode in order to make the change
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
out. It happened to coincide with a total plant shutdown,
which worked out very well for us and we avoided a
lot of problems. We experienced about a 15% capacity
increase. We were mostly after reduced corrosion; we had
been eating up our amine regenerators, because we had
been overusing them. We increased the strength of our
MDEA on our tail gas treating unit from 15% to 40%
solution, and this was very successful in allowing us to
almost double the processing capability of our SRUs with-
out having to do any extensive remodeling or revamping
on our tail gas treating unit.
THOMAS R. BACON (Dow Chemical Company):
Once again, semantics are upsetting me. There is no
such thing as an incompatible alkylamine. There are no
chemical reactions that happen between MEA, DEA, and
MDEA, and as far as that is concerned DGA, that create
a problem with mixing of any two. However, there are
consequences that you suffer when you do mix two amines
together. The benefits of selective removal of H2S with
MDEA do not exist in a mixture. The full benefit of
reduced energy gained from MDEA is not realized in a
mix. The degradation reactions of primary and secondary
amines continue. On the otherhand, thermal reclamation
is not practical with MDEA. Basically, if there is any way
that you can purge the system and have a clean start, not
taking into account shutting down the refinery of course,
the dollar cost of doing that type of conversion, I think,
is well worth considering.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
Could I ask Mr. Peterson to comment on the benefits
of switching from the DEA to MDEA with regard to
dollar value?
PETERSON:
I do not have those dollar values on the top of my
head. The basic thing that we did was try to get additional
capacity in our sulfur unit without changing anything in
the amine system in general.
DAVID STREET (Huntsman Corporation):
Basically, our comments on the conversion process
would be that each conversion project has to be handled
individually. Amine systems are different from refinery
to refinery. So what works for amine system A, may not
work for amine system B. A lot of the things that come
into play there are the inventory, size of flash tank, size
of surge drum, things like that. So, generally what you
are doing in an on-line conversion is you are trying to
balance the need to get the most out of the post conversion
solvent, i.e., minimize the old solvent percentage in the
post conversion solution, with the economics of wasting
amine by overshooting your conversion and having a lot
of amine going once through the unit.
163
TOC/INDEX
Question 4.
What is considered ‘‘Best in Class’’ performance regard-
ing amine consumption, specifically in MEA systems?
(Please express the response in terms of amine con-
sumption as a percentage of circulating system inven-
tory.) How does this compare to other amine types?
HENKE:
We consider ‘‘Best in Class’’ amine consumption in
MEA systems to be slightly less than one complete inven-
tory per year. In recent conversations with TPA regarding
general trends from their amine best practices surveys,
they have found that amine consumption, in actual opera-
tion, does not vary appreciably between the individual
amines. The losses that occur in the primary amine systems
resulting from reclaimer operation are comparable to the
losses from leaks and filtration operations that occur with
the other secondary and tertiary amines.
MALEK:
The losses that we are talking about in the gas systems
are associated with vaporization losses, mechanical losses,
and solubility losses in the liquid systems. One can calcu-
late the theoretical losses that one would expect due to
solubility parameters.
Most of the low usage units are using some sort of a
water wash system. The key to keeping the amine losses
down to a minimum is this water wash system. There are
several design approaches for a water wash system that
will hold amine losses to an absolute minimum.
RICK W. BIRNBAUM (Union Carbide Corporation):
Union Carbide’s experience with refiners around the
world has shown that amine system losses vary consider-
ably between operators. On average, a well operated gas
treating system that encounters few problems loses as little
as 0.5 inventories per year of solvent, while a system which
is moderately trouble prone can lose in excess of 1.6
inventories per year. Probably two thirds of the gas treating
systems that we have observed over time experience losses
between these limits. Loss control practices and the
resources dedicated to them impact the loss rate of solvent
considerably.
A customer of ours in Japan, for example, complained
that his losses were too high at 0.5 inventories per year.
On the other extreme, a small MEA system containing
only 2,500 pounds of MEA in the operating solution
consumed 25,000 pounds of MEA in a single year. But
because the dollar value of the loss was considered to be
insignificant, relative to other operating costs in the area,
the losses were tolerated.
Proper amine management practices can therefore be
very effective at controlling losses and minimizing operat-
ing expenses.
164 Energy & Environmental Management
BRUCE SCOTT (Bruce Scott, Inc.):
The ABPG survey that I mentioned before, looking at
gross losses, says that the average is about three inventories
per year. The first quartile out of that averages about 0.6
to 0.8 inventories per year. We have published two articles
on this loss data entitled: ‘‘The Cost of Poor Amine Unit
Operations’’ Hydrocarbon Technology International,
Summer 1995, p.85; and ‘‘Amine Unit Cost Elements’’
Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Summer 1997, p.99.
2. Sulfur Plants
Question 5.
Does anyone optimize the Claus sulfur unit by determin-
ing tail gas air-to-acid gas ratio using laboratory analysis
rather than an on-line analyzer? If so, please describe
details of the testing and the analytical procedures.
MALEK:
The question regards the optimization of the Claus
plant by laboratory analysis rather than on-line analysis.
One of the big problems that you have in a refinery
operation is the variability of the feeds to the Claus plant.
The H2S from sour water stripper can be a very significant
portion of the total amount of sulfur being handled by
the Claus unit. This tends to be very erratic, particularly
in those installations that do not have sour water stripper
tanks of adequate size to handle variability in this stream.
Consequently, the varying feed rates and varying composi-
tions to the Claus unit, in our opinion, make it impractical
to optimize, or even properly operate that unit, without
on-line analytical equipment.
BRUCE SCOTT (Bruce Scott, Inc.):
I may be the only one here old enough to remember
the tests that people used to use. They used the Tutwiler
test for H2S and the Reich test for SO2, and as was said
it just does not work. By the time you get the answer,
the process has changed.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We optimize the sulfur recovery unit by checking the
H2S/SO2 analyzer. Although it has not been very reliable,
we still go by that.
Question 6.
What specific design codes must be applied to the design
of Claus and tail gas unit shutdown systems? Specifi-
cally, what shutdown points are included?
CAIN:
Goar, Allison & Associates (GAA) provided the follow-
ing comments for this question. Different operating com-
panies have different opinions on what codes to apply
to SRU tail gas treating unit shutdown systems. GAA
TOC/INDEX
recommends NFPA guidelines as the basis for firing con-
trols on all fired equipment (main burner, line burners,
reducing gas generators, incinerators, etc.). However,
there is no consensus on specifically which guidelines
apply to SRU main/ burner reaction furnaces. Each com-
pany and location makes the final decision on how the
guidelines are implemented. GAA also feels that SRU
electrical area classifications should be Class 1 Division 2.
I would like to give the SRU trips at our Louisiana
plant to compare with what the rest of the panel does.
We have a push button shutdown on a local panel, a
push button shutdown on main control room panel, acid
gas knockout drum high level, ammonia gas knockout
drum high level (but that only shuts down the ammonia
gas), thermal reactor boiler water low level, thermal rear
chamber high temperature, thermal reactor flame detec-
tors (takes 2 to shut down), incinerator shutdown, and
thermal reactor high pressure.
HAHN:
Our shutdown trips are almost the same as what Mr.
Cain said. We also have a low air flow trip, and we have
dual voting on both the flame scanners and also on our
waste heat boiler low water level shutdown. Since our
unit is mostly powered from electricity to start with, any
power failure will result in a total shutdown.
ROMAN:
Again, no specific design codes exist, but let me just
add these specific NFPA standards that we use at Ashland.
We use NFPA 8501, which deals with single burner boiler
operation, and NFPA 8502, which deals with furnace
explosions/implosions in multiple burner boilers, as guide-
lines.
DAVID HOCKEY (PetroFac, Inc.):
On shutdowns, do the people with fired reheat burners
shut down on a flame loss in the reheat burner?
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
ROMAN:
We have converted most of our reheat burners to steam
reheaters. Where we still have the burners, the reheat
burner itself is the only thing that shuts down, on loss
of flame.
STEVE FENDERSON (Goar, Allison & Associates, Inc.):
Some do and some do not on the reheat burners. Some
installations that we have seen do not even have flame
scanners on the reheat burners, which we do not really
agree with. But, there are some of them out there like
that, and if they do shut down, it should be just that
reheat burner that shuts down itself.
Question 7.
What state of the art instrumentation and logic systems
are being used to control Claus and Scot unit shutdowns,
start-ups and restarts? Is the complexity of these sys-
tems, coupled with the poor reliability of pilots, electron-
ics, and instrumentation, actually reducing on-stream
reliability and safety? What are refiners doing to correct
these problems?
ROMAN:
We insist on separate, redundant logic systems for all
of our process unit shutdowns. The plant DCS system is
used to provide input and output signals only. It is not
involved in shutdown logic. The logic is triple redundant
and insures a safe shutdown in the event of a processor
or sensor failure. The field sensors, transmitters, and trip
solenoids are the least reliable part of our systems. We
have addressed this problem by installing new digital
transmitters, replacing copper tubing with stainless steel
tubing, and installing solenoid bypasses in the field to
allow the trip solenoids to be tested while the unit is on-
line. We have not opted for parallel final trip valves, and
these valves are only tested during shutdowns. The use
of bypasses to allow on-line testing has to be carefully
controlled to prevent unauthorized disabling of the shut-
down systems.
MALEK:
State-of-the-art instrumentation, we believe, consists
of modern DCS sytems. I agree that the emergency shut-
down systems generally would be designed with PLC
controllers independent of the DCS system. Voting logic
can be used to keep from inadvertently shutting these
plants down. The design criteria that sets instrumentation
complexity depends on whether you have a single sulfur
plant, parallel sulfur plants, or other backup you have on
your sulfur recovery system.
PETERSON:
We have a Goar, Allison designed oxygen enrichment
system in our sulfur unit, and we have had real good
165
TOC/INDEX
reliability with it. I am not going to go into all the details
of what controls what and what trips what. As has just
been mentioned in the previous two answers, the logic
system is independent from our DCS system, with just
the basic information getting back in to the board man.
We did have one brief shutdown this year, and that was
a short in a 110 volt trip system—bare wire onto conduit.
Other than that, we have no problems.
CAIN:
At our Port Arthur plant we use an Allen-Bradley PLC
logic for shutdown and alarming conditions critical to
operations. These conditions are then input back to our
TDC Honeywell system for alarm summaries and opera-
tor notifications.
HAHN:
I agree with what has already been said on most things.
Our shutdown logic is also separate from our DCS system.
Having the right bypasses so that you can check the
shutdowns on-line is very important. That has been our
biggest difficulty, i.e., making sure that our Instrument
technicians thoroughly understand the system, so that
when they say they are going out to check the instruments,
they do not accidentally shut you down. We have had a
few such accidental shutdowns but these give our opera-
tors a chance to practice restarting the unit. It is usually
not too serious a condition for us because we have dual
trains, so we have a little safeguard there.
Question 8.
Has anyone found SRU or TGU pilot burners that actually
work? We have used several types and are not pleased
with the reliability of any of them.
FOSTER:
We could have very well asked question number 8. A
year ago we were having a lot of problems with pilots.
The good news on that one is in the past year we have
had some success. We found that the stack match DRAM
(standing for dual range air mix) pilots can be very reliable
in sulfur plant service. They make a retractable lighter
that has a high intensity spark, but the best feature is that
it has a shielded recessed secondary pilot within the main
pilot. That shielded pilot has its own flame verification,
and because of the recessed nature of the pilot the Stack-
match is much less sensitive to turbulence and much less
sensitive to improper combustion mixture. Two of our
Claus plants have been retrofitted to Stackmatch, and we
plan on having the third Claus unit retrofitted with a
Stackmatch at our next shutdown. They light the first
time, every time.
We also have recently installed two Stackmatch pilots
in one of our flares that has been giving us some trouble
too, so we are going to see how it works in flare operation.
166 Energy & Environmental Management
CAIN:
At our Delaware City plant, our pilot ignition system
is very reliable. It was put in by Technical Applications
from Brumal, Pennsylvania. At Louisiana, we use John
Zink igniters on our SRUs and tail gas treating units. We
find that they work very well for hot starts, but we have
difficulty getting light off from a cold start situation. One
common problem is wet fuel gas. Natural gas should be
used, and the system should be checked for water prior
to initiating the lighting sequence.
HENKE:
Yes, there are pilot burners that actually work. I suspect
that this question arises from the ignitors, not the pilots
themselves. It is hard to believe that the pilot burner does
not work. We have had very good success with flame-
front generator ignitors in our sulfur recovery units. As
an additional point, we are experimenting with a new
spark plug type igniter from John Zink which will actually
spark in a bucket of water.
STEVE FENDERSON (Goar, Allison & Associates, Inc.):
We have had good success also on some plants that
use the direct ignition type spark that Mr. Henke referred
to. In addition to Zink, two other companies that offer
that type of unit are Peabody and Forney. There are also
some European companies.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We have pilot burners in the incinerator which were
not functioning properly more due to the sensor problem.
These are of ionization type. Once the hydrogen content
in tail gas goes beyond 70% then it does not function
properly. Otherwise the pilot burners are functioning
alright.
Question 9.
How are sulfur plants protected from overpressure
caused by higher utility pressures (e.g., nitrogen or
steam purges)? Do units have relief valves on the vessels
or exchangers in the reaction zone?
JOSECK:
We have relief valves on the steam and nitrogen header.
We have a high pressure shutdown on the sulfur plant.
We do not have relief valves on the exchangers or the
vessels. The diplegs off the exchangers enter the sulfur pit.
MALEK:
I would agree that you would not have relief valves on
the reactors. However you should have relief valves on
the utility systems into the sulfur plant. Piping should be
protected by relief valves down stream of utility let down
stations in order to prevent overpressure of the equipment
during purging.
TOC/INDEX
FOSTER:
Our solution is procedural. We stay lined up from the
Claus unit into the thermal oxidizer until we shut down
every single purge and every single line into the Claus
unit. We do have high pressure alarms, however, for the
reaction section.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We do have a high pressure problem in the thermal
reactor due to a blockage sulfur condenser with sulphur
and refractory. I would like to know the panels’ advice
and experience on this particular problem. Why has the
refractory come out of position and blocked the condenser
tubes along with sulfur?
SAMUELS:
As far as refractory damage, we limit our heat up on
the Claus boiler to 300°F/hr maximum, due to thermal
expansion, to prevent refractory damage. We have little
experience with tube sheet refractory causing Claus boiler
tube pluggage. Since most inter-reactor condensers have
a refractory filled head (up to the tubes) it is important
to get a good sweep on shutdown to prevent sulfur plug-
gage up into the tubes. We have also seen pressure drop
problems due to demister pad pluggage at the condenser
vapor outlets and have removed these pads in some loca-
tions.
Question 10.
Considering cost, safety, and environmental impacts,
what are refiners using to purge sulfur pits: inert gases,
air, tail gas effluents?
MALEK:
The issue of purging sulfur pits, I think, is driven
largely by what environmental limitations you are operat-
ing under. It is more customary to purge these systems
directly to the incinerator. In some instances, this is not
allowed, and it may require purging to the tail gas clean
up unit. In that case, blowers probably would be indicated.
Purging with air is still being used extensively, but we
are seeing some designs using inert gases.
BINFORD:
I have some information that comes out of our opera-
tion in Canada. Some Canadian producers actually purge
sulfur to improve the sulfur quality. Removal of the H2S
from the sulfur does improve some of the sulfur properties.
One successful method that has been used is fairly low-
tech, i.e., purging the sulfur pit with steam using a steam
sparger system. The steam and H2S are taken off the top
of the pit using an eductor system. In order to prevent
corrosion, the purge piping going from the pit back to
the Claus reactor is steam jacketed. It is important that
the water does not condense, or severe corrosion will take
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
place. Finally, a small amount of chemical catalyst is added
to the steam going into the sulfur pit to react with the
H2Sx and liberate all of the available H2S. With this
system, the H2S level of the sulfur can be reduced to less
than 10 ppm. The chemical catalyst does not contribute
to the ash content or adversely effect the color of the
sulfur if it is fed at proper levels. This method is not
without problems, however, since saturating the sulfur
with water does cause the sulfur to be very corrosive to
concrete as well as carbon and stainless steels.
A second method that has been used is an air/catalyst
purge system. This systems also uses a small amount
of chemical catalyst to release the H2Sx. This system is
marketed by a company called Procore Sulfur Services
out of Canada, and their technology is referred to as the
Hi-Spec process. It is covered in a couple of papers, one
written by Procore Apollo Environmental and the Univer-
sity of Toronto entitled, ‘‘The Procore Apollo Process for
Degassing H2S from Liquid Sulfur’’. Another paper, I
assume written by Procore is entitled ‘‘Degassing Liq-
uid Sulfur’’.
FOSTER:
We use steam eductors to pull sulfur pit vapors to our
thermal ozidizers. They are sized to pull in a sufficient
amount of air so that the vapor space above the sulfur is
kept at a maximum 10% of the lower explosibility limit
for H2S. We also have this set up on our sulfur tanks.
HAHN:
Our sulfur pits were designed with steam eductors
similar to Mr. Foster’s. However, we had a ground water
intrusion problem in our pits. The concrete walls eventu-
ally started to leak from ground water, and so now we
have, for free, steam sweep through our sulfur pit and
into our recovery system. We are planning to replace our
pits with tanks, and those we plan to put a nitrogen
blanket on so we can get it above ground. It is just too
wet in Washington state.
STEVE FENDERSON (Goar, Allison & Associates):
Most installations that we have seen do purge the pit
with air. However, many of them are poorly designed
and poorly installed, so they do not work very effectively.
It is very important in all of these systems, as it is in all
sulfur services, to make sure that everything is kept hot.
It is very important on eductor systems that the eductor
be steam jacketed and not steam traced. The line back
to the incinerator must be well heat traced, so that you
do not get condensation and freezing of sulfur in that area.
The preferred method, and it is very seldom done in
the U.S., is one of the degassing methods, a couple of
which have been mentioned. The advantages of degassing
are that it improves the safety of the system, because it
eliminates the H2S from the system and you do not have
167
TOC/INDEX
the potential for buildup if you have a failure of your
sweep system. It improves the safety during loading, trans-
portation, and unloading. It removes the odor from the
SRU area, from the loading operations, etc. It also can
be used to reduce the overall emissions, because some of
the systems provide the capability of returning the gases
to the process. It lessens the corrosivity of the sulfur itself,
and provides a superior solid product if you are going to
solidify the product sulfur. Goar, Allison does have a new
degassing system that contacts the product sulfur with air
in a pressurized vessel outside of the pit. The first of these
units has been in operation for over 12 months and has
achieved less than 10 ppm residual H2S in the sulfur
without the use of a catalyst.
JIM LEWIS (TPA, Inc.):
TPA has designed vapor recovery systems on sulfur
pits that educt the pit vapors back to the front end of
the SRU which helps reduce the overall emissions from
the facility, since the H2S is not fed to the incinerator.
Additionally, we have designed pressurized sulfur tanks,
in lieu of a concrete pit, in high water table areas that
use tail gas as the sweet medium. That tail gas is then
fed directly back to the feed heater of the tail gas treater
for processing.
Question 11.
What new developments are being applied in the area
of SRU oxygen enrichment technology?
MALEK:
There are quite a few refiners now who are operating
with oxygen enrichment routinely in the 28% to 30%
range. These installations, primarily, have been put in to
get additional capacity out of existing units. Goar, Allison
and Air Products have applied their technology on
extremely high oxygen enrichments. The Lurgi process,
which has been applied successfully by Pritchard, has
operated in excess of 60% oxygen. I do not really believe
that this technology is necessarily competitive compared
to conventional air fired plants, if you consider the cost
of oxygen.
CAIN:
At our Louisiana refinery we have been using TPA’s
oxygen injection technology since 1989 on all five units.
We have seen a significant increase in capacity as limited
by front reactor and boiler outlet temperature limits.
RON SCHENDEL/RANDY HULL (BOC Gases):
The BOC SURE Double Combustion process allows
refinery Claus plants to be expanded to 250% of original
capacity, by operating at up to 100% oxygen. Even with
high levels of oxygen, moderate temperatures are main-
tained in the Reaction Furnace (2500° F) by using two
168 Energy & Environmental Management
reaction furnaces with cooling between the two furnaces.
While this process has been operating successfully since
1990 at KOA Oil in Japan, a new approach has increased
the flexibility and expanded potential applications.
The API refinery in Italy has been using the BOC
SURE Double Combustion process for about one year.
However, at API both the #1 and #2 waste heat boiler,
and a new #1 sulfur condenser are all housed in the same
vessel. Further, the extended head of this heat exchanger
also acts as the #2 reaction furnace. Thus, a single skid
consisting of a burner, reaction furnace (#1), and the
multi pass heat exchanger provide a complete new front
end to either of two parallel Claus sulfur plants. Either
plant can be increased in capacity by a factor of 2 to
provide redundancy as well as increased throughput when
both trains are operating.
Based on the successful operation at API, a major
U.S. refiner has elected a similar approach. A new skid,
consisting of a new burner, reaction furnace, and multi
pass heat exchanger, including a second reaction furnace
in the extended head, will replace the existing burner,
furnace and reaction furnace. The new facility will have
a capacity of 250% of original capacity while maintaining
turn down to current minimum throughput. This is
achieved by a fully flexible operation based on air, oxygen
enriched air, or 100% oxygen. Moderate temperatures
are maintained in the reaction furnace through all regimes,
and the process is easy to control.
In addition to the above, improved burner technolog-
ies, from BOC based on extensive pilot studies and C.F.D.
modeling, allows one to enhance sulfur handling capacity
up to 70% with a burner change alone.
At the time that the Schendel/Hull response was sub-
mitted (pre-submitted prior to actual Q&A session), BOC
was not in a position to identify the major U.S. refiner
that will also be using the new Double Combustion tech-
nology. Today, we can tell you that the U.S. refiner is
Shell Oil. The Shell refinery at Anacortes, Washington,
will be using a new variation of the double combustion
process. That plant will be fully flexible. It will be able
to go from 100% air to 100% oxygen. It is currently in
the design phase. The minimum throughput will be equal
to the current minimum. The maximum throughput on
air will be equal to the current maximum, and the maxi-
mum throughput on oxygen will be 2.5 times the cur-
rent maximum.
With regard to the request for comments on the use
of oxygen in new plants, I can report that we are currently
building a plant in Italy for a gasification project that will
be designed for the use of 100% oxygen from day one.
STEVE FENDERSON (Goar, Allison & Associates):
I would like to comment further on the Goar, Allison-
Air Products COPE娃 Process. From a refining stand-
point, I guess this could almost be considered new technol-
ogy. The first unit started up 12 years ago at Conoco,
TOC/INDEX
Lake Charles. We currently have 17 trains under license.
The technology is available in two versions: in what we
call COPE Phase I the oxygen enrichment level is utilized
up to the refractory temperature limits of the brick, and
Phase II operation, which utilizes an internal recycle
stream from the Number 1 Condenser to recycle back to
the burner to help control the temperature in the reaction
furnace. Out of these 17 units, 11 of them are licensed
for Phase I. We have learned a lot since we have started
utilizing oxygen enrichment. We do not need nearly as
much recycle as we originally thought; therefore, the pre-
ponderance of the systems are Phase I applications. As
far as the levels of oxygen enrichment, the highest level
that I am aware of on a Phase II unit is the Ultramar
Refinery in California that is operating at levels in the
range of 85% to 90% equivalent oxygen. We do have
one unit that is operating at the Destech Coal Gasification
facility in Wabash, Indiana that is operating on 100%
oxygen. So it covers the full range.
3. Tail Gas Plants
Question 12.
Do plants establish tail gas unit operation first, and then
start up the Claus unit into the tail gas unit to minimize
SO2 emissions from the incinerator/thermal oxidizer?
What problems have been associated with this mode of
start up?
ROMAN:
We start our tail gas units by establishing hot nitrogen
circulation on the Scot circuit. After the SRU has been
brought up to temperature on fuel gas, acid gas is cut in
and the H2S-to-SO2 ratio is adjusted to 2-to-1. Finally,
the tail gas is cut in to the Scot unit. If the SRU tail gas
were to be cut into the Scot during warm up, excess air
from the SRU could enter the Scot reactor. We consider
this an unacceptable safety risk due to the presence of
reducing hydrogen and/or partially combusted gas in the
Scot burner. We had this happen to us at one of our
facilities in 1991, and it resulted in the complete fusion
of the catalyst bed and damage to the vessel.
HENKE:
Due to the simplicity of starting a tail gas unit, we
suggest that both the tail gas treating unit and the incinera-
tor be brought on-line before the acid gas is fed to the
Claus unit. A recycle blower is usually required to do this
efficiently. Additionally, we suggest that the Claus unit
operation be somewhat stabilized before feeding the tail
gas treater. Proper control of the air to acid gas ratio is
critical to maintaining the H2S-to-SO2 ratio. Large swings
in the tail gas H2S-to-SO2 ratio will result in a large
temperature rise across the tail gas treating unit reactor,
and potential SO2 breakthrough to the MDEA.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
SAMUELS:
I have rather lengthy start-up procedures for two sepa-
rate units which I will not go into. I would like to try to
summarize things by saying I guess there are 3 levels
of start-up that you can do. The one that people have
traditionally done is to start up their Scot tail gas unit,
and then start up the sulfur unit. They go ahead and cut
acid gas into the sulfur unit. Once they have a 2-to-1
H2S-to-SO2 ratio established, then they divert to the Scot
unit. That would be the traditional or typical start-up,
but obviously you are going to have incinerator violations
if you do that.
The next level would be bringing the Scot unit on,
warming up the Claus unit to the incinerator, and then
diverting into the Scot unit prior to introducing acid gas.
The Scot would be subjected to any fluctuations you
would have in the H2S-to-SO2 ratio, so you could get
rich on the SO2 side which would cause problems. Gary-
ville uses that second level fairly successfully. They do
divert into the Scot tail gas unit prior to introducing
acid gas.
The third level, which is used at Robinson, has the
most potential risk but the lowest potential for incinerator
exceedances. For the third level, once all the Claus bed
temperatures are over 420°F, we begin the Claus unit
start-up. During the Scot unit start-up we have the Claus
diverter valve closed to the incinerator. We are actually
nitrogen purging the Claus unit into the Scot unit. The
Scot reactor has an external hydrogen source. The key is
to make sure that you have excess hydrogen available at
the Scot reactor effluent. At this time we are also lined
up through the absorber so the amine is somewhat at
risk, and we are also lined up to the incinerator. So we
actually start up the Claus unit into the Scot unit, and
the key is obviously maintaining the Claus stochiometric
burn, in particular if you are burning fuel gas. If there is
not enough oxygen you are going to soot up; with too
much oxygen you have what Mr. Roman described. You
have to have a stochiometric burn.
Once we have the thermal reactor up to 2200° F, then
we will cut the acid gas into the Claus straight through
to the Scot. We have done this, I think, about 3 or 4
times successfully with no equipment damage, but you
have to preplan your gas flow rates. You have to preset
those, and work them out with the operators. You have
to make sure that the instrumentation is in top condition,
and you really have to pay attention.
FOSTER:
We do something very similar to what Mr. Samuels
was talking about at Robinson, but we did it for a slightly
different reason. We did it primarily to stabilize the opera-
tion of the thermal oxidizer during startup. With startup
into the oxidizer, we tended to hit high temperature shut-
downs due to the fluctuation in the H2S-to-SO2 ratio.
169
TOC/INDEX
The only problem with lining up to the tail gas unit
is that, if unattended, the quench water pH will drop
drastically if your SO2 breaks through. So, to prepare for
this, we go to maximum purge and makeup on the quench
water, and we maximize ammonia injection. At the same
time, we also station an operator at the filters, because
of the scale formation due to pH swings and also the salt
formation that you are always going to have. They change
out filters nonstop for about 15 minutes to 30 minutes.
We are normally able to keep that well under control,
and we have had good success with that method.
STEPHEN BLASHKA (CRI International):
To reduce SO2 emissions further, you may also consider
using ex situ presulfurized tail gas catalyst if the catalyst
is being changed out. One Gulf Coast customer used ex
situ presulfurized catalyst in their tail gas treater and
completed the sulfiding in only 10 hours. Conventional
in situ sulfiding, on the other hand, typically takes 24
hours or longer to complete. During the sulfiding, addi-
tional sulfur compounds are being vented to the incinera-
tor, so if you can complete the sulfiding more quickly,
it will help reduce emissions on start up.
JAMES STONE (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality):
With Title V coming on line, why do you not take
the permit and describe the startup that you want, of this
unit in the permit? Then make it a permit condition to
start it up in the sequence that you want it started up
for safety. That eliminates the problem of being out of
compliance during the startup.
B. Environmental Management
Question 13.
Beyond the required recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, what approach does your organization use
for performing internal audits to check regulatory compli-
ance of environmental and OSHA regulations?
BARLOEWEN:
I am going to comment on this from a catalyst manufac-
turing perspective. We do not have a regular schedule for
conducting internal audits. We do, periodically, hire an
external consultant to do an audit of our own activities
in the environmental field. And, we have even used a
local university and had them use us as a class exercise
to do an audit.
CAIN:
Our organization uses a two tier approach for Environ-
mental, Health and Safety (EH&S) compliance reviews.
We perform EH&S Management Systems reviews, and
EH&S Compliance Assurance Reviews. Every two years,
170 Energy & Environmental Management
a Management Systems Review is performed to test our
overall compliance with company policies and procedures.
Reviews are addressed in a timely manner. System reviews
are performed by corporate internal auditors.
Every three years, Environmental and Safety Industrial
Hygiene Reviews are performed. These reviews check
compliance with federal, state, and local EH&S regula-
tions. Audit teams are comprised of headquarters EH&S
personnel, EH&S personnel from facilities other than
the one being audited, and, optionally, outside EH&S
consultants. Additionally, some of our refineries are add-
ing a third level of review which is called self auditing.
Facility EH&S personnel not normally assigned to a given
area audit that EH&S area’s compliance with regulatory
requirements.
FOSTER:
Our procedures are pretty similar to those Mr. Cain
just mentioned. We have a full time Health, Safety and
Environmental (HSE) audit function at LYONDELL-
CITGO Refining. We employ two full time internal audi-
tors who perform about 12 HSE audits a year, and they
work off of a 5 year audit plan which is updated annually.
The things they cover are not just the strict compliance
with particular rules, but also they cover areas like manage-
ment system issues, procedures for the management of
HSE, accountability structure, and organizational struc-
ture. Each audit follows a written protocol that is devel-
oped and approved before the audit begins. Audit findings
are then published in a final report which identifies a
responsible individual for each and every finding. Usually,
this individual is a plant manager level. The HSE audit
group also maintains a tracking system which is reviewed
by senior management and executive management once
a month.
HAHN:
Texaco also has a 3-year cycle auditing program that
we go through. The first year we conduct a corporate
compliance Environmental Health and Safety audit, and
this is done at a site. It takes about one week, and 8 to
10 people are involved in the audit. There are 6 or 8
from corporate headquarters, two from another location
that is not being audited, and then the plant’s own EH&S
department personnel. In year 2 of the cycle, we do a
management systems assessment, similar to what Mr. Fos-
ter was speaking about. That is completed with three
people from headquarters, and they also come for a week
and work with the plant. Then in year 3, we do a facility
site assessment. This is a smaller group of corporate audi-
tors who come in and help. We also review recently
completed multimedia audits and their findings, hoping
to learn from them, pick up some different techniques,
or what is a more acceptable manner to stay in compliance.
TOC/INDEX
JOSECK:
Formal PSM audits and environmental audits are per-
formed once every three years per corporate policy. Audit
teams are composed of individuals from various locations.
Some locations are considering auditing on a yearly basis.
We have expanded the audit process to Safety, Environ-
mental, and Housekeeping auditing, which may include
OSHA and environmental regulations. All of the refineries
have management and supervisors auditing on a weekly
basis. The auditing process is completed using formalized
procedures and checklists. At one refinery, we are expand-
ing the auditing process to the hourly level. We feel this
is the most advanced approach, and provides significant
results. We are currently at the initiation phase of the
auditing by operators.
1. Air
Question 14.
What technologies are available to refineries to meet
the PM 2.5 proposed regulations? Is a retrofit or a basic
design change best?
CAIN:
Of course, our biggest source of PM 2.5 is the FCCU
flue gas. Two technologies that we are considering if we
have to meet these requirements are an ESP or a wet
gas scrubber.
HIGGINS:
I think some of the controls that would be required
under the PM 2.5 standard are still not completely identi-
fied. Both NOx and SOx emissions have a big impact
on PM formation and therefore combustion is likely to
play a major role. Amonea also has an impact on PM 2.5
Question 15.
How effective is the use of floating covers in API separa-
tors in reducing evaporation losses (i.e., VOC losses)?
What is the experience and who is supplying such sys-
tems?
MALEK:
Floating covers on API separators are very effective.
Several years ago, our company conducted some experi-
ments for two refineries trying to document the VOC
reductions that could be accomplished by covering API
separators. These experiments consisted of taking crude
oil and placing it into an open pan on a weighing device,
and monitoring the loss in weight of the crude over a 24
hour period. For a 34 API gravity crude, we saw losses
of up to 10% of the mass in that open pan within 1
hour, and up to 25% in 4 hours. These loss rates are
extremely high for hydrocarbons exposed to air. We took
results of these experiments, and extrapolate them to an
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
API separator operation. We assumed that on average the
hydrocarbon making its way to the API separator was of
the same consistency of crude oil. By estimating surface
area and residence time, the resulting losses were calcu-
lated. The numbers are staggering. It is very important
to cover API separators.
Practically everybody in the industry has already done
this. They have found that the geometry of these open pits
is very complicated. Also some of the safety considerations
make covering these devices with a floating pan or some
other type of cover very difficult. We have seen a number
of refiners abandon their API separators and go to above
ground, closed separator vessels to solve this problem.
Although, we have seen many successful retrofits of API
separators. We have worked with two companies, just
recently, that are quite qualified in this area, Davis Waste
and Water Industries of Thomasville, Georgia, and ZIM-
PRO Environmental of Rothchild, Wisconsin. They are
experts in customizing designs for these systems.
PETERSON:
We installed some floating roof, above ground oil/
water separating tanks in 1993, and they have floating
roofs with primary and secondary seals, per the subpart
QQQ of NSPS. After 4 years, we have had no problems
with these seals. An old API separator was fitted with a
fixed roof, due to some of the geometry problems that
Mr. Malek mentioned, and we have a nitrogen purge.
Performance of that system has been satisfactory over the
past four years as well.
FLETCHER:
We have one customer who reports the floating covers
to be extremely effective. With an in-house built floating
cover, they decreased the VOC emissions by about 80%.
Question 16.
We have several NSPS tanks on a vapor recovery/control
system, including ones in cracked naphtha service. What
is the panel’s experience in maintaining compliance
(particularly on pressure vacuum valves, emergency
hatches, etc.) with the fugitive VOC standard of 500 ppm?
ROMAN:
We do not have NSPS tanks on vapor recovery control
systems, however, some of our tanks in benzene waste
NESHAP service are equipped with activated carbon can-
isters. These systems are required to have an annual leak
detection and repair inspection. We have seen LDAR
readings above the 500 ppm range from both gauge
hatches and manways. Repairs were made within the
required 15 days compliance time.
171
TOC/INDEX
Question 17.
Within the given scope of proposed MACT II regulations,
what technologies are leading candidates to address
reforming and FCC regeneration vent gases?
CAIN:
If the final MACT II standard sets limits for nickel
emissions, we would consider additional FCCU feed
hydrotreating to reduce metal emissions. If the final stan-
dard uses particulate as a HAP surrogate, hazardous air
pollutant, then we would consider an ESP or scrubber.
ROMAN:
MACT II is concerned only with organic or inorganic
hazardous air pollutants. For FCCUs, the concerns are
particulates and hazardous air pollutant products of
incomplete combustion. If the standard is 500 ppm for
carbon monoxide, or alternatively, 20 ppm HAP, then
complete combustion will be needed, or a CO boiler.
Routine operations may make short averaging time for the
standard impractical. Also, the CO boiler may introduce
additional CO from burner conditions that may have to
be accounted for or excluded. It is unlikely that a particu-
late limit of 1 lb/1000 lb of coke burned can be met with
cyclones only. An ESP, wet scrubber, or bag house may
have to be added. The choice will depend on the outcome
of the proposed PM 2.5 regulations.
We do not expect ESPs or bag houses to be able to meet
PM 2.5 standards. It is expected that caustic scrubbers
will be needed for continuous reformers. The API has
estimated the cost at $2 million dollars each. Semiregener-
ative reformers may not need controls, because they are
regenerated only on an intermittent basis.
Question 18.
Recently non-methane organic contaminants have been
found in the CO2 vents from hydrogen plants. Has anyone
defined the concentration of these non-methane constit-
uents in the vent gas, and does the LTS operation affect
the production of this material? What control measures
are available?
CAIN:
We have a partial oxidation hydrogen plant. Prior to
the atmospheric discharge, the exhaust gases are controlled
by a catalytic converter. We get 95% conversion of the
CO and methanol to CO2, using a Shell process.
JAMES STONE (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality):
I am not sure how to control this, but I do know that
our HON section is looking into this as something we
are going to regulate, i.e., the methanol from the hydro-
gen plants.
172 Energy & Environmental Management
2. Water
Question 19.
What have been the EPA ‘‘Hot Buttons’’ relative to WWTP
compliance issues, and how are refiners addressing
these problems?
JOSECK:
We have not found any particular ‘‘hot buttons’’ with
the EPA on water issues. The EPA’s actions, to date, on
compliance/noncompliance issues have been administra-
tive orders and ‘‘do better’’ letters. Letter 2 did seem to
quickly respond to exceeding ammonia and toxic limits,
chronic problems that we have mostly corrected. We have
avoided action by proactive efforts to identify and correct
source issues, as well as, upgrading treatment and controls.
Additionally, we report the upset conditions within 24
hours when process unit upsets, major storm events, and
widespread power failures cause conditions that could
adversely impact effluent water quality.
ROMAN:
I think we must be having that semantic problem again.
We have identified some EPA ‘‘hot buttons.’’ We feel
that the EPA ‘‘hot buttons’’ are daily exceedances, effluent
toxicity exceedances, evidences of past spills, wastewater
treatment plant nuisance odors, and equipment mainte-
nance. At Ashland, we are conducting trials of a ‘‘no oil
to the sewer’’ policy to reduce the load on our wastewater
treatment plant and improve BOD removal. Also, we are
working to improve communications between the process
units and our wastewater treatment plant operators to try
to improve aerator performance. Equipment reliability
and spare parts inventory is a plant-wide concern and is
also being addressed. Foul water stripper performance
is monitored more closely, particulary to reduce odor
complaints from materials that are going to the sewer.
JAMES STONE (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality):
Our ‘‘hot button’’ issues are what I would call ‘‘black
and white’’ issues: paperwork, things that are just abso-
lutely clear on a photograph. Those are the types of things
that are easy to document and will end up as a violation.
Question 20.
What is the fouling history in sour water strippers, espe-
cially in the reboilers? How is this fouling controlled?
HENKE:
We have had problems with calcium-based fouling of
our sour water stripper reboilers. The source of the calcium
was cooling water getting into the sour water system. This
fouling was controlled by fixing leaks in the vacuum tower
overhead systems and rerouting some water streams. The
calcium problem has essentially been eliminated.
TOC/INDEX
JOSECK:
We have a steam-stripped, packed bed sour water strip-
per in which we experienced some severe fouling many
years ago due to calcium carbonate deposits. We located
and eliminated the source of hard water makeup to one
of our hydrotreater wash water systems, and the fouling
disappeared. We recently started up a new trayed sour
water stripper that had to be shut down due to severe
fouling. The fouling was attributed to a similar hard water
contamination that had occurred during the startup of
several new process units. The feed tray was completely
plugged with calcium carbonate deposits. We found sig-
nificant fouling in the feed bottoms exchanger also. We
did not have any indication that the reboiler was fouled,
and did not inspect. Our chemical vendor has recom-
mended chemical dispersant to help with the fouling prob-
lem, but we have concentrated on eliminating the sources
of hard water.
MALEK:
Our design practice would be to use stainless steel in
the reboiler exchanger, and to provide a spare bundle. It
is also possible to provide for cleaning of that bundle while
the sour water stripper is on-line by providing appropriate
block valves and the ability to add live steam while the
reboiler is out of service.
BINFORD:
Mr. Joseck covered the problem of metal salts, calcium
and magnesium, very well, so I will not go through that.
The second source of fouling in sour water strippers is
entrained hydrocarbon in the incoming sour water. The
nature of the hydrocarbon can be highly variable, since it
usually originates from several different sources upstream.
The residual oil or hydrocarbon contained in the water
can result in an oily deposit on the trays, but fouling has
been primarily in the reboiler. Deposits are formed when
the water is flashed, leaving behind hydrocarbon which
then degrades and fouls the reboiler tubes. The best treat-
ment of either of the problems (metal salts or the oil) is
to eliminate the source upstream. Also, if your unit has an
upstream sour water surge tank or surge drum, installing a
good oil skimmer can eliminate a lot of fouling problems
in the stripper itself.
If this is impractical, the fouling can be controlled
through the use of either a scale inhibitor/dispersant com-
bination, or an inorganic/organic dispersant combination,
or both depending on the problem. A well designed pro-
gram will balance the use of these based on measurements
of hardness and oil and grease in both the incoming and
stripped sour water. Controlling chemical feed to insure
equal hardness and oil and grease (on a flow corrected
basis) in and out of the stripper will insure that fouling
is being controlled. We have documented run lengths
from several weeks to over a year using this approach.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
There is another area of fouling when you are talking
about cokers and the sour water, that is coke fines. Lago-
ven, in Venezuela, has had a Pall gas assist backwash filter
operating since 1991, removing coke fines from the sour
water to the sour water stripper. This is particularly inter-
esting in that the flow rate has doubled over the 6 years
of service life. They have recently added another vessel
to the system to bring the flow rate back into design
conditions. The effluent has remained clear throughout
the 6 year service life.
3. Solid & Chemical Waste
Question 21.
How do refiners dispose of their caustic effluents?
MALEK:
Spent caustics in the refineries consist of three basic
types: sulfidic, the crysylic, and naphthenic caustics. Each
of these streams is produced by distinct treating steps
within the refinery. Without exception, each of the sul-
fidic, crysylic, and naphthenic streams can be sold to
various industries who can reuse, or reapply, the contained
contaminants. There are alternate technologies for han-
dling the spent caustics on-site in refineries, and a lot of
refineries are looking at these technologies. Some of them
are applying them. But, I still believe that the best
approach is to try to sell these streams to the end users
who have been traditionally taking them.
One major problem that refiners encounter is that they
do not have the proper caustic management, in order to
maintain the quality of the various spent caustic streams
such that an outside user can use them. They are either
to dilute or they are commingled. It is important that
the three types of caustics, if they are going to be sold to
an outsider, be kept segregated. Also, caustic utilization
in some of the refineries is inefficient, and caustics are
not being properly spent. Overly dilute caustics are being
used in some treating steps where a more concentrated
caustic should be used. In the latter case, the spent caustic
can be more readily sold, and you get more effective
treating by using a more concentrated caustic solution.
So, I would recommend that the refiners look at their
caustic management systems, and evaluate the alternatives
for selling these streams, because I think this is the most
cost-effective approach.
CAIN:
Our Dimersol caustic is reused by an outside company,
Reclaim Environmental. Merichem handles our phenolic
caustics and our sulfidic spent caustics are treated in an
exempt elementary neutralization unit.
173
TOC/INDEX
FLETCHER:
We have one customer who reports selling their spent
caustics as a recycled product to the paper industry.
FUSSELL:
Most of our spent caustic comes from our LPG Merox
treaters. We consolidate this caustic using vacuum trucks
and tankage, and we slowly bleed it at about 1 gal/min
into our wastewater treatment system.
HAHN:
We currently sell, actually I think we pay a little bit,
to have our spent caustic removed and processed by an
outside firm. But, we have recently tested using our spent
caustic in our effluent plant. We installed a new effluent
plant and it needs higher pH than in the past, so we are
going to use our own spent caustic for pH control. We
figure that we will be able to use up a lot of our own
spent caustic in that manner. We have already tested the
phenols and our effluent plant microorganisms like them
for extra food, so we are fairly confident that this disposal
method will be our option of choice in the future.
COREY DREYFUSS (Merichem Company):
Sodium cresylate and sodium naphthenate solutions,
often mistakenly called ‘‘spent caustics,’’ are products and
are not disposed, but are purchased and used directly as
feedstocks in Merichem’s chemical plants in Houston,
Texas, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Sodium cresylate results
from the caustic washing of cracked gasolines and cracked
distillates. Sodium naphthenate results from the caustic
washing of kerosenes, jet fuels, and diesels produced from
a naphthenic 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 worldwide to chemical companies, that employ
them to make yet other industrial consumer products.
Refiners too far away to economically transport these
organic caustic solutions can neutralize them at their plant
and sell only the derived crude acid oils. Merichem also
offers the design and license of organic caustic neutraliza-
tion systems.
Sulfidic caustics are also products, and are purchased,
blended, and sold by Merichem directly as a substitute
for other commercial chemicals to the paper industry
as an ingredient in the pulping process. Alternatively,
Merichem can design a sulfidic caustic oxidation and/or
neutralization system to handle the sulfidic caustic on-site.
The latest confirmation of the product status of sodium
cresylate, sodium naphthenate, and sulfidic caustic was
the proposed ruling by the EPA in November, 1995. The
ruling states that these materials are products as long as
they are sent to a company, like Merichem, that uses them
as feedstocks (cresylate and naphthenate) or ingredient or
174 Energy & Environmental Management
reagent substitutes (sulfidic caustic). We expect that the
ruling will become finalized in early 1998.
SAMIR HALAWANI (Saudi Aramco):
What is the panel experience with caustic incineration?
ROMAN:
We used to have a fluid bed incinerator. We tried to
incinerate spent caustic on one occasion when we could
not contain our inventories. It caused severe agglomera-
tion of the sand in the fluid bed incinerator. We wound
up with fluid particles the size of softballs, and had to
shut the incinerator down.
MARK VINEYARD (MPR Services):
We routinely provide chemical oxidation services for
the treatment of spent caustics. Caustics that will include
the sulfides, phenolics, crysilics, and naphthenics. By pre-
treatment, we can then dispose of them in the biological
wastewater treatment plants without any deleterious
effects.
PATRICIA FORERO (Merichem Company):
Merichem licenses MERICON technology which can
handle either mixtures of these caustics or individual caus-
tics on a segregated basis. The resulting products are an
off gas stream which can be handled in the sulfur plant,
an acid/oil stream which can be sold to Merichem or
burned as a fuel, and a neutral brine which can be handled
in the refinery effluent treating system. Merichem also
licenses ECOMERICAT technology for treating both
FCC gasoline and the resulting phenolic acid which is
converted into a neutral brine solution that can be handled
easily in the refinery wastewater treating system.
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.):
We get spent caustic from merox and feed it to desalter
as long as we are able to maintain the concentration of
the caustic. Otherwise we bleed it at a small rate to the
wastewater treatment plant where we convert it from the
sulfides to sulfates using hydrogen peroxide.
EDWARD SMITH (UOP):
The refiner needs to minimize caustic use in each
process, optimize recycle within the refinery, and where
possible, eliminate use. Doing this will reduce the loads
to the effluent system, and/or to the waste hauler. Some
of the disposal options that were previously mentioned
are not available to all refineries, such as being located
near a paper mill. In fact, we are hearing that many paper
mills are presently not accepting sulfidic caustic.
UOP offers several options that address the issue of
spent caustic disposal. Our Caustic Management Survey
is essentially an on-site audit of caustic treating units as
TOC/INDEX
well as other caustic users within the refinery. Recommen-
dations are provided to optimize unit operations and caus-
tic usage. The scope of the survey is tailored to meet the
refiner’s needs.
The Caustic-Free Merox process is applicable for sweet-
ening gasoline and jet fuel. Since caustic is not used, there
is no caustic waste to handle. Currently, twelve Caustic-
Free Merox units have been licensed worldwide.
The THIOPAQ process is now commercially available
to fully oxidize sulfidic caustic to sodium sulfate, which
can then be disposed to the refinery effluent system. UOP
has also completed development of the application of
THIOPAQ to regenerate sulfidic caustic to sodium
hydroxide. As a result, the regenerated caustic is recycled
back to the H2S scrubber for reuse instead of having to
send an effluent to disposal facilities. Sulfidic caustic is
often the most voluminous and difficult type of caustic
to dispose of in the refinery.
BILL MERTES (U.S. Filter):
For refinery spent caustics, U.S. Filter has been using
wet air oxidation to pretreat the caustic, so it is amenable
to conventional biological treatment. Once treated with
wet air oxidation, spent caustic can be discharged to refin-
ery wastewater treatment plant. Wet air oxidation treat-
ment achieves complete oxidation of reduced sulfur spe-
cies in the spent caustic disulfate. Further, complex organ-
ics are oxidized to either carbon dioxide and water, or to
short chain olefilic acids. Over all, COD of the spent
caustic is reduced by 70% to 80%. I would like to refer
you to a U.S. Filter technical paper on this topic entitled
‘‘Wet Air Oxidation of Refinery Spent Caustic,’’ presented
at the AIChE 1997 meeting, Session No. 85, Paper
No. 85d.
Question 22.
What are the latest technologies developed for the dis-
posal of refinery sludge? A typical analysis for such
sludges may be:
Oil/Grease 5 wt%
FeS 12.25 wt%
S 2.25 wt%
Fe(OH)3 1.5 wt%
Water Balance
Is it possible to recycle this sludge in a delayed coker
unit? What will be the implication of metal content of
coke in such a case?
BINFORD:
Information given on the sludge in question indicates
that it is a water continuous slurry. Discounting the water,
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
it contains a high level of oil and grease, corrosion byprod-
ucts, and sulfur. Given the high level of sulfur, it is
probably coming from one end of the refinery or the
other. It may be raw crude, if the incoming sulfur is high
enough, or possibly, some sulfur coming back from the
bugs in the biological pond. Two options come to mind
for processing. One of them (mentioned in the question)
is taking it to the coker, or the other is to send it to a
pressing or centrifuge operation and then to off-site dis-
posal.
In regards to the high iron content and the impact of
this on the resultant coke, it is really going to depend on
the total volume of sludge, the total tonnage of coke
make, the base level of iron in the coke to begin with,
and then, finally, the disposition of the coke. If it is sponge
or fuel grade coke, usually the iron specifications are pretty
high; if it is anode grade or needle coke, iron specifications
would be much lower. Depending on the volume of the
sludge and the processing scheme, it may be advantageous
to dewater the sludge prior to reprocessing. The reduced
volume may reduce reprocessing costs or might open up
some alternate routes, such as blending the dewatered
sludge with another recovered oil being reprocessed either
into the coker feed or the FCC feed or some other heavy
oil unit.
CAIN:
At our Delaware City plant and Port Arthur plant,
where we have a fluid coker and a delayed coker. We
recycle this material back to the coker units with some
pre-treatment. At the Louisiana plant where we do not
have a coker, we send this material off-site or we will first
filter press it on-site to de-oil it, and then, send the filter
cake off site.
FUSSELL:
We work with Scaltech Industrial Services to recover
our solid waste. The end result is that it is sent to a
cement kiln. The solid waste is collected and it is sent
175
TOC/INDEX
through a two-stage high-speed centrifuge. We then heat
it up and mix it with some oil and get the water content
down to around 5%. We then have to add some additional
oil to get the BTU value up to 5000 btu/lb, before we
can ship this material to the cement kiln. This process
has saved us approximately 38% on disposal costs since
we implemented it.
MARK VINEYARD (MPR Services):
We have found that chemical oxidation routinely treats
these refinery slurries. The oil and greases are effectively
reduced to more soluble acids. The sulfur compounds are
oxidized, and the resulting sludge serves as very good
biological support and aids in the final dewatering stages.
Question 23.
Significant amounts of spent catalyst, such as HDS and
hydrocracking, are being handled by recycle facilities.
Do you maintain an audit trail of your catalyst, and have
you had difficulty in finding available facilities to handle
your spent catalyst?
JOSECK:
When disposing of or recycling spent catalysts, we are
following federal record requirements maintaining records
for three years per 40 CFR part 2362 standard for genera-
tors of hazardous waste. This section of regulation covers
hazardous waste determination and manifests and record-
keeping. Notification of reclamation by the recycler is
part of the records. Any waste that is nonhazardous is
not so tightly regulated. Most nonhazardous disposal facil-
ities use a nonhazardous manifest to track the materials
and for billing purposes. We are not maintaining an audit
trail other than what is required by federal, state, or local
regulations.
TASKER:
As a very general comment, while this question is
directed more toward the refiner than the licensor, this
is a question that is invariably raised by potential licensees.
It is becoming the vogue today to sign up for a cradle-to-
grave agreement for catalyst purchases or leases. Therefore,
with this in mind, we see more weight given to the manu-
facturers to bring such agreements to the table.
BARLOEWEN:
For any metal bearing wastes, we send them to recycling
facilities. They are considered nonhazardous. We do not
maintain an audit trail of them, however, we do audit
the facilities that we use and we try to limit the number
of facilities to a minimum. As a result of the audits, we
dropped one of the firms that we had used to reclaim
the metals.
176 Energy & Environmental Management
FLETCHER:
Akzo Nobel and Nippon Ketjen have a technical bulle-
tin for evaluating regenerated catalyst quality. In this bulle-
tin, acceptable limits for a number of chemical contami-
nants, such as sulfur, vanadium, and nickel, are described.
However, the suitability for use is often a function of the
intended use, as well as the regenerated catalyst quality.
It is usually advisable to discuss regenerated catalyst quality
with the original catalyst supplier and/or the regenerator.
WOODROW K. SHIFLETT (Criterion Catalyst Company L.P.):
We get a number of questions along this line, so I
wanted to go over a brief list of what we would consider
necessary for a good audit trail: the analysis for the proper
environmental and DOT classification, copies of compo-
sitional analytical work that has been done; appropriate
MSDS documents; quotation documents from the recy-
cler involved; when required, a letter of acceptance from
the recycler; preshipment checklist information; copies of
manifests and a bill of lading; and letters of certification
of recycle from the recycler. We would also caution refin-
ers that they should deal with reputable firms, and that
they do their own environmental audit of such firms on
the order of every two years. In North America, there are
two fully permitted recyclers of spent HDS and residue
catalyst. These recyclers are CRI-MET of Braithwaite,
Louisiana, and Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical of Free-
port, Texas. The capacities of these two facilities are more
than adequate to accommodate all of the spent HDS and
residue catalyst in North America.
C. Energy Management
1. Process Heaters
Question 24.
What experience have refiners had with ceramic coating
in furnaces? Have they been used in coker furnaces, and
have intervals between decokes increased? Have they
been used in reformer furnaces? Review the service life,
application techniques, benefits analysis, and pitfalls.
PETERSON:
We ceramic coated two heaters in one of our refineries.
The first one we did was a naphtha hydrotreater charge
heater. We did this in 1996, and it was not noticeably
successful. It was probably the wrong application for this
type of technology, as the heat transfer was largely convec-
tive and we do not fire this heater very hard. It was an
opportunity to see what the process looked like. We may
also have put the coating on too long before we started
the heater up, as it was quite humid, so some of the
coating may have left the tubes.
In February of this year, we went on to a heater that
was probably a better application, a naphtha reformer
TOC/INDEX
charge heater which is all radiant heat transfer. I wish I
could tell you that I had skin thermocouples before and
after and tell you what the difference is, but we came
close to this. We installed skin thermocouples and we
have a sister heater in the same cabin and the side that
is coated is noticeably dark, and the side that is not coated
is bright from all the material on the tubes, the old ash
and scale. So, it appears as if the coating has done some
good from emissivity and heat transfer. Even if it has not
done some good that way, the exercise of sandblasting
the tubes and putting a ceramic coating on probably is
going to keep them from oxidizing again. So, in that
standpoint, we view that as being successful. Skin thermo-
couples between the coated heater and the uncoated heater
show a difference of about 100°F between the two, both
on the peak temperature and average temperature with
the coated heater being colder. We are considering doing
some additional heaters in the refinery to help even out
heat flux, as well as improve efficiency in the heaters. So
far it looks like it has been successful for us.
ASHUTOSH GARG (Furnace Improvements):
As a designer of fired heaters, refractory emissivity does
not figure anywhere in the radiant section calculations.
We have changed the refractory lining of several heaters
from castable to ceramic fiber, and the radiant section
performance was never affected. But, coating on ceramic
tubes will definitely make some minor differences, because
emissivity of the tubes does come into play.
LLOYD WINGER (Conoco Inc.):
We have installed ceramic coatings on four heaters:
reformer feed hydrotreater reboiler crude feed and coker
feed. We have observed more heat transfer in the radiant
section. However, the net benefit is difficult to quantify
due to numerous other changes to the process units
involved.
Question 25.
What experience has the industry had with magnetic
devices installed in furnace fuel gas piping to improve
heater efficiency?
Question 26.
What are refiners doing to control or eliminate fouling
of burner tips? We suspect that most of the fouling results
from amine system carryover.
HENKE:
Complete separation of amine from fuel gas is a critical
element in elimination of burner tip fouling. Most of our
fouling events can be traced back to poor amine contactor
operation. Much can be done to improve the separation
of amine from fuel gas in the sweet fuel gas knockout
drum. Proper distribution of the inlet stream and installa-
tion of coalescing devices are just a few. In cold weather
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
climates, the proximity of the sweet fuel gas knockout
drum to the furnaces must also be considered. Other areas
for consideration in reducing burner tip fouling include
particulate filters and optimized burner tip design.
BINFORD:
I think Mr. Henke covered most of the points. Most
of this fouling, when we get involved in a system like
this, is either coming from upsets in the amine system or
from iron sulfide scale sloughage that is not properly
caught in dip legs, knockout pipes, or trash pipes. It is
very important that these ‘‘catch’’ systems are operating
properly and that they are periodically maintained. Good
housekeeping practices in the amine unit, which are cov-
ered in detail in the amine section, are a real key to
keeping your fuel gas systems clean. If these measures
are still not effective, chemical antifoulant programs can
effectively mitigate the deposition of trace contaminants
at the burner tips. This is one area of the refinery where
antifoulants have been used successfully for clean-up pur-
poses. For a program to be successful, it needs to be
tailored to address the fouling mechanism, specifically
based on deposit analysis. We usually use deposit analysis
rather than fuel gas analysis, because, most of the time,
fouling is incidental in nature, so that a spot fuel gas
analysis will not give a representative indication of the
true fouling components.
CAIN:
We are in the process of installing fuel gas filters at
each heater down stream of the fuel gas knockout drum.
We are addressing our amine carryover problems as well.
HAHN:
Very similar to Mr. Cain’s answer, we feel that most
of our fuel gas plugging problems were related to amine
problems, and we are addressing those. But, we also put
in filters on our fuel gas system, and that took care of
the problem very nicely for us in most cases.
RONALD BREDEHOFT (KTI Corporation):
In addition to what the panel has addressed, I would
add that some of our clients have insisted on a 3/32 in.
minimum drilling on their burner tips to avoid or mini-
mize this plugging.
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
I would just like to add to the panel’s discussion that
a high efficiency coalescer will take either the hydrocarbon
or the amine, or both, down to levels less than 0.01 ppm,
and the particulate levels down to 0.3 micron absolute.
It is very important to protect the burner tips.
177
TOC/INDEX
Question 27.
Has anyone tried controlling fuel gas flow to process
heaters on a mass basis (software CEMS or other techno-
logies) to compensate for rapid fluctuations in BTU con-
tent to the furnace, or to better measure actual fired/
absorbed duty, or emissions impact ?
FOSTER:
In some services, we do use a calorimeter value as a
feed forward into a temperature controller for duty control
application. We do not use CEMS, but we are using
PEMS, predictive emissions monitoring system. In fact,
we are implementing that even as we speak on our new
crude unit and on our new coking unit heaters to comply
with new permit requirements. This technology can accu-
rately predict emissions and is recognized as a viable tech-
nology by our regulators in Texas.
The step testing is expensive because we were required,
as part of the step testing, to run at less than optimum
rates on the heaters in order to gather the emissions data
that were required for predicting the emissions. But, I
expect that the predictive system is going to be a cheaper,
more cost-effective, and more accurate system in the long
run, because it will require less maintenance and it will
be more reliable.
HAHN:
At one time, we had a relatively sophisticated control
system on our fuel on one of our new heaters. It had
BTU on-line analyzers which are based on chromatograph
results, but we found that the on-line analyzer loop feed-
back was too slow to keep up with the changes in the
fuel gas composition. So, the feed forward was not effec-
tive. We could never get it tuned properly, so we finally
abandoned that whole system. We do, however, under-
stand that lately some people are now putting mass meters
on their fuel gas system, and are using them, apparently
successfully, to control their fuel gas. You may want to talk
with some of the suppliers of those types of instruments for
specific examples.
CAIN:
We have feed forwards on our fuel gas gravity and feed
gas flow, as well as the steam flow. These feed forwards
work well for us.
Question 28.
Are there any new developments in soot blowing? What
has been the success with continuous sonic soot
blowers?
SAMUELS:
There is a distinction between sonic soot blowers and
infrasonic soot blowers in that infrasonic soot blowers
operate at a frequency below audible sound, while sonic
178 Energy & Environmental Management
soot blowers can be loud during their cycle. The soot
blower vibration frequency should be selected to fit the
application. Two infrasonic soot blowers were recently
installed in the superheat section and economizer section
of a 200,000 lb/hr 600 lb steam CO boiler on Robinson’s
catalytic cracker. Actually, this was done in 1994. Low
frequency soot blowers were selected because they do a
better job at removing particulates. Previously, we had
two retractable 600 lb steam soot blowers in the superheat
section, and 12 smaller fixed 150 lb steam soot blowers
in the economizer section. The steam soot blowers caused
problems with opacity spikes, steam drum level upsets,
and occasional tube failures due to tube impingement.
The infrasonic soot blowers generate a low frequency
22 hz wave for 60 seconds every 2 to 3 minutes. This
provides a multidirectional effect knocking catalyst off
the tubes, even upstream of the fire box section of the
boiler. Tube cleaning is more effective; opacity spikes
and drum upsets have subsided, and required equipment
maintenance is less compared to the old soot blowers.
Vibration has not been a problem, even though the boiler
skin is very thin in the economizer section. One hundred
psig plant air in a surge tank drives the soot blowers.
The blowers themselves consume 1000 scf/min in the
incinating mode and 200 scf/min in the idling mode.
One lesson we learned in the installation of these soot
blowers is that you do want, particularly in the CO boiler,
to put a knife valve between the horn of the blower and
the boiler itself for maintenance, because you have positive
draft there.
ROMAN:
We have installed sonic soot blowers in both the air
preheater and the radiant section of one of our large crude
heaters. A small high frequency sonic soot blower operated
at 150 hz to 250 hz in the air preheater and it was
successful, but its effective cleaning area was limited. The
large low frequency sonic soot blower operated at 20 hz
in the radiant section and dislodged and damaged refrac-
tory in that heater. We have also tried sonic soot blowers
on the dirty side of a pulse jet bag house module, and
severe bag damage occurred.
2. Exchangers
Question 29.
What is the experience with twisted tube heat exchangers
and with tube inserts? Has anyone had success with
these in crude oil service?
HENKE:
The twisted tube experience base is rapidly expanding.
Over 135 twisted tube heat exchangers have been sold
by Brown Fintube in the past three years. Twenty-nine
of these have been sold to refiners; 18 of the 29 are
TOC/INDEX
currently in service. All of these are performing as pre-
dicted, or slightly better.
One refiner, this year, put six twisted tube bundles in
a high fouling overhead condenser service to increase
capacity, reduce fouling, and improve cleanability. They
pulled one of the bundles after 90 days in service; no
fouling was detected. Ninety days had, historically, been
their cleaning interval with the conventional tube bundles.
The track record on these has convinced Koch Refining
to utilize twisted tube technology in crude service.
We are planning to install eight twisted tube bundles
in crude service early next year in our own refineries.
The tube bundles were designed to fit within existing
exchanger shells. These replacement tube bundles will
provide an on-line increase of unit capacity, and improve
vacuum gas oil yield through increased heat transfer effi-
ciency and reduced pressure drop on both sides of the
exchangers. We expect to see a 30% increase in heat
transfer, a 90% reduction in shell side pressure drop, and
a 25% reduction in tube side pressure drop.
SAMUELS:
I have data from four refineries, five applications in all,
which indicate that the projected or design heat transfer
performance for each application was exceeded for these
refiners. As a matter of fact, in one case, the refiner
achieved up to three times the original heat transfer with
no increase in surface area. Each application was used in
a different service, and they were initiated for different
reasons. Two were initiated to reduce fouling, and that
was achieved. In four of the five applications, the pressure
drop also exceeded the prediction, as well as the heat
transfer. None of these applications were in crude service.
In our Garyville Refinery, we are installing some twisted
tube exchangers in our FCC debutanizer overhead conde-
nsors, and, as Mr. Henke mentioned, we are able to install
these in the existing shells which significantly reduces the
investment. The design numbers indicate that we should
get a twofold increase in duty, from 12 million btu/hr
to 22.8 million btu/hr with a surface area increase of
25%, a mass flow increase of 27%, and an overall heat
transfer coefficient increase of 30%.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
Exchanger inserts have been used for several years to
improve the exchanger service U-value. In a recent case
we are familiar with the inserts were used in both diesel
pumparound-to-crude and the HVGO pumparound-to-
crude services. The inserts were on the crude side of the
exchangers. The inserts increase the heat transfer through
two mechanism. First they create more turbulence and
reduce the fouling factor. Since crude side fouling controls
the service U-values on most of the crude preheat
exchangers, the major effect of the inserts is reduced foul-
ing. Reducing crude side fouling by 50% significantly
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
improves the service U-value. The measured total fouling
actors on many crude versus diesel and HVGO pumpar-
ound exchangers is in the range of 0.02 to 0.05 hr/btu-
ft2-F.
A major concern with the inserts are their impact on
crude charge hydraulics. In principle, the inserts should
have less pressure drop in a fouled condition than a fouled
exchanger without inserts. This assumes the mechanism
of fouling is not salt, inorganic deposition, or other hard
fouling material. Downstream of the desalters the filter-
able solids, ‘‘dirt’’, and salts should be low relative to the
whole crude. A caution in using the insets is when the
crude charge hydraulics are limiting without the inserts.
There is no margin for increased pressure drop. If parallel
exchangers trains are available, then the inserts can be
tested in one of the services.
Question 30.
What best practices are used to track crude preheat
exchanger fouling rates? Are any adjustments made
based on projected run lengths between turnarounds?
What techniques are being used currently to reduce
exchanger fouling?
BINFORD:
Regarding the first part of the question, we consider
the best practice we consider for monitoring crude preheat
exchanger fouling rates to be either heat duty or U coeffi-
cients for each separate exchanger. Obviously, in some
crude preheat configurations, the instrumentation is not
there to do such a detailed analysis. Alternatively, monitor-
ing across the whole train and then verifying with heater
inlet temperature, (corrected for flow and feedstock) can
also be effective. This can be accomplished by either
inclusion of the heat transfer parameters on the DCS
system itself, or automatic data dump to a dedicated heat
transfer calculation package on a remote PC terminal. If
this is not practical, then manual data entry of the heat
transfer parameters can be put into a number of software
packages designed for monitoring of crude preheat transfer
parameters. We have developed our own programs that
include linear, exponential, polynomial, and neural net-
works to curve fit historical data into a predictive modeling
monitoring tool, these can be supported by either DCS,
remote PC, or inputting the data by hand.
Regarding adjustments made during the run, this is
very typical. Those adjustments may be made based on
crude slate mix, such as the asphaltene content of the crude
slate. Other considerations, such as amount of caustic
injection in the desalted crude if caustic is used, and
desalter operations are very critical. BS&W and filterable
solids in the desalted crude are two key variables. Finally
there is the monitoring of the program with a heat transfer
model to have an ongoing idea of what your fouling curve
looks like.
179
TOC/INDEX
Answering the last part of the question, the first tech-
nique being used currently to reduce exchanger fouling
is mechanical. Installation of redundant heat exchangers
is one option, if only a few exchangers are fouling on a
consistent basis. Installing blocks and bypasses on critical
exchangers to allow on-line cleaning without unit shut-
downs is certainly another option, if you can do this
effectively without limiting throughput because of a pres-
sure drop or crude furnace duty limit. Redesigning criti-
cally fouling exchangers to run at higher velocities and
minimize solids deposition may be another option, if
solids deposition due to low velocities is one of the causes
of fouling. (When evaluating this option, it is important
that you are not just moving the problem down stream.)
Also, the erosion potential of running at higher velocities
should be considered. Turbulent vibrators have been
installed in exchangers to knock loose fouling material, but
we have seen some problems with these devices actually
providing a trap for foulant to accumulate on. Covered
in the previous question, was installation of twisted tube
bundles which seems to be an up-and-coming technology.
Regarding the process, optimizing the crude slate mix
to avoid crude incompatibilities is important, as are opti-
mizing desalter and caustic injection rate. Finally, the use
of chemical antifoulant programs has been proven to be
very successful in controlling fouling and maximizing run
lengths with minimum capital investment.
CAIN:
I do not have much more to add to that, except that
we are using HEXTRAN to track our fouling rates in
one of our refineries. We are also using antifoulants in
two refineries with good success.
FUSSELL:
On very rare occasions, we will reduce the rate on our
crude unit, and when we do, we have the ability to take
some of our exchangers off-line in order to maintain
sufficient velocities in the exchangers that are still in ser-
vice. We also designed our newest crude unit with the
ability to take exchangers out of service on-line for clean-
ing as Mr. Binford discussed. Our biggest problem has
been in our hot section of our preheat train. Taking these
exchangers out of service on-line has been a disaster.
Blocked valves will not hold, and it takes forever to actually
get the exchangers out of service for cleaning. We have
a turnaround coming up in 1998, and we are going to
actually install double block valves hoping that they will
allow us to block in these exchangers on-line for cleaning.
JOSECK:
We continuously trend heat exchanger heat transfer
coefficients in upper level software from the DCS for
the crude preheat train. Exchanger pressure surveys are
routinely completed once per month and compared to
180 Energy & Environmental Management
start-of-run and design data to predict heat exchanger off-
line cleaning for turnarounds. The preheat train hydraulics
limit run lengths before thermal performance. This is
due to excess heater capacity from improvements to the
preheat train configuration efficiency. Run lengths on the
preheat exchangers have been significantly extended by
improving desalter operations and limiting vaporization.
We did find that without double blocks and bleeds we
were not able to take exchangers off when we redesigned
the crude preheat train to verify the previous comment.
MALEK:
With respect to the monitoring of exchanger perfor-
mance, this is sometimes complicated by the fact that the
crude slate is changing and the fluid on the other side of
the exchanger is also changing due to the changing product
slates. I would recommend that your engineers use the
simulation programs that are out there, such as Hisym,
and Sim-Sci, and the Aspen programs. They do an excel-
lent job of rating exchangers rigorously. They can deter-
mine heat transfer coefficients for changing fluid condi-
tions across the exchanger. It is thereby possible to monitor
the heat transfer coefficient and implied fouling rates very
accurately. It is also beneficial to track the pressure drops
in addition to the fouling rates.
A.W. KRUEGER (Spirelf System):
We have had the Spirelf exchanger insert systems intro-
duced in the U.S. for about 8 years now, initially on a
test and trial phase. In the meantime, there are about 10
refineries in the U.S. and Canada that are using this
system. Typically, it is being used in the hot part of the
preheat train, so this is of particular interest to what has
be described by some operators as being a problem area.
In principle, there are two effects from the system. One
is that you reduce the fouling; you have, typically, a tube
side fouling reduction of about 80%. By virtue of the
fact that our system is a moving and not stationary system,
you also create a higher turbulence in the flow. That, in
itself, can about double the inner heat transfer rate. As a
consequence, you have less fouling, you have better heat
transfer, you have, as a primary effect, improved energy
efficiency or energy savings.
There are also two other aspects that come into play
when looking at those systems. One is, when there are
limitations to furnace capacity, that by better heat transfer
you can maintain your crude flow rates over a long time.
The second point is that simply by reducing fouling you
can eliminate several cleaning operations. Some refineries
have to clean exchangers maybe once a year. By using
inserts you might be able to extend your run time to 3,
5, and in some cases even 7 years. Additional aspects
that should lead a refinery to consider the inserts are:
enhancement of crude throughput capacity. This can be
achieved by increasing the crude inlet temperature
TOC/INDEX

(C.I.T.) to the furnace, as well as avoidance of throughput

loss that is caused otherwise by frequent in between
exchanger cleaning (as discussed above). impact on overall
heat transfer coefficients (OHTC). In most cases, overall
heat transfer coefficients can be maintained at high level
with the inserts, compared to a usually rapid decline, in
a relatively short time after exchanger cleaning. Again, this
effect will result in energy efficiency, as well as throughput
enhancement.
In applications with severe fouling, in between
exchanger cleaning methods can be applied, without hav-
ing to remove the inserts, such as circulating of gas oil,
LCO, or chemical cleaning, as offered by several cleaning
contractors. Although cleaning quality by these methods
might not be as efficient as high pressure hydrojetting,
usually a level of cleaning is achieved that would permit
the operator to extend run time of the exchangers.
Most of the applications of the ‘‘Spirelf System’’ are
in crude preheat train applications, however, during the
last few years, several installations of the system in hydro-
treatment systems (HDS/HDT) have shown good success.
The principles of the ‘‘Spirelf’’ design and functions are
shown in the following sketches. A description of potential
service time follows the sketches. Finally, I would like to
refer to the comments and discussions in Section I, Ques-
tion 14 pages 23-28 (response by Ian Jackson, BP Oil in
particular) of the 1996 NPRA Q&A transcript.

SERVICE TIME OF SPIRELF DEVICES

This duration cannot be guaranteed. Firstly, because
each fouling is different, secondly because on the same
unit fouling is fluctuating from one cycle to another.
Three types of limitations could occur:
a) An excessive pressure drop coming from the devices away the fixing loop of the devices from the inlet
when fouling is high. Spirelf reduces fouling but of the tubes) increases service time.
cannot avoid it. In this case, the use of metallic b) The application of the optimum cleaning fre-
plates welded to the tube sheet (in order to keep quency. When fouling reaches a certain value, it

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 181
TOC/INDEX
is economical to carry out a cleaning, although the
global pressure drop is reasonable and allows a
regular throughput of crude.
c) The reaching of the end of the life time of the
devices when fouling is not very high. As for any
spring, there is a fatigue of the device and an over
stretching could then occur. Life time depends on
the material (our special alloy has the best resistance
against fatigue) and on the localization of the
exchanger. On the hotest exchangers, life time is
shorter due to higher temperature and to the even-
tual fluid hammer coming from water vaporization.
The cycle duration is generally multiplied by 2 some-
times by 3, which translates to 2-3 times less cleanings,
as indicated in the following summary:
Cleaning frequency Service time of Spirelf devices
before Spirelf or new cleaning frequency if
equipment chemical cleanings are not
used
6 months 1 year to 1.5 years (depending
on the tube diameter, the
fouling degree. . .)
1 year 2 years minimum for carbon
steel and stainless steel devices;
2 ⳮ3 years for special alloy
devices
18 months 3 years for carbon steel and
stainless steel devices; 3 years
minimum for special alloy
devices
R. RAJAMANI (Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd.):
They recently used Sim-Sci flowsheet model for check-
ing the fouling of exchangers in the preheat train, and
we were fairly successful in predicting the fouling. When-
ever we had to clean it we lowered crudes and then came
down on load and isolated stream-by-stream. We then
cleaned both the shell side and tube side and were suc-
cessful.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):
The total exchanger fouling is calculated by a rigorous
heat exchanger network model using measured exchanger
temperatures. Typically, the exchanger fouling factors will
increase to 80% of their end-of-run fouling factor in about
30-60 days from start-up (after exchanger cleaning). Also,
exchanger pressure drop will increase from the start-of-
run pressure drop to approximately 150-200% of the
clean value. Once the water wash system and desalter
performance is optimized, the two means to reduce fouling
are anti-foulants and inserts. When testing the effective-
ness of anti-foulants, both the fouling factors and pressure
drop should be measured. Pressure drop measurements
182 Energy & Environmental Management
require a field survey. These are rarely performed, there-
fore, a true test of anti-foulant effectiveness is typically
not performed. Prior to using a long term anti-foulant
program (they are expensive) a rigorous field test should
be conducted. The rigorous field test will determine anti-
foulant effectiveness.
3. Steam Systems
Question 31.
What consultants and software programs are available
to aid refineries in optimizing and controlling refinery-
wide steam systems? Please include on-line/real time,
optimization programs, as well as ‘‘design’’ support.
SAMUELS:
Marathon contracted with Veritech to develop an
Excel-based steam system model called ‘‘ESTEAM’’. The
model is linked to the refinery plant information system
to collect data. The model is not truly a real-time model,
but can be run on intervals using archived plant data.
We use the model for case study work, and to evaluate
different operating configurations. Veritech’s ESTEAM
program is a powerful steam simulation program for
Microsoft Excel which brings unprecedented levels of
steam system analysis to the spreadsheet environment.
Using rigorous steam property data add-ins based on the
ASME 1967 Formulation, and Excel’s powerful built-in
data base and VBA capabilities, complete steam systems
can be constructed without having to manually construct
heat and material balance equations. These are all handled
automatically with the model formulation. Systems with
unlimited number of users and process units can be han-
dled automatically for sites with up to six major steam
pressure levels. Sites with greater complexity can be
quickly customized.
The model performs rigorous heat and material bal-
ances at all levels and allows full flexibility for specifying
condensate return, flash steam, blowdown and deaeration
schemes, letdown arrangements and desuperheating con-
figurations—all automatically, without the need to manu-
ally construct the balance equations.
Included in the economic module is the ability to
specify boiler efficiency vs. load profiles and operating
logic to more accurately model actual boiler house fuel
consumption. Important ancillary boiler costs for services
such as boiler feed water (BFW) an make-up water pump-
ing, forced draft fan operation, BFW chemicals and cool-
ing water costs for condensing turbine surface condensers
are also included to more accurately reflect true steam
generation costs.
The interactive user interface uses build in forms and
dialog boxes to make input of steam system details very
simple. An interactive drill-down feature for program nav-
igation provides a multi-layered viewing capability ranging
TOC/INDEX
from a complete system overview, to individual plant
units to individual steam users.
The steam functions included with the model can be
utilized with any Excel workbook and feature 52 steam
property functions together with functions to calculate
steam turbine power from steam rate, turbine steam rate
from power, turbine outlet conditions, and deaerator
water make-up and steam requirements as native Excel
functions.
Options include an additional cogeneration module
featuring built-in gas turbine performance characteristics,
off-design performance prediction, and heat recovery
steam generator performance simulation and rating capa-
bilities.
Additionally, Veritech has an excellent steam costing
program. It provides a true thermodynamic cycle evalua-
tion of steam use and associated costs. The steam is classi-
fied by path between the generator and user, and by the
type of user, such as live steam, heat, or work. What I like
most about this software program is that it is a universally
applicable engineering tool. Every refinery is going to
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
have different steam levels, different steam costs, and if
you have ever had the pleasure of presenting a capital
budget to your executives and tried to explain why you
are using different steam costs for four different refineries
you will appreciate what I am saying. It provides you the
technical backup for that.
Lenhoff-March also has developed a steam system mod-
eling program called ‘‘Steam 97’’ which is available com-
mercially. It is somewhat similar to Veritech’s bon services
are not as reliable. On average, these machines are available
for operation in our refineries all but two days per year.
A five year average for maintenance costs is $6,500 per
machine. This is mainly due to seal work and occasional
overhaul of the last stages in the turbine. The return on
investment is good, provided the turbin is sized properly.
CAIN:
We had a terrible experience with one of these turbines,
and removed it from the unit. Safety was the major con-
cern. We had a seal failure where H2S gas was released, and
we had many mechanical problems and high maintenance.
183
TOC/INDEX
VI. PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSING
A. Propylene
Question 1.
Are there any pyrolysis gasoline hydrogenation units uti-
lizing inhibitors to control organic fouling in the feed/
effluent exchanger or reactor itself?
BINFORD:
Temperature has a direct effect on the fouling rate.
The pressure and hydrogen feed rate in these units typi-
cally remain constant through the run. However, as the
reactor fouls, the temperature on the feed side is increased
to compensate for the reduction in reactor outlet tempera-
tures. This increases fouling rate on the feed side of the
exchangers. A number of European and U.S. ethylene
plants processing pyrolysis gasoline through their hydroge-
nation units have reduced fouling in the feed/effluent
exchangers and reactors with the use of antipolymerant
blends. We have documented tripling of equipment run
lengths in several applications.
Fouling in these systems is due to free radical polymer-
ization of diolefins and unsaturated aromatics, such as
styrene. Temperature and concentration of the polymeri-
zable materials control the rate of fouling. In most
instances, chemical dosages required to control fouling
remain fairly constant throughout the run, and average
between 7 ppm and 20 ppm, based on unit liquid charge
rate. We monitor performance by tracking the heat trans-
fer coefficient on the feed/effluent exchangers and the
normalized pressure drop through the reactor.
TASKER:
I agree with Mr. Binford. We have also experienced
reactor bed fouling due to gums formed during storage
or transportation of the feedstock. Pyrolysis gasoline is
very reactive, and it must be kept under nitrogen and not
be exposed to air. The storage temperature also has an
important effect. So it is better to add any of the additives
before transportation and to the rundown stream directly
from the unit. The reactor outlet temperature is also very
important and depending on the unit design, you could
have high skin temperatures in the exchange train. As a
guide, you should control the reactor outlet temperature to
less than about 160°C to avoid polymerization reactions.
Question 2.
Refiners periodically increase olefin production to
increase propylene make. This invariably leads to bottle-
necking in the fractionation system. What operational
changes can be made to get the most from the light ends
fractionation of the FCCU?
184 Petrochemical Processing
MALEK:
With increased olefin production in the catalytic crack-
ers, capacity problems manifest themselves primarily in
loss of propylene yield initially. One of the key parameters
in increasing propylene recovery, or maintaining it, is to
keep the operating pressure of the absorber/deethanizer
as high as possible. For a new design, this equipment
would probably operate in the 260 psi to 275 psi range.
Many units in the industry are operating at considerably
lower pressure. One piece of advice on debottlenecking
would be to try, by evaluating the pressure drop through
the system, to see whether there is any way to operate
your existing absorber/deethanizer at a higher pressure.
Perhaps rerating some of the mechanical equipment might
be a possibility.
Another approach would be chill the lean oil to the
absorber/deethanizer. The lean oil can be cooled to about
55°F before water hydrates begin to present plugging
problems in this equipment.
One approach that has been used quite a few times in
the industry is the installation of tail gas recovery units
on the back end of the catalytic crackers. These are usually
cryogenic type units. This tail gas unit allows operation
of the absorber section of the plant in a rather sloppy
mode. The tail gas unit takes up the slack and maintains
high propylene recovery.
SAMUELS:
I agree with Mr. Malek’s comments. I would add that
an overloaded gas concentration unit allows for quick
payouts of advanced controls in the form of inferred
properties or analyzers. Tower flooding constraints can
be pushed but not exceeded a far greater percentage of
the time when advanced controls are operated closed-loop.
We have some excellent experience with nonconventional
controls to maximize unit performance, for example, in
our Garyville Refinery on a heat pump drive controller.
We have increased throughput and allowed for a 99%
recovery of propylene and a 2.5% yield increase through
an advanced control, that controls motor current at the
desired optimum.
FLETCHER:
Maximizing propylene yield on the FCCU is carried
out using different strategies depending upon whether
the wet gas compressor is a limitation or not. If the
compressor is not limited, a combination of increased
reactor temperature and ZSM-5 will maximize propylene
yield. If the compressor is already at maximum rate, a
combination of operational and catalytic moves will be
required. These moves include reformulating the FCC
TOC/INDEX

catalyst with an increased rare earth level, and possibly,

a reduced zeolite-to-matrix ratio. These moves will reduce
dry gas and LPG volume, and thereby, back off the com-
pressor limitation. ZSM-5 additive with possibly a reactor
temperature increase can then be applied to increase pro-
pylene production up to the wet gas compressor limita-
tion. Additionally, most units will benefit by increased
diligence at optimizing the temperatures, pressures, reflux,
and sponge oil rates in the absorberlde/ethanizer and
sponge towers for maximum propylene recovery. This
particular strategy was covered in detail, I believe, in the
Heavy Oil Section.

ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services Inc.):

Increasing olefins production, especially the propylene,
impacts the FCC gas handling system from the wet gas
compressor through the debutanizer. Increased propylene
production via catalyst additives or catalyst formulations
typically produces the olefins by cracking the middle boil-
ing range portion of the FCC naphtha. Increasing propyl-
ene from the unit requires recovering the propylene in
the absorber. Lowering gasoline production via cracking
increases the quantity of material that must be absorbed
while decreasing the absorption material (FCC naphtha).
If the FCC dry gas rate is held constant and the gasoline
is cracked, the absorber propylene recovery will decrease.
While higher reactor olefins will always increase the total
propylene production, the percent recovery will decrease
unless some gas plant operating variables are changed.
Specific operating changes that will help the gas
plant include:
the existing equipment limitations. In summary, these
1. Maximize the sponge absorber operating pressure
impacts are:
to the wet gas compressor limitation.
Wet Gas Compressor: increase in wet gas actual volume
Increasing wet compressor discharge pressure will
and power requirements, due higher reactor effluent dry
have a relatively small impact on the compressor
gas and C3’s/C4’s production. Operational changes to
volume handling capacity, however, it will increase
counteract this are discussed below.
the horse-power requirements. Higher pressure
Inter-stage and high-pressure receiver condensers:
improves recovery at a fixed absorber liquid rate.
increase in duty due to higher total mixed C4’s produced
2. Minimize the primary absorber lean oil tempera-
(affects inter-stage condenser) and higher quantity of
ture.
mixed C3’s (affects high pressure condenser).
3. Maximize the primary absorber inter-cooler heat
Gas Concentration Unit Fractionation System: for the
removal.
deethanizer, debutanizer, and C3/C4 splitter the reboiler
4. Minimize the stripper (deethanizer) reboiler duty
and condenser duties increase (no condenser on deethan-
to the alky feed C2 limitations.
izer), along with the internal vapor and liquid traffic. For
Operational changes may not achieve the desired ole-
the depentanizer, the effect on duties and internal traffic
fins recovery targets and the gas plant may need to be
is the opposite. Operational changes to handle this are
revamped. Depending on the unit limitations, increasing
discussed below.
gas plant liquid handling capacity may be relatively cheap.
On the wet gas compressor, the compressor load is
affected by dry gas production, inerts, C3’s/C4’s produc-
EDWARD L. HARTMAN (Koch-Glitsch, Argentina): tion, inlet pressure and temperature. As dry gas and C3’s/
Higher light olefins production, mainly propylene, C4’s production increases, optimization of the unit pres-
impacts the process equipment from the main fractionator sure balance and main fractionator heat balance becomes
through the gas concentration unit. The magnitude of very important. Increasing the compressor inlet pressure
the impact depends on the yield of C3’s and C4’s, and results in significant reductions in wet gas rate, which

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 185
TOC/INDEX
counteracts the higher olefins yield. This is done by reduc-
ing the pressure drop from the reactor to the compressor,
normally by packing the main fractionator. On the other
hand, lowering the overhead receiver temperature reduces
the wet gas rate as well. This can be achieved by modifying
the main fractionator heat balance or changing its design,
such as by installing a top pumparound in the tower to
unload the overhead condensing system.
For the gas concentration unit fractionation towers,
the higher internal vapor and liquid loads can be handled
with high performance trays. This is generally more eco-
nomical than building new columns or packing existing
columns. The heat integration between the pumparounds
in the main fractionator and some of the gas concentration
unit reboilers also results in the need to adjust the heat
balance or redesign some of the sections in the main
fractionator.
B. Ethylene
Question 3.
What new techniques are being developed to minimize
coking in the new generation ethylene furnace techno-
logies?
MALEK:
In the new generation ethylene furnaces, the continuing
trend in the design has been: raising temperatures, lower-
ing the pressure drop, and shortening residence time.
Thanks to metallurgical advances, tube metal tempera-
tures in pyrolysis furnaces now are in the range of 2000 °
to 2100°F. As is well documented in the literature, there
are certain catalytic effects that occur inside the tubes at
these temperatures. These catalytic effects lead to coke
formation and more frequent decoking cycles. There have
been alloying techniques, sulfiding techniques, and other
approaches to minimize these effects.
I would like to comment on one of the design efforts
that are being worked on for minimizing coking. Since
the coking rate goes up dramatically as temperatures rise,
the ability for coke to form can be minimized by shorten-
ing the residence time. It is very important that dead zones
be completely eliminated in the piping and transition
sections. There has been some interesting work in chang-
ing the geometry of the various piping tubes, manifolds,
transition sections, and entries into the transfer line
exchangers to accomplish this. There are sophisticated
computer analysis tools now available that can do three
dimensional flow analysis inside of these tubes. These
analyses allow the geometry to be modified such that the
velocities can held to extremely high levels. All the dead
zones, for all practical purposes, are eliminated. This will
go a long way toward minimizing coke formation and
extending the life of the run on the pyrolysis furnace.
186 Petrochemical Processing
There was a very good article published on this subject
just recently in Hydrocarbon Processing by J.V. Albano
and K.M. Sundaram with ABB Lummus. This appeared
in the July 1997 Hydrocarbon Processing.
Question 4.
How much advantage in selectivity have some of the
newer acetylene removal catalysts shown in commer-
cial operation?
TASKER:
IFP has promoted LD catalysts that bring significant
ethylene selectivity. These catalysts are supplied by Acreon
in North America and ProCatalyse outside of North
America. As important as the catalysts, process set up and
operating conditions allow you to maximize catalyst cycles
and yields. IFP has developed a new process named
‘‘Acetex,’’ and, in this process the bulk of the acetylene
hydrogenation is carried out in the mixed phase reactor.
As for the MAPD hydrogenation, the liquid phase
washes the catalyst, dissolves oligimers as they are formed,
therefore stopping the polymerization catalyst fouling.
The liquid phase is obtained by a liquid solvent readily
available in a petrochemical complex. The Acetex is partic-
ularly attractive for feeds containing high acetylene con-
centrations of about 1.5 wt%. Ethylene yield increases in
the range of about 1%, can be achievable. Existing units
could be revamped to the Acetex process with modest
investments.
MALEK:
Just to reinforce something along the same lines, the
high severity operations have increased acetylene yields
up considerably in pyrolysis furnaces. Proper acetylene
hydrogenation is very critical. These new catalysts have
the selectivity to hold the formation of the green oils to
a minimum level. This will extend the catalyst life. I think
this is one of the more important advances that has been
made recently.
Question 5.
What is the best way to ensure that pyrolysis gasoline
does not carryover into the water used in the dilution
steam system in an ethylene plant?
BINFORD:
The quench water/oil water separator or settling drum
should remove virtually all of the pyrolysis gasoline from
the quench water used in the dilution steam generator.
Proper operation of the quench settling drum will mini-
mize breakthrough. Pyrolysis gasoline quench water emul-
sions that will not resolve on their own in the quench
settling drum can be resolved by feeding a small amount
of reverse emulsion breaker, typically less than 5 ppm,
into the quench water feeding the separator. These chemi-
cals are typically net cationic solution polymers. The use
TOC/INDEX

of the wrong breaker dosage or feed point can actually

make the emultion worse. In this process, feeding more
of a ‘‘good’’ thing is not necessarily better. Field testing
on fresh emulsion samples is usually the quickest way to
determine the best breakers for each individual problem.
One common problem in these systems is that, if improp-
erly treated or operated, the contaminants and/or the
treatments will cycle up in the system, since the only
methods for removal are blowndown and undesired carry-
over. As a result, the systems may operate well before a
period of time until they cycle up to a point where a
different chemical treatment or dose must be used. When
this occurs, the emulsion breaker feed is typically turned
off and the system blow down is increased until water
clarity returns to normal. The breaker is then restarted
at a low dose rate after doing a quick bottle test to confirm
chemical performance. CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
The pH of the system also plays a critical role in the Pall Corporation has developed a new technology liq-
overall performance of the unit, not only relative to natural uid-liquid coalescer system which is capable of pyrolysis
emulsification in the system, but also due to its impact gasoline emulsion sepration down to 1.5 dynes per centi-
on the effectiveness of the emulsion breaker itself. The meter. Side stream testing at numerous plants has shown
impact of pH on these systems is often overlooked or a milky emulsion which goes right through the older
underestimated, and pH control is very important. technology coalsecer systems and fouls the dilution steam
Some ethylene plants have installed coalescers or DOX system, will be removed by the Pall liquid/liquid coalescer
units down stream of the quench water settling drum to down to 30 ppm and, in some cases, down to single
remove the last traces of emulsified hydrocarbons from the digits. We have two units due to start up within the next
quench water blow down to the dilution stream generator. month or so in France and in the United States.

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 187
TOC/INDEX

William F. Johns Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc.

MEMORANDUM Dan A. Kauff
Mark R. Keim
UOP
Coastal States
The comments contained in the transcript for the 1997 Patrick Laabs Star Enterprise
Michael Laux Ultramar Diamond Shamrock
NPRA Question and Answer Session on Refining and Charles LeRoy CITGO Petroleum Corporation
Petrochemical Technology have been edited by the panel- Lawrence Lew Phillips Petroleum Company
ists and conferees who commented during the Session. Warren S. Letzsch Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
The Question and Answer Session on Refining and Glenn C. Liolios STRATCO Inc.
Stephen L. Long Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Petrochemical Technology is under the cognizance of the Christina McDowell Tosco Refining Company
NPRA Manufacturing Committee listed as follows: Steve McGovern Mobil Technology Company
NPRA MANUFACTURING COMMITTEE Brian Moyse Haldor Topsoe, Inc.
Dennis Newell Engelhard Corporation
Paul D. Fritz, Chairman Pennzoil Products Company Roger O. Pelham Pelham Consulting
Jean E. Neuberger Hunt Refining Company
J.B. Roddey Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.
Kevin Brown Sinclair Oil Corporation
Eugene Roundtree Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
Alan J. Cabodi U.S. Oil & Refining Company
Richard J. Duszynski Basis Petroleum, Inc. Jack Sigan Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment
John M. Ehlen Koch Refining Company Bob Skelly Criterion Catalyst Co., L.P.
Robert J. Frazier Union Texas Petrochemicals H. David Sloan The M.W. Kellogg Company
Ronnie D. Jackson Cross Oil and Refining Co., Inc. G. Andrew Smith INTERCAT Inc.
Anthony P. Johnson Mobil Oil Corporation Gary A. Stephens Tricat Industries, Inc.
Robert E. Kerns Diamond Shamrock, Inc. Joseph Wilson CALTEX
Virgil R. Langford Navajo Refining Company
John J. Lipinski Coastal Corporation Attendance at the 1997 Q&A totaled 1466 conferees
David McNiel LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co. representing the petroleum refining and petrochemical
Charles B. Miller Ashland Petroleum Company
John Miller Ultramar Inc. industries, supply and service organizations, government
William G. Miller MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc. and members of the press who came from 31 states, the
David R. Morris Chevron Research & Technology Co. District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.
Ronald E. Pletcher CENEX, Inc.
Alvin Prebula CITGO Petroleum Corporation Two hundred twenty nine conferees came from the fol-
Kenneth Roane National Coop. Refinery Assn. lowing 33 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barba-
J. A. Ross Phillips Petroleom Company dos, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, France, Fin-
Randall M. Trembly Crown Central Petroleum Corp.
Jeff K. Utley Flying J Inc. land, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan,
David L. Uzzell Tosco Refining & Marketing Co. Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, The Netherlands,
Milam J. Williams Lion Oil Company Netherlands Antilles, Norway, Philippines, Russia, Saudi
Maurice H. McBride National Petroleum Refiners Assn.
Terrence S. Higgins National Petroleum Refiners Assn. Arabia, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad, United
Kingdom and Venezuela.
Each year the Manufacturing Committee selects the The 14 member panel was joined by 167 conferees in
panelists and appoints a Screening Committee to select commenting on the 206 questions during the 2-1/2 day
the questions submitted by individuals and companies conference. The following table is a comparison of the
regardless of membership in the Association. The Screen- attendance for the past five years:
ing Committee consolidates and arranges the questions
so that the maximum number can be considered in the
Wash- San Ana- New
2- 1/2 days of sessions. This year, from some 478 questions Dallas ington Antonio heim Orleans
submitted, 206 questions were selected by the panelists 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
and the following Screening Committee Members: Member Conferees 1,191 1,158 1,255 1,221 1,364
Others 112 115 117 116 102
SCREENING COMMITTEE TOTAL 1,303 1,273 1,372 1,337 1,466
Peter G. Andrews Conoco Inc. (Retired) No. Of Conferees Commenting 169 176 162 147 167
R. C. Barlow BetzDearborn HPG
David B. Bartholic Bar-Co Processes Joint Vent.
William Boycott Koch Nitrogen Company Terrence S. Higgins
Robert E. Davis R.E. Davis Chemical Corp. Technical Director
R. Kevin Dodds Akzo Nobel
Timothy J. Dougan Grace Davison
Gary Everett Lyondell Petrochemical Co.
Paul Fearnside Nalco/Exxon Energy Chem.
Lewis A. Frederickson Chevron Research & Technology
Tony Go Baker Industrial Chemicals
Martin P. Grosboll Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Daniel Hartley Haverly Systems, Inc.
William E. Heck Energy Biosystems Corp.
Stephen F. Hunkus MAPCO PETROLEOM Inc.
Doug Jack Conoco Inc.
Peter T. Jackson UOP

188 Memorandum
TOC/INDEX

PANEL BIOGRAPHIES
ALEX E.M. BARLOEWEN—Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsoe, Inc., Houston, Texas.
Alex joined Haldor Topsoe in 1996 as Vice President of its Refining Technology Division
responsible for worldwide licensing and design of Haldor Topsoe Hydroprocessing Technology,
and is currently responsible for Haldor Topsoe’s North American subsidiary. He previously
worked for Fluor Daniel as Executive Director, Process Engineering, and for Unocal in operating,
planning and engineering assignments. His final Unocal Refining assignment was as General
Superintendent of Operations at the 150,000 bb/d refinery in Nederland, Texas. Alex received
a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of British
Columbia.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

MARK S. BINFORD—Vice President-Technical Marketing, BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Pro-

cess Group (HPG), The Woodlands, Texas. Mark is currently responsible for the technical
support, marketing, new technology commercialization and product management functions, and
is also a member of MPG’s Business Development Team which evaluates and funds new technology
development and commercialization. He began his career with Champlin Petroleum (now
CITGO) where he worked first as a process engineer, then as an operations engineer concentrating
in FCC, petrochemical and crude unit operations. Mark received a Bachelor of Science degree
in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

GLENN E. CAIN—Manager of Operations, Star Enterprise, Convent, Louisiana. In his current

position, Glenn coordinates and directs all operating activities within the West Area of the plant,
including product blending and movements, plant boilers and utilities, and process units including
FCCU/Alky/Dimersol/MTBE/Tame complex and the Crude/Reformer/Hydrotreater complex.
Prior to assuming this position, he held various positions with Star Enterprise including Area
Supervisor of Operations (Alky/Poly) and Staff Engineer. He also had 8 years of process engineering
experience with Skelly Oil, Getty Refining & Marketing Company and Exxon before transferring
to Texaco. Glenn holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Clemson Uni-
versity.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

RAY FLETCHER—Regional Technical Service Manager, Akzo Nobel Catalysts, Houston, Texas.
Ray is responsible for providing technical support in the FCC catalyst division of Akzo Nobel
Chemicals. This includes unit monitoring, optimization, trouble-shooting, and training on the
FCC. Ray spent the first seven years of his career with Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. and
the Shell Oil Company. He has worked as a process engineer on most refinery units including
the fluid catalytic cracker, catalytic reforming, hydrotreating, alkylation, catalytic polymerization,
and LP modeling. Ray holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the
University of Washington.

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 189
TOC/INDEX

DAVID L. FOSTER—Technical Manager, LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Company Ltd.,

Houston, Texas. David is responsible for operations technical support, technology planning and
design, and advanced process control. He began his career at ARCO Petroleum Products as a
process engineer, and has held operational, technical, and business management positions at
ARCO and Lyondell Petrochemical in his 18 years in the refining and petrochemical industry.
David holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Rice University, and a
Masters of Business Administration degree from the University of Houston.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

BECKY L. FUSSELL—Operations Support Supervisor, Fina Oil & Chemical Company, Port
Arthur, Texas. In her current position, Becky is responsible for providing technical service to the
Port Arthur Refinery. She joined Fina in 1982 and has held various assignments in technical
service, process control, and process design. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering from Lamar University and is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

SUZANNE E. HAHN—Supervisor Planning & Technology, Texaco Refining & Marketing

Inc., Anacortes, Washington. Suzanne is responsible for the refinery’s short and long term planning
including plant LP model, crude selection and purchase, product mix, energy conservation, and
future capital project scope development and justification. Prior to her current position, she was
Chief Process Engineer, responsible for the technical support of operations and capital project
development. She has held positions of assistant to Supervisor of Operations, process control
engineer, budget & planning engineer, and project engineer. Suzanne holds a Bachelor of Science
degree in Chemical Engineering from Washington State University.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

KEVIN W. HENKE—Technical Director, Koch Industries Inc., Wichita, Kansas. Kevin is

responsible for overall Environmental, Health, and Safety, as well as Process Technology and
Analytical Support. He has held numerous positions over the past 14 years in Koch’s Minnesota
and Corpus Christi refineries. Kevin’s direct process experience includes: FCC, delayed coking,
reforming, crude distillation, alkylation, hydrotreating, hydrocracking, isomerization, sulfur recov-
ery, MTBE, and hydrogen productions. Kevin holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Texas in Austin.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

ERIC D. JOSECK—Chief Process Engineer, Pennzoil Products Company, Rouseville, Pennsylva-

nia. Eric has held his current position since 1992, prior to which he has held various positions
including Process Engineer and Planning Analysis at the Rouseville Refinery, and Planning Analysis
and Process Design Engineer in the Houston Planning and Technical Department. His experience
includes operation and design in crude and vacuum distillation, lube oil hydrotreating, hydrogen
plant, desulfurization, reforming, and other lube and wax operations and processes. Eric received
his Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering from the University
of Pittsburgh.

190 Panel Biographies

TOC/INDEX

BEN L. MALEK—Executive Vice President, PCI International, Inc., Houston, Texas. Ben has
30 years of experience in the energy and processing industries, which includes 29 years in
management consulting and related engineering design. He has been involved in project manage-
ment, engineering and procurement for over 30 major process construction projects. Prior to
joining PCI, he served as a Senior Process Consultant with The Pace Company, and an operations
Manager/Process Engineer with Dow Chemical Company. Ben holds a Bachelor of Science degree
in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

JAMES L. PETERSON—Manager of Operations, Total Petroleum, Inc., Ardmore, Oklahoma.

Jim began his career at Total’s Alma, Michigan refinery, and later worked in the Denver Corporate
Engineering Department and the Denver Refinery as Operations Engineer. He was transferred
to Ardmore where he has been the Operations Manager for 6 years. His process specialties include
hydrotreating and naphtha reforming. Jim holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering from Michigan Technological University.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

JOHN A. ROMAN—Director of Services & Technology, Ashland Petroleum Company, Ashland,

Kentucky. In his current position, John oversees the Strategic Design, Advanced Controls and
Optimization, Metallurgical and Inspection, Mechanical and Reliability groups. Since joining
Ashland in 1979, John has held positions as Refinery Manager in St. Paul Park and The Oman
Refinery in the Sultanate of Oman; Manager of Technical Services, and Refinery Superintendent.
John began his career with Sinclair Refining Company where he served as a Technical Service
Engineer, an FCC unit supervisor and Area Superintendent. John holds a Bachelor of Science
degree in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University.
❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

CHARLES B. SAMUELS—Technical Services Manager, Marathon Oil Company, Robinson,

Illinois. In his present assignment, Chuck is responsible for daily technical support to the refinery,
capital project development, and the refinery’s Computer, Controls and Environmental groups.
Prior to assuming this position, he held the position of Operations Manager for 5 years. He was
previously Operations Manager for Rock Island Refining. Chuck began his career with Ashland
Oil and held a number of technical and operational supervisory positions in his 9 years with
them. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Pennsylvania
State University.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

KENNETH G. TASKER—Director of Technical Services, HRI, Inc.—a Division of IFP Enter-

prises, Princeton New Jersey. Ken has been with HRI for 16 years and has a total of nearly 31
years in the refining, engineering, research and development and licensing industries. He has
been actively and principally involved in heavy oil hydrocracking, delayed coking, BTX, aromatics
processes, hydrotreating processes and, of late, in the selective hydrogenation processes, as well
as catalytic reforming processes licensed by IFP. Prior to joining HRI, he worked on the Kuwait
National Petroleum Company’s H-Oil unit for 8 years, and worked in heavy oil upgrading for
8 years with Conoco. Ken holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the
University of Manchester, England, and a Master of Science degree in Chemical Engineering
from the University of Michigan.

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 191
TOC/INDEX

PARTICIPATION INDEX
Abbott, Jim, 88, 91 Fletcher, Ray, 13, 31, 33, 45, 47, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61,
Albert, Brian D., 23, 77, 79 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 86, 93, 104-107, 109, 110-112,
Allen, Elizabeth, 117, 129 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 123, 126-128, 146, 149,
Alverson, Ed, 10 156, 171, 174, 176, 184
Anderson, Sidney, 62 Foley, Richard, 129
Arndt, John, 97 Forero, Patricia, 174
Azzouz, Ziyad, 71, 146 Foster, David, 9, 14-16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 36, 39,
Bacon, Thomas R., 83, 161, 163 43, 46, 71-74, 80, 86, 93, 100, 101, 106, 107, 114,
Barloewen, Alex, 12, 28, 83, 86, 87, 89-91, 96, 98, 99, 119, 121, 130, 133, 135-137, 147, 151, 166, 167,
104, 105, 110, 111, 116, 118, 122, 124-126, 128, 169, 170, 178
143, 148, 152, 170, 176 Fredrick, Cyndie M., 12, 16
Fritsche, Ray, 96
Bartholic, David B., 55, 56, 59
Furfaro, Angelo, 152, 144, 149, 151, 153, 158
Biggs, Donald, 41
Fussell, Becky, 17, 33, 34, 36, 43, 49, 62, 71, 86, 102,
Binford, Mark, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27-30, 34, 107, 110, 114-116, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135-138, 142,
41, 44, 49, 54, 67, 68, 72, 76-78, 81-83, 92, 96, 99, 143, 146, 148, 150, 152, 156, 161, 174, 175, 180
124, 127, 130, 132-137, 152, 159, 167, 173, 175, Garg, Ashutosh, 74, 177
177, 179, 184, 186 Gray, Stuart, 151
Birnbaum, Rick W., 160, 164 Grieb, Ben, 120
Biswas, Parimal Kanti, 141 Hadjiloizou, George, 123, 126
Blashka, Stephen, 170 Hahn, Suzanne, 24, 31, 32, 34-36, 38, 39, 41, 44, 58,
Bothe, Michael, 28 70, 74, 75, 78, 90, 93, 99, 103, 106, 107, 111, 115,
Bredehoft, Ronald, 177 118, 120, 121, 123, 130, 135, 139, 147, 153, 163,
Brunson, Ross, 90 165-167, 170, 174, 177, 178
Cain, Glenn, 9, 14-16, 18, 22, 25, 29, 31, 33-36, 38, Halawani, Samir, 18, 49, 51, 66, 72, 96, 142, 145, 160,
43-45, 47, 49, 56, 58, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 73-75, 78, 161, 163, 174
79, 83, 86, 87, 89, 93, 98, 100, 105, 106, 116, 119, Haley, John, 71
121, 122, 124, 129, 130, 133, 135, 137, 138, 140, Halford, Tom, 23
143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 155, 157, 161, 163, Hallauer, Greg, 131
164, 166, 168, 170-173, 175, 177, 178, 180, 183 Harrell, Jack, 78
Canziani, Carlos, 25 Hart, Brian, 32, 34-36
Chlapik, Ken, 90 Hartley, Daniel, 37, 44
Choy, Ed, 80 Hartman, Edward L., 185
Cuadros, Elkin Carmona, 14, 23 Harvey, Craig, 95, 101, 117
Cullon, Lana, 55, 63 Heimbaugh, William, 9
Darde, Thierry, 68, 97, 130, 146, 149, 152 Henke, Kevin, 15, 23, 31, 33, 36-38, 43, 44, 47, 49, 58,
Davis, Robert E., 138 61, 65, 73, 75-78, 81, 84, 89, 94, 104, 106, 108, 110,
Dergregorian, Heros, 59, 68, 146, 147 118, 124, 125, 131, 134-136, 142-145, 155, 159, 161,
DiCamillo, David, 105, 128 164, 166, 169, 172, 177, 178
Higgins, Terrence, 23, 68, 80, 88, 90, 125, 146, 158,
Dougan, Tim, 59
171
Dreyfuss, Corey, 174
Hill, Randy, 168
Eaton, Paul, 82 Howerton, Amanda, 15, 17
Elvin, Frank, 55 Hunter, Mike, 121, 127
Fahey, Bill, 29, 31, 96 Johns, Bill, 103
Fearnside, Paul, 10, 15, 97 Johnson, Brian, 140, 147, 156, 157
Fearon, Eric, 88 Jokubaitus, Linas, 43, 128
Fenderson, Steve, 165-168 Joseck, Eric, 11, 12, 20-22, 25, 30-32, 35, 37-39, 43, 44,
Ferrall, Kevin, 152 53, 60, 64, 85, 89-91, 94, 101, 104, 106, 108, 110,
Fischer, Steven M., 38 112, 119, 120, 121, 147, 148, 166, 171-173, 176, 180
Fisher, Paul, 143 Juno, Edward F., 28

192 PARTICIPATION INDEX

TOC/INDEX

Kapoor, V.K., 22, 125 Roy, Micheal, 11, 82, 149

Kliesch, H.C., 32, 34-36 Sadeghbeigi, Reza, 48, 51, 59
Krueger, A.W., 180 Sams, David, 51
Kuchhal, Y.K., 144, 149 Samuels, Charles, 17, 27, 29, 33, 35, 38-41, 44, 47, 48,
Lacijan, Lawrence A., 51, 63, 64 57, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 71-73, 75, 76, 79, 82, 84, 94,
Lee, Stephen, 28 97, 107, 108, 112, 116, 117, 120, 121, 125, 126, 138-
Letzsch, Warren S., 56 140, 147, 153, 157, 160-162, 167, 169, 178, 179,
Lewis, Jim, 168 182, 184
Malek, Ben, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24-27, 50, 65, 74, 75, Schendel, Ron, 168
77, 78, 81, 85, 98, 101, 115, 124, 130-134, 137, 143, Schneider, Donald, 28
150, 153, 159, 164-168, 171, 173, 180, 184, 186 Scott, Bruce, 88, 160, 164
Malik, Tariq, 80 Seamans, Jim, 106
Mann, James, 12, 30 Shanker, Uma, 52, 53
Mathur, Steve, 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 155 Sharma, Poornima, 86
Mayeaux, Ken, 114 Shiflett, Woodrow K., 176
McCaffrey, David S., 53, 136 Shoemaker, Larry, 139
McLean, Joseph, 45 Skocpol, R.C., 52, 55, 66
Menon, Raghu, 52, 53 Sloan, David, 15
Mertes, Bill, 175 Sloley, Andrew W., 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, 33, 41, 76, 78,
Minton, Paul, 57, 63 179, 182, 185
Mohammed, Samir, 125 Smith, David L., 158
Mott, Ray, 55 Smith, G. Andrew, 51, 55, 59, 69, 71
Moyse, Brian, 96, 108 Smith, Edward, 16, 18, 113, 124, 174
Neuman, Daniel J., 114 Sopko, Thomas, 42
Nielsen, Anders, 88, 89 Sparrell, Patricia, 62
Noe, Jason, 154 Steele, Paul, 74, 80
Novak, Kirk, 111 Stone, James, 17, 51, 60, 113, 170, 172
Stonecipher, David, 56
Orlando, Charles T., 17, 160, 162, 173, 177, 187
Street, David, 163
Pacheco, Mike, 125
Szymborski, Paul, 97
Parekh, Uday, 120
Tasker, Kenneth, 13, 15, 20, 23, 25, 26, 45, 46, 48, 49,
Pavel, Stephen K., 63, 70
51, 52, 58, 61, 64-66, 69, 74, 81, 84, 95, 100, 104,
Peccatiello, Ken, 59
105, 107-109, 111, 112, 114, 117, 119, 122-124, 126,
Peterson, James, 16, 18, 41, 44, 48, 49, 57, 60, 62, 63,
129, 131, 143, 145, 147, 149, 150, 154, 155, 157,
64, 69, 75, 87, 89, 94, 96, 99, 106, 108, 122, 128,
176, 184, 186
132, 136, 138-148, 150, 153-157, 163, 165, 171, 176 Torrisi, Sal, 115
Puri, S.N., 16-18 Tucker, Terry D., 142
Quinn, George, 56 Turpin, Lee, 34, 67, 141
Rajamani, R., 14, 25, 30, 40, 90, 146, 153, 158, 164, Vineyard, Mark, 174, 176
166, 167, 174, 182 Walker, Ben, 32
Roddey, Bob, 98, 101, 108 Wang, Shoou-I, 83, 87, 91
Rolandelli, Carlos, 160 Weise, Mark, 86
Roman, John, 13, 15, 20, 21, 27, 30, 32, 36, 37, 40, 43, Weith, James, 10, 47, 62, 63, 66, 72, 81
46-48, 50-52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 64, 65, 69, 83, 85, 87, Wimberly, Mark O., 161
100, 101, 109, 115, 121, 126, 129, 132, 137, 138, Winger, Lloyd, 99
140-142, 146, 149, 150, 152, 153, 159, 165, 169, Wizig, Herbert W., 18, 134, 135, 137, 149
171, 172, 174, 178 Woodroffe, Harold, 76
Rossi, Richard, 129 Zeibin, Jim, 10, 75, 108
Roundtree, Eugene, 81 Zetlmeisl, Michael J., 14, 44, 56

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 193
TOC/INDEX
Index to Topics Discussed at
1997 NPRA
Q & A Sessions on Technology
The next several pages comprise an index of the tran-
script of the 1997 NPRA Question and Answer Session
on Refining and Petrochemical Technology.
Availability. Readers who do not have access to this
volume may obtain it by writing: NPRA, 1899 L Street,
N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, Attention:
Publications. Price is $25.00 plus postage.
Using the Index. The index follows a hierarchal for-
mat, 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:
● The index is oriented primarily (but not entirely)
toward specific refining processes. Under each pro-
cess the entries tend to be clumped into such areas
as ‘‘charge stocks,’’ ‘‘equipment’’ and ‘‘operation.’’
● Equipment which is not uniquely associated with
a specific process is entered by name under the major
subject heading ‘‘equipment.’’ This major subject
heading also has some sub-headings such as ‘‘mainte-
nance’’ and ‘‘standby.’’
Subjects. As noted, included in the broad subject cate-
gory are all major processing activities, such as ‘‘cracking’’
and ‘‘reforming.’’ With a question involving hydrocrack-
ing, for example, the searcher should skip the temptation
to go directly to the body of the index and try to find
‘‘hydrocracking’’ in alphabetical order. ‘‘Hydrocracking’’
is a subheading of ‘‘cracking,’’ which governs the alphabet-
ical location of the material.
Four large all-purpose subjects are ‘‘additives,’’ ‘‘chemi-
cals’’ (which can cover feedstock materials, contaminants,
194 Index to Topics
or reagents, etc.), ‘‘analysis’’ (testing and analytical meth-
ods), and ‘‘instrumentation’’ (metering, monitoring,
and control).
Subheadings. Only the broadest subjects have sub-
headings. They are given 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 mercaptans’’ 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/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 example, when
searching for information concerning a riser, the words
‘‘cat’’ (catalyst) and ‘‘charge stock’’ may also, depending
on the nature of the information needed, deserve scrutiny.
On the other hand, the words ‘‘cat regeneration’’ and
‘‘pollution control,’’ also under the subheading ‘‘cat crack-
ing’’ can, with a high degree of confidence, 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 describe as briefly as
possible the content of the information available.
Page. The right-hand column of the index gives the
page where the information described in the entry can
be found. The page listed is often just the first page where
the pertinent information is given. Subsequent pages
should also be scanned or read.
TOC/INDEX

SUBJECT HEADINGS FOR INDEX

Additives Hydroprocessing
Air Pollution Control Hydrotreating
Alkylation Incineration
—Hf Alkylation Inspection
—H2so4 Alkylation Instrumentation (Metering, Monitoring, & Control)
Analysis (Testing & Analytical Methods) Isomerization
Asphalt Jet Fuel
Catalysts Kerosene
Charge Stocks Lube Oils (As Products)
—Failure Materials
Chemicals & Chemical Elements & Metals Mathematical Models
—Sulfur & Mercaptans & Sulfur Compounds Metals & Alloys
Clay Treating Naphtha
Coke (Coke Production) Olefins
—Delayed Coking Petrochemicals
Coking (Fouling) Polymer Unit
Computer Control Pressure
Corrosion & Equipment Problems Refinery Economics & Refinery Practices
Cracking Refinery Operation
—Cat Cracking (Fcc) Reforming
—Hydrocracking —Catalytic
Crude Oil Processing —Steam
Crude Oils Safety & Industrial Hygiene
Deasphalting Sludge
Slurry
Desulfurization
Software
Diesel Oils
Specification
Distillation
Start-Up
Emulsions Steam
Environmental Controls Staffing
Equipment Sulfur Plant
—Failure Tankage
—Maintenance Temperature
—Operation Training
—Safety & Testing Treating
Etherification Turnaround
Flares & Flaring Vacuum
Foaming Visbreaking
Fouling & Deposits Waste Disposal
Gasoline Waste Water
Hydrogen Water Pollution Control
Hydrogen Production Wax

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 195
TOC/INDEX

Topic Index
1997 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining & Petrochemical Technology

ADDITIVES Hydrotreating Procedure for Unloading Spent Cat.; Dry vs. Wet 115-97
Cloud Point Experience With Depressants 41-97 Hydrotreating Uptake of Silica on Catalyst 104-97
Desalter Fouling of Preheat from Emulsion Polymers 9-97 Isomerization Performance of High Activity Systems 155-97
Gasoline Sulfur FCC Cat. Additive to Reduce 70-97 MTBE Effect of Sulfur on Cat. Life; Ways to Reduce 157-97
Heavy Crudes Polymers to Process without Diluents 10-97 Particle Length Minimum Average Length for Reactor 105-97
HF Vapor Suppression Additive 139-97 Poly Unit Where Cat. Injected in Process 154-97
Pyro. Gasoline Anti-Polymerant Blends 184-97 Presulfiding Criteria for Choosing Spiking Agent 111-97
Tight Emulsions Breaking in Heavy Crudes 10-97 Spent Catalyst Audit Trail for Recycling 176-97
Use Control Metering Pumps; Other Methods 30-97 Spent Catalyst Recyclers 176-97
Reactor Loading Level of Refinery Engineering Supervision for Job 107-97
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL Reactor Loading New Developments in Dense Loading 108-97
H2 Plants Organic Contaminants in CO2 Vents 172-97 Steam Reformer Chlorine Guard for Low Temp. Shift Cat. 89-97
MACT II Technologies for Reforming & FCC 172-97 Waxes For Color Improvement 19-97
NOx Emissions Reduce FCC Throughput to Cut Emissions 51-97
NOx Emissions Way to Reduce from FCC Regenerator 50-97 CHARGE STOCKS
NSPS Vapor Recovery Control System 171-97 Base Oil For Saturate Levels 22-97
Passivation Effect on SOx, NOx Additives 55-97 Co-Processing Crude & Condensate 19-97
Separators Use of Floating Covers for API Separators 171-97 Deasphalted Oils Hydroprocessing Routes for DAO & Blends 126-97
Steam Reformer Methanol Emissions & Way to Control 90-97 FCC Feed Impact on Yield of Diesel In Feed 65-97
Gas Condensate Problems When Processing 40-97
ALKYLATION HCGO Conditions, Problems When Hydroprocessing 121-97
Corrosion In Alkylate Splitter Tower Overhead System 136-97 High Sodium VGO Dealing With 12-97
H2, H2SO4 Acids Water Content of Circulating Acid 132-97 Naphthenic Crudes Dealing With in Downstream Units 13-97
Optimization Results With Kinetic & Statistical Computer Models 33-97 Naphthenic Crudes Effect in Downstream Units 13-97
Software For Optimization 33-97 Nat. Gasoline Problems When Processing 40-97
—HF ALKYLATION —FAILURE
Acid Settler Instruments to Indicate Settler Levels 139-97 Furnace Steam Reformer Heater Tube 87-97
Amylenes Problems Caused When Alkylating 138-97
Eductor New Alternative to Pumps 140-97 CHEMICALS & CHEMICAL ELEMENTS & METALS
HF Regenerator Instrument to Control Level in Column Bottoms 139-97 Chlorides Removal from Aromatic Extraction Solvent 154-97
HF Vapor Vapor Suppression Additive 139-97 Mercury In Crude Oil; Problems 24-97
Pumps Magnetic vs. Sealless 140-97 NH4Cl Deposition During Cat. Reforming 148-97
—H2SO4 ALKYLATION Nitrogen In Cat. Reformer Feed 147-97
Acid Wash Testing for Acid in Effluent 135-97 Presulfiding Agents Criteria For Choosing Spiking Agent 111-97
Acid Wash Troubleshooting Electrostatic Precipitator 135-97 Sulfides Amount Causing Copper Strip Failure 18-97
Chloride Corrosion, Fouling in DIB 134-97 Sulfides Coping With Contaminated Naphtha 18-97
Co-Catalysts Benefits of Using 132-97 Sulfur Recovery O2 Enrichment Developments 168-97
Distributors Erosion/Corrosion in Olefin Feed Distributors 137-97 Sulfuric Acid Metering Transfer of Spent & Fresh Alky Acid 130-97
Effluent Benefits from Treating With Bauxite 136-97 —SULFUR & MERCAPTANS & SULFUR COMPOUNDS
Feed Coping With Light Ends in Feed 131-97 Mercaptan Treating Oxidizing with NH4 17-97
Feed Freeze Problems With Recycle Iso-Olefin Feed 130-97
Feed Levels of Light Ends That Can Be Tolerated 131-97 CLAY TREATING
Foaming Causes of in Alkaline Water Wash System 133-97 Design Criteria Clay Life, Disposal 12-97
Foaming Causes of in Spent Acid Tanks 135-97
COKE (COKE PRODUCTION)
Fouling In Heaters 137-97
Antifoam Threat to Coker Naphtha HDT 104-97
Hydrogenation Selective Units: Product Strippers or Flash Separators 131-97
Cycle Times Lower Limits; Time for each Activity 79-97
Neutralization Preneutralizing Spray Mitigation Water 137-97
Drum Life Period & Effect of Operating Factors 72-97
Plugging Flash Drum Side of Suction Trap 137-97
Drum Inspection Tools & Prediction of Repairs or Remaining Life 73-97
Probes To Determine Acid Level, Acid/Hydrocarbon Ratio 133-97
Foam Control Grade Silicone Antifoam & Type Carrier Oil 77-97
Space Velocity Experience Running 0.6 Olefin Space Velocity 139-97
Foam Control Non-Silicone Antifoam 79-97
Sulfuric Acid Metering Transfer of Spent & Fresh Acid 130-97
Fouling Results & Use of Antifoulant in Preheat Train 82-97
Washing Acid ‘‘Best Practice’’ for Washing Residual Acid From Unit 138-97
Fractionators Grid/Structured Packing; Results, Objectives 79-97
Run Length On-Line Spalls 74-97
ANALYSIS (TESTING & ANALYTICAL METHODS) Run Length Period Achieved & Ways to Increase 73-97
Aromatics Reduction Ways & Accuracy for VGO, Diesel Units 109-97 Sludge Fouling Ways to Stop It 76-97
Cat. Reforming Analyzer for Moisture in Recycle Gas 147-97 —DELAYED COKING
Copper Strip Test Failure Due to Sulfide in Naphtha 18-97 Decoking Tubes Pigging vs. Stream/Air; Results 74-97
Crude Assay Sources & Quality of Assays 44-97 Drum Pressure Ways to Reduce 77-97
Gasoline NIR for Blend Certification 30-97 Drum Pressure Yields, Liquid Distribution at Lower Pressure 76-97
In Crude Injection Not Feasible to Prevent Fouling 19-97 Feed Highest Concarbon Feed; Heater Run Lengths 80-97
Moisture H2O in Cat. Reformer Recycle Gas 145-97
Nitrogen Detection in Cat. Reformer 147-97 COKING (FOULING)
Poly Unit Testing for Contaminants in Feed 155-97 Antifoulants Results & Use, In Coker/Visbreaker Preheat Trains 82-97
Ethylene New Techniques to Reduce Furnace Coking 186-97
ASPHALT
Emulsion For Dust Suppressant 22-97 COMPUTER CONTROL
Processing Various Schemes 22-97 Alkylation Unit Kinetic & Statistical Computer Models 33-97
Data Software Reconciled Data for Plant, Units, & Accounting 31-97
CATALYSTS Process Control DCS Instrumentation & Extent of Control 36-97
Acetylene Catalyst for Removal 186-97 Reconciled Data For Information, Monitoring & Optimization 31-97
Alky. Co-Catalysts Benefits of Using 132-97 Scheduling Software Tools & Their Benefits 35-97
Cat. Reforming Performance of High Yield Catalysts 149-97 Training Operators Using New Process Control Systems 39-97
Cat. Reforming Target Chloride/H2O Levels in Recycle Gas 143-97
CCR Cat. Density Grading to Recover Contaminated Cat. 143-97 CORROSION & EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS
CCR Cat. Ex Situ Regeneration of ‘‘Heel’’ Cat. 143-97 Alky Unit In Alkylate Splitter Tower Overhead System 136-97
Cobalt Moly Cat. Big Deviations in Recommended Volumes for H2 Plant 89-97 Amine Plant Causes 161-97
Ex Situ Presulfided Avoiding Exotherms in Large Units 114-97 Cat. Reformer Stress Cracking in Regen System 152-97
FCC Best Deactivation Simulation 70-97 Crude Oils Effect of Crude Compatibility 14-97
FCC Metal Contamination, Strategies to Combat 54-97 Crude Oils Strategy to Address Naphthenic Acids 15-97
FCC Reliability of MAT, Fluid Bed, & Pilot Plant Tests 69-97 Diesel Desulfurizer Causes of High Corrosion in Exchangers & Heaters 97-97
FCC Slurry Settling, Removal, Disposal 67-97 Diesel Desulfurizer High Rates in Exchangers & Heaters 97-97
FCC Strippers Design Conditions & Evaluating Performance 63-97 FCC Monitoring Methods, H2 Permeation 71-97
FCC Strippers Design, Operations, Performance, Revamps 60-97 H2 Plant Stainless Steel Cracking 83-97
FCC Strippers Important Cat. Variables in Stripping Hydrocarbons 61-97 H2 Plant Ways to Reduce 83-97
FCC ZSM-5 Levels, Limits, Conditions, Results 68-97 Heater Erosion Reason For, Material to Cope With 14-97
H2 Stripping Procedure in Preparation for Dumpting 106-97 Hydroprocessing On Alloyed Reactor Effluent Exchangers 99-97
Hydrocracking Catalyst Type Decrease Cracked Gas Formation 123-97 Hydrotreating Bed Plugging 92-97
Hydrocracking Cat. Experience With Ex Situ Presulfided 114-97 In DIB Chloride Problem 134-97
Hydrocracking Pretreat Experience With High-Activity Cat. 111-97 Isomerization Salt Deposition & Corrosion 157-97
Hydrotreating Influences of Size, Shape on Activity & Pressure Drop 110-97 Lube Extraction NMP Corrosion Treatment 22-97

196 Subject Index

TOC/INDEX

Naphthenic Acids Designing For, Coping With in Units 13-97 EQUIPMENT

Naphthenic Acids Parameters to Assess Corrosiveness 15-97 Cat. Separators Experience: Third Stage Without Continuous Underflow 45-97
Cat. Strippers Design, Operations, Performance, Revamps 60-97
CRACKING Exchanger Fouling Rates in Crude Preheat Exchanger 179-97
—CAT CRACKING (FCC) Exchangers Experience With Twisted Tube Heat Exchangers 178-97
4-5 Year Runs Equipment That Determined Run Length 46-97 FCC Cyclone Type Refractory & Installation to Extend Life 48-97
Catalyst Agents & Technology for Metals Contamination 54-97 FCC Expander Factor Affecting Deposits on Vanes & Blades 45-97
Catalyst Best Deactivation Simulation 70-97 FCC Reactor Life Expectancy of Reactor Refractory When Running Atm.
Catalyst ZSM-5: Levels, Limits, Conditions, Results 68-97 Resid 47-97
Cat. Predictions Reliability of MAT, Fluid Bed, & Pilot Plant Tests 69-97 Feed Exchanger Life of Vertical Combined Feed Exchanger 152-97
Cat. Separators Experience: Third Stage Without Continuous Underflow 45-97 Heaters Burner Tip Fouling 177-97
Cat. Strippers Design Conditions & Evaluating Performance 63-97 Heaters xperience with Ceramic Coatings in Process Heaters 176-97
Cat. Strippers Design, Operations, Performance, Revamps 60-97 Hot Reactor Bed Plugging 91-97
Corrosion Monitoring Methods, H2 Permeation 71-97 HPR Turbines Experience 183-97
Cyclone Lining Refractory Type & Installation to Extend Life 48-97 Pilot Problems & Solutions on Flares & Heaters 43-97
Cyclones Experience With External Reactor Cyclones 56-97 Soot Blowers New Developments; Sonic Blowers 178-97
Deposits Factors Affecting on Expander Vanes & Blades 45-97 —FAILURE
Diesel in Feed Impact on Yields 65-97 Pilot Burners For Sulfur Recovery & Tail Gas Plants 166-97
FCC Pressure Effect When Processing Resid 56-97 —MAINTENANCE
Fouling Related to Injection of Ammonium Polysulfide 72-97 Hydroprocessing Ways to Extend Reactor Life 116-97
Gasoline Sulfur Additives to Reduce & Reductions 70-97 —OPERATION
High Sodium VGO Dealing With 12-97 Heaters Control of Fuel Gas Flow 178-97
Light Olefins Ways to Increase Production 57-97 Merox: Carryover Separating Sodium/Caustic from Product 17-97
LPG Advantages of Fractionating C3’s from C4’s 64-97 —SAFETY & TESTING
LPG Mercaptans C3, C4 Fractionation 64-97 Non-Destructive Testing for Line Blockage 43-97
Modeling Application, Feasibility of Cold Flow Modeling 13-97
NOx Emissions Platinum Promoters Contribute to Problem 51-97 ETHERIFICATION
NOx Emissions Ways to Reduce 50-97 Control Advanced Types & Key Parameters 157-97
Passivation Benefits & Effect on Additives & Promotions 54-97 MTBE Cat Effect of Sulfur on Life; Ways to Reduce 157-97
Propylene Operational Changes for Increased Propylene Make 184-97
Recycle Naphtha Influence on Octane of FCC Gasoline 59-97 FLARES & FLARING
Refractory Factors Affecting Service Life in Reactor 47-97 Pilot Problems & Solutions 43-97
Refractory Life Expectancy When Running Atm. Resid 47-97
Regen. Burn Full vs. Partial With Cooler & Resid Feed 52-97
FOAMING
Slurry Cat. Settling, Removal, Disposal 67-97
Coke Antifoam Threat to Coker Naphtha HDT 104-97
Standpipe Adding Vent Tube to Improve Cat Circulation 45-97
Vent Tube In Cat. Standpipe to Improve Cat. Circulation 45-97
Waste Water Phenol Levels, Sources & Ways to Reduce 49-97 FOULING & DEPOSITS
—HYDROCRACKING Alkylation Unit In Heaters 137-97
Catalyst Startup Simultaneous Presulfiding & Ammonia Passivation 125-97 Amine System Tertiary System Fouling 160-97
Cool Reactor Experience With Liquid N2 Cooldown 119-97 Burner Tips Amine Carryover is Main Reason 177-97
Cracked Gases Catalyst Type Decreases Formation 123-97 Coking ‘‘Sludge’’ Fouling 76-97
Preheat Cat. Experience With High-Activity Cat. 111-97 Co-Processing Fouling When Processing Crude, Condensate 19-97
Presulfided Cat. Experience With Ex Situ Presulfided 114-97 Crude Preheat Antifoulant Program Effectiveness 25-97
Reactor Cleaning Methods for Multi-Beds, Internals & Mesh 121-97 Crude Tower Salt Laydown & Desalter Conditions 28-97
Exchanger Fouling Rates in Crude Preheat Exchanger 179-97
CRUDE OIL PROCESSING FCC Related to Injection of Ammonium Polysulfide 72-97
Condensate Fouling When Co-Processing With Crude 19-97 FCC Expander Factors Affecting Deposits on Vanes & Blades 45-97
Corrosion Effect of Crude Compatibility 14-97 FCC Pretreater In Reactor Feed/Effluent Preheat Exchangers 99-97
Crude Tower Flooding & Foaming 27-97 Hydrotreater Bed Plugging 91-97
Crude Unit Inferential Properties of Side Streams 33-97 Hydrotreater H2 Injection in Feed to Reduce Exchanger Fouling 124-97
Distillation New Tray Technology 23-97 In DIB Chloride Problem 134-97
Fouling Antifoulants for Preheater 25-97 Preheat From Emulsion Polymers in Desalter 9-97
Heavy Crudes Atm. & Vac. Heater Conditions 25-97 Pyro. Gasoline Inhibitor to Control Fouling in Pyro Unit 184-97
H2 Injection Not Feasible to Prevent Fouling 19-97 Salt Ways to Control in Cat. Reformer Recycle Compressor 151-97
Heavy Crudes Strategy for Treating 10-97 Strippers Fouling in Sour Water Strippers; Control 172-97
High Naphthenic Way to Handle Increased Amounts 13-97
Mercury Present Extent & Problems 24-97 GASOLINE
Naphthenic Acid Effect on Diesel & Kerosene 15-97 NIR Status for Blend Certification 30-97
Stripping Section Improved Efficiency for More Diesel 26-97 Reformulated FCC Cat. Route to Lower Sulfur Gasoline 86-97
Tight Emulsions Breaking in Heavy Crudes 9-97
Tight Emulsions Methods to Break 10-97 HYDROGEN
Vac. Residue High Cut Points & Crude Types 26-97 CCR H2 Variables to Improve Purity 143-97
H2 Needs Merchant Sources 86-97
CRUDE OILS H2 Needs Sources & Technology to Meet Rising Process Demand 84-97
Assays Sources & Quality of Assays 44-97 Hydrotreater Injection in Feed to Reduce Fouling 124-97
Heavy Crudes Atm. & Vac. Heater Conditions 25-97
Mercury Present Extent & Problems 24-97 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
Air Pollution Contaminants in CO2 Vents 172-97
DEASPHALTING Bed Plugging Role of Metallurgy & Corrosion 92-97
Bottoms Processing, Stable Emulsions 22-97 Chlorine Guard Protection for Low Temp. Shift Cat. 89-97
CO2 Corrosion Ways to Reduce 83-97
DESULFURIZATION Desulfurizer Big Deviations in Recommended CoMo Cat. Volumes 89-97
Biodesulfurization Status of Technology 125-97 Increased Needs Ways & New Technology to Meet Rising Process Needs 84-97
Diesel Economic to Cope With Tough Low Sulfur Regs. 127-97 Methanator High Temp. Trip Strategy With Aging Catalyst 88-97
Diesel Unit Causes of Corrosion in Heaters & Exchangers 97-97 Methanol Emissions Levels & Ways to Monitor 90-97
Diesel Unit High Corrosion in Exchanges & Heaters 97-97 Process Hazard Caustic Cracking of Stainless Steel 83-97
Fouling In FCC Pretreat, Preheat Exchangers 99-97 Sulfur in Feed Ways to Monitor 89-97
Resid Ⳮ VGO Hydrotreating to Produce FCC Feed 128-97
HYDROPROCESSING
DIESEL OILS Bed Temp. Guidelines for Setting in Multi-Bed Reactors 118-97
Aromatics Reduction Ways to Measure After Hydrotreating 109-97 Bed Temps. Differential & Radial Temp Spread During Run 116-97
Cloud Point Experience With Depressants 41-97 Catalyst Influence of Size, Shape on Activity & Pressure Drop 110-97
Naphthenic Acids Maintaining Quality With Acid Crudes 15-97 Catalyst Minimum Average Particle Length for Loading 105-97
Sulfides Ammonia Injection 18-97 Catalyst Particle Length & Pressure Drop 105-97
Sulfur Reduction Economic Strategies to Cope With Tough Regs. 127-97 Cat. Loading Level of Refinery Engineering Supervision for Job 107-97
Cat. Loading New Developments in Dense Loading 108-97
DISTILLATION Cool Reactor Experience With Liquid N2 Cooldown 119-97
Crude Oil New Tray Technology 23-97 Corrosion/Erosion Effects on Alloyed Reactor Effluent Exchangers 99-97
Crude Stripping Improved Efficiency for More Diesel 26-97 Deasphalted Oils Routes to Hydroprocess DAO & Blends 126-97
Crude Tower Addressing Flooding & Foaming 27-97 Exchanger Corrosion Tabular Data on Alloy Tubes 101-97
Crude Tower Monitoring & Detecting Flooding or Foaming 27-97 HCGO Feed Conditions, Problems When Treating 121-97
Crude Unit Determining Side Stream Product Properties 33-97 HCGO Feed Operating Conditions 123-97
Packing Use in Crude & Vac. Towers 28-97 H2 Cat. Procedures in Preparation for Dumping 106-97
High-Sodium Feed Dealing With 13-97
EMULSIONS HPR Turbines Experience 183-97
Desalting Breaking in Heavy Crudes 9-97 Inspection Methods for Piping In & Out of Reactor Effluent Coolers 101-97
Presulfided Cat. Ways to Avoid Exotherms in Large Units 114-97
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS Presulfiding Cat. Criteria for Choosing Spiking Agent 111-97
Audits Approaches to Check Regulator Compliance 170-97 Reactor Cleaning Methods for Multi-Beds, Internals & Mesh 121-97
Spent Catalyst Audit Trail for Recycling 176-97 Reactor Life Ways to Extend Life 116-97

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 197
TOC/INDEX

HYDROTREATING REFORMING
Aromatics Reduction Ways to Quantify; Accuracy for VGO, Diesel Units 109-97 —CATALYTIC
Bed Plugging Factors that Cause 91-97 Catalyst Performance of High Yield Catalysts 149-97
Bed Plugging Feed Filtration & Devices to Minimize 91-97 Chloride/H2O Target Levels in Recycle Gas 143-97
Bed Plugging Ways to Minimize 91-97 Controls Experience With Advanced Process Controls & Optimizers 140-97
Bed Temp. Guideline for Setting in Multi-Bed Reactors 118-97 Corrosion Stress Cracking in Stainless Steel Regen Systems 152-97
Catalysts Uptake of Silica on Cat. 104-97 Effluent Leaks Leak Detection 141-97
Coker Naphtha Percent in Mix With Diesel Treated 117-97 Extraction Way to Remove Chloride for Aromatic Extraction Solvent 154-97
Unloading Cat. Procedures; Dry vs. Wet 115-97 Feed Exchanger Life of Vertical Combined Feed Exchanger 152-97
H2 in Feed Ratio to Reduce Fouling in Exchangers 123-97 Guard Beds When Sulfur, Chloride Guard Beds Changed 145-97
Resid Ⳮ VGO Processing to Produce FCC Feed 128-97 H2 Purity CCR Process Add-Ons to Further Improve 143-97
Waxes Catalysts for Color Improvement 19-97 H2 Purity Variables That Can Improve 143-97
H2 Recycle Effect of Heavy Hydrocarbon in H2 146-97
INCINERATION ‘‘Heel’’ Catalyst Density Grading to Recover Contaminated CCR Cat. 143-97
Caustic Experience With Caustic Incineration 174-97 ‘‘Heel’’ Cat. Ex Situ Regeneration 143-97
Moisture Analyzer for Moisture in Recycle Gas 147-97
INSPECTION Moisture Analyzers for H2O in Recycle Gas 145-97
Hydroprocessing Methods for Piping In & Out of Reactor Effluent Coolers 101-97 NH4Cl Where Deposition is Problem; Effect of Pressure 147-97
Nitrogen Analysis for Level in Feed 147-97
INSTRUMENTATION (METERING, MONITORING, & CONTROL) Pressure Benefits of Lower Pressure in Cyclic & CCR Units 149-97
Cat. Reformer Advanced Process Controls & Optimizers 140-97 Salt Build-Up Ways to Control in Recycle Compressor 151-97
Chemical Additives Methods to Control & Optimize 30-97 Vent Gas Scrubbing CCR Regeneration Vent Gas 158-97
DCS Instrumentation Extent of Process Control 36-97 —STEAM
Etherification Advanced Control & Key Parameters 157-97 Chlorine Guard Protection for Low Temp. Shift Cat. 89-97
HF Alkylation Acid Level in Regenerator 139-97 Desulfurizer Big Deviations in Recommended CoMo Cat. Volumes 89-97
HF Alkylation Instruments to Indicate Settler Levels 139-97 Furnaces Ways to Avoid Overheating 87-97
Sulfur Plant Claus & Scot Unit Shutdown 165-97 Methanator High Temp. Trip Strategy With Aging Catalyst 88-97
Methanol Emissions Levels & Ways to Monitor 90-97
ISOMERIZATION Sulfur In Feed Ways to Monitor 89-97
Catalysts Performance of High Activity Systems 156-97
Salt Ways to Cope With Deposition & Corrosion 156-97 SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
Yield Loss Caused by Benzene Destruction, Prevention 156-97 Sour Water Tank Overpressure, Containment 37-97
Sour Water Tank Rupture Precautions 37-97
JET FUEL
Caustic Treating Life of Clay in System, Disposal 12-97 SLUDGE
Dimersol Problem in Pumparound Coolers 155-97
KEROSENE
Color Precursors Role of Merox Process 11-97 SLURRY
Color Precursors Ways to Reduce 11-97 Disposal Ways & Technologies to Dispose of 175-97
Color Problem Reasons & Solutions 29-97 FCC Cat. Settling in Slurry, Removal, Disposal 67-97
Naphthenic Acids Maintaining Quality With Acid Crudes 15-97
SOFTWARE
LUBE OILS (AS PRODUCTS) Reconciled Data Uses for Data 31-97
Base Oils Saturate Levels & Feedstocks 22-97 Steam Software & Models for Refinery-Wide Optimization 182-97
Hot Waxes Catalysts for Color Improvement 19-97
Light Neutrals Addressing Volatility Specs 20-97 SPECIFICATION
Light Neutrals Volatility Specifications 20-97 Volatility In Light Neutrals 20-97
NMP Losses, Decomposition & Corrosion 22-97
START-UP
MATERIALS Steam Reformer Monitor Heater Tubes in the Field 87-97
Acid Corrosion Metallurgy to Cope With 14-97
STEAM
MATHEMATICAL MODELS Optimization Programs for Refinery-Wide Systems 182-97
FCC Application, Feasibility of Cold Flow Modeling 63-97
LP Planning Checking Accuracy 33-97 STAFFING
Steam Optimization Refinery-Wide 183-97 Work Processes Teams & Operator Tasks 39-97

METALS & ALLOYS SULFUR PLANT

Naphthenic Acid Metallurgy in Downstream Units 14-97 Amine System Design to Remove Contaminants & Eliminate O2 162-97
Amine System Tertiary System Fouling 160-97
NAPHTHA Amine Unit Best LPG Treater Design & Operating Techniques 159-97
Coker Naphtha Percent in Mix With Diesel Hydrotreated 117-97 Amine Unit Carryover Losses by Type Amine in LPG Treater 159-97
Sulfides Cleaning Contaminated Streams 18-97 Amine Unit Lowest Amine Losses as % of Inventory 164-97
Sulfides Copper Strip Test Failure 18-97 Design Codes for Claus & Tail Gas Shutdown System 164-97
O2 Enrichment New Developments & Percent O2 Enrichment 168-97
OLEFINS Optimization By Lab or On-Line Analysis 164-97
Acetylene Catalysts for Removal 186-97 Pilot Burners Reliable SRU & Tail Gas Pilots 166-97
Ethylene New Technologies to Reduce Furnace Coking 186-97 Relief Valves Protection from Overpressure 166-97
FCC Operational Changes for Increased Propylene Make 184-97 Scot Unit Shutdown System 165-97
Fouling Inhibitors to Control Fouling in Pyro Gasoline Unit 184-97 Startup Describe in Environmental Permit 170-97
From FCC Ways to Increase 57-97 Startup Startup Sequence: Tail Gas or Sulfur Plant 169-97
Pyro. Gasoline Way to Prevent Carryover into Dilution Steam 186-97 Shutdowns Instrumentation & Logic for Claus Unit 165-97
Sulfur Pits Purging 167-97
PETROCHEMICALS Tail Gas Startup Sequence: Tail Gas or Sulfur Plant 169-97
Propylene Increased Make From FCC 184-97 Type Amine More S Handling With Higher Capacity Amines 162-97
Type Amine Switching Amines on the Run 162-97
POLYMER UNIT
Catalyst Where Dimersol Cat. Injected; Aluminum to Nickel Ratio 154-97 TANKAGE
Contaminants Frequency of Tests & Methods for Feed 155-97 Sour Water Rupture Precautions 37-97
Sludge Problem With in Dimersol Pumparound Cooler 155-97
TEMPERATURE
PRESSURE Hydrocracking Reactor Cooldown With Liquid N2 119-97
Cat. Reforming Benefits of Lower Pressure 149-97 Hydroprocessing Differential & Radial Temp. Spread During Run 116-97
Coke Drum Ways to Reduce 77-97 Hydroprocessing Guideline for Setting Multi-Bed Temps. 118-97
Delayed Coking Yields, Liquid Distribution at Lower Drum Pressure 76-97 Hydroprocessing Reactor Cooldown With Liquid N2 119-97
FCC Effect When Processing Resid 56-97
TRAINING
REFINERY ECONOMICS & REFINERY PRACTICES New Systems Operators Using to Process & Business Information 39-97
Caustic Reducing Usage to Reduce Disposal Problems 174-97 Work Processes Teams & Operator Tasks 39-97
Internal Audits For Environmental Compliance 170-97
Loss Accounting Use of Mass Flow Meters 43-97 TREATING
LP Planning Checking Accuracy 32-97 Carryover Separating Sodium, Caustic from Merox Product 17-97
Scheduling Software Tools & Their Benefits 35-97 Caustic Free NH4 vs. Caustic to Oxidize Mercaptans 17-97
Turnarounds Reasons for Longer Intervals 38-97 Desalting Breaking Tight Emulsions 9-97
Work Processes Teams & Operator Tasks 39-97 Desalting Conditions to Prevent Salt Laydown in Crude Tower 28-97
Desalting Recycling Sour Water Stripper Water 49-97
REFINERY OPERATION Gasoline Caustic Free Merox Treating 18-99
Gas Condensate Problems When Processing 40-97 Jet Fuel Life of Clay in System, Disposal 12-97
LP Planning Checking Accuracy 32-97 Kerosene Caustic Free Merox Treating 18-97
Nat. Gasoline Problems When Processing 40-97 Kerosene Color Precursors & Bodies in Merox-Sweetened Streams 11-97
Processing Fouling from Compressing Crude & Condensate 19-97 LPG Merox Cause & Cure of Caustic Carryover 16-97

198 Subject Index

TOC/INDEX

TURNAROUND Sludge Ways & Technologies to Dispose of 175-97

Alkylation Washing Residual H2SO4 From Unit 138-97
FCC Achieving 4-5 year runs; Reasons 46-97 WASTE WATER
Longer Intervals Reasons for Longer Intervals 38-97 EPA Compliance Major Issues 172-97
Phenols Levels, Sources From FCCU & Ways to Reduce 49-97
VACUUM Sour Water Fouling in Stripper; Control 172-97
Cut Points High Cut Points & Type Crude 26-97 Sour Water Recycling Water From Stripper to Desalter 49-97
VISBREAKING
Fouling Results & Use of Antifoulant in Preheat Train 82-97 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Mass Velocity Minimum to Prevent Coking; Run Length 81-97 EPA Compliance Major Issues 172-97

WASTE DISPOSAL WAX

Caustic Disposal of Caustic Effluents 173-97 Hydrotreating Catalysts for Color Improvement 19-97

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 199
TOC/INDEX

References
The next several pages provide a list of references by ‘‘U.S. refiners must increase alkylation capacity to meet
subject from the publications Chemical Engineering, demand,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22, 1994, p. 49.
Hydrocarbon Processing, and Oil & Gas Journal. The Sub- Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Searches for new alkylation catalysts,
ject Index for the References is organized as follows: processes forge ahead,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22,
1994, p. 52.
I. Alkylation
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘New process schemes, retrofits, fine tune
II. Hydrocracking
alkylation capabilities,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22,
III. Catalytic Cracking
1994, p. 56.
IV. Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining
Sheckler, John C., Ross, Larry J., and Comey, Kenneth R.
V. Reforming
III, ‘‘New process additive reduces HF cloud-forming
VI. Treating and Desalting
potential,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22, 1994, p. 60.
VII. Crude Distillation
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
VIII. Petrochemical
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
IX. Delayed Coking
‘‘Alkylation safety major topic at Oil & Gas Journal semi-
X. Environmental Controls
nar,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 16, 1995, p. 33.
XI. Instrumentation, Product Blending, and
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Quality Control
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
XII. Miscellaneous
Dobis, J.D., Clarida, D.R., and Richert, J.P., ‘‘Survey reveals
XIII. Lube Oil and Waxes
nature of corrosion in HF alky units,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
XIV. Maintenance
Mar. 6, 1995, p. 63.
XV. Piping
‘‘Portuguese refiner starts up new gasoline complex,’’ Oil &
XVI. Furnaces & Heat
Gas Journal, Mar. 13, 1995, p. 95.
XVII. Storage and Transfer
‘‘European gasoline survey shows decreasing lead, MON,’’
XVIII. Corrosion
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 77.
XIX. Energy Conservation
‘‘New HF detector accepted for use by refining consortium,’’
XX. General
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 46.
XXI. Light-Oil Cat Processing
‘‘Pilot-plant results in on fixed-bed alkylation process,’’ Oil
XXII. Isomerization
& Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1996, p. 69.
XXIII. Aromatics Extraction
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Catalyst issues stir interest at technology
XXIV. Visbreaking
meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 45.
XXV. Hydrogen Production
Rao, Pradip, and Vatcha, Sorab R., ‘‘Solid-acid alkylation
XXVI. Sulfur Plant Operations
process development is at crucial stage,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
XXVII. Polymerization
nal, Sept. 9, 1996, p. 56.
XXVIII. Hydrogen
Schneider, Donald F., Musumeci, Joseph, and Chavez, Rick,
‘‘Analysis of alky unit DIB exposes design, operating
I. ALKYLATION
considerations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1996, p. 41.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon ‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53. No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Sloley, Andrew W. and Golden, Scott W., ‘‘Analysis key to Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
correcting debutanizer design flaws,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
Feb. 8, 1993, p. 50. 1997, p. 49.
‘‘New HF alky unit key to Navajo’s $50-million expansion,’’ Inomata, Makoto, Sato, Kyohei, Yamada, Yu, and Sasaki,
Oil & Gas Journal, June 14, 1993, p. 42. Hajime, ‘‘Engineering firm has designed refinery of the
‘‘Spanish refinery starts up HF alky unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, future,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 28, 1997, p. 56.
Nov. 22, 1993, p. 77. PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
Jezak, A., ‘‘C5 alkylate: a superior blending component,’’ bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994,
p. 47. II. HYDROCRACKING
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Refiners focus on FCC, hydroprocessing, Ladeur, Peter and Bijwaard, Harry, ‘‘Shell plans $2.2-billion
and alkylation catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28, renovation of Dutch refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
1994, p. 41. 26, 1993, p. 64.

200 References
TOC/INDEX
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Farina, G.L. and Fontana, M., ‘‘Cogeneration refinery for
total residue destruction,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 52.
Schulman, B.L., et al., ‘‘Bottom-of-the-barrel upgrading
moves aggressively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 100 C.
Sloan, H.D., ‘‘Refinery expansion/upgrading means lighter,
quality products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 82.
‘‘Russian refinery update to employ Isocracking unit,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 21, 1994, p. 48.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Ernest, J.B. and Depew, C.A., ‘‘Use dynamic simulation to
model HPU reactor depressuring,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 72.
Guizinga, Tom, Theunissen, Jos M.H., Minerhoud, Hans,
and van Veen, Rob, ‘‘New hydrocracking catalysts
increase throughput, run length,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
June 26, 1995, p. 40.
‘‘Clark and OSHA agree to settlement of safety citations,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 31.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Al-Mutaz, I.S., ‘‘How to implement a gasoline pool lead
phase-down,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02,
Feb. 1996, p. 63.
‘‘Worldwide Catalyst Report,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 43.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Nag, A., ‘‘Assess hydrocracker performance using a short-
cut method,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03,
Mar. 1997, p. 79.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Dutch refinery nears completion of major
renovation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 60.
Hu, M.C., et al, ‘‘Develop LP models using a steady-state
simulator,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06,
Jun. 1997, p. 81.
PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
III. CATALYTIC CRACKING
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Campos, Mario Cesar M.M., and Rodrigues, Paulo Sergio
B., ‘‘Practical control strategy eliminates FCCU compres-
sor surge problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 11, 1993,
p. 29.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘FCC main fractionator revamps,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 77.
Lin, T.D.V., ‘‘FCCU advanced control and optimization,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993,
p. 107.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Catalytic cracking receives heavy atten-
tion 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,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, 1993.
Goelzer, Alan R., Ram, Sanjeev, Hernandez-Robinson,
Agustin, Chin, Arthur A., Harandi, Mohsen N., and
Smith, C. Morris, ‘‘Refiners have several options for
reducing gasoline benzene,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13,
1993, p. 63.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Wong, R.F., ‘‘Increasing FCC regenerator catalyst level,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 59.
Schulman, B.L., et al., ‘‘Bottom-of-the-barrel upgrading
moves aggressively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 100C.
Sloan, H.D., ‘‘Refinery expansion/upgrading means lighter,
quality products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 82C.
Radigan, M.J., ‘‘How to select a continuous emission moni-
toring system,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02,
Feb. 1994, p. 73.
Murphy, Martin A., ‘‘Analysis, calculation techniques pre-
dict FCC erosion and fluidization,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 21, 1994, p. 54.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Refiners focus on FCC, hydroprocessing,
and alkylation catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28,
1994, p. 41.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Refiners exchange experiences on FCC prob-
lems, coking operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 2,
1994, p. 110.
Dziewulski, T.A., ‘‘Tune-up your FCCU expander,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 144.
Dougan, Timothy J., Alkemade, Ulrich, Lakhanpal, Balbir,
and Boock, Lori T., ‘‘New vanadium trap proven in
commercial trials,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 26, 1994,
p. 81.
201
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘FCC units benefit from recent catalyst
advancements,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 10, 1994, p. 41.
Johnson, David L., Avidan, Amos A., Schipper, Paul H.,
Miller, Rik B., and Johnson, Tiffin E., ‘‘New nozzle
improves FCC feed atomization,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 24, 1994, p. 80.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Aguilar-Rodriguez, Enrique, Ortiz-Estrada, Ciro, and Aguil-
era-Lopez, Matin, ‘‘Thermal analysis finds optimum
FCCU revamp scheme,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 7,
1994, p. 70.
Golden, Scott W., Lieberman, Norm, and Martin, Gary R.,
‘‘Correcting design errors can prevent coking in main
fractionators,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 21, 1994, p. 72.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—1: Refiners discuss fluid catalytic cracking
at technology meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 24,
1995, p. 61.
Benton, Steve, ‘‘FCC catalyst increases isobutylene yield at
European refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 1, 1995,
p. 98.
Bullerdiek, Edward A., and Hobbs, James W., ‘‘Advanced
controls pay out in 6 weeks at Texas refinery,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, June 19, 1995, p. 46.
Fletcher, Ray, ‘‘Stepwise method determines source of FCC
catalyst losses,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 28, 1995, p. 79.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Golden, Scott W., ‘‘Temperature, pressure measurements
solve column operating problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 25, 1995, p. 75.
Quinn, George P., and Silverman, Michael A., ‘‘Post-riser
quench improves FCC yields, profitability,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 15, 1996, p. 33.
Menon, Raghu, Chou, Ting, Tamhankar, Satish, Ramachan-
dran, Ram, Hull, Randall, and Watson, Richard, ‘‘FCC
O2 ENRICHMENT—1: Proper choice of O2 supply
enhances enrichment benefits,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
26, 1996, p. 54.
Tamhankar, Satish, Menon, Raghu, Chou, Ting, Ramachan-
dran, Ram, Hull, Randall, and Watson, Richard, ‘‘FCC
O 2 ENRICHMENT—Conclusion: Enrichment can
decrease NOx, SOx formation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 4,
1996, p. 60.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—1: Refiners focus on FCC catalysts at Q&A
meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 3, 1996, p. 49.
Dahlstrom, B.F., Ham, Kevin, Becker, Myron E., Hum,
Tom P., Lacijan, Larry, and Lorsbach, Tom, ‘‘FCC
REVAMP—1: Feed injection, riser-termination systems
replaced in fast-track revamp,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July
29, 1996, p. 83.
202
Harris, J.R., ‘‘Use desalting for FCC feedstocks,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 63.
Stanger, C.W., et al, ‘‘Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996,
p. 69.
Dahlstrom, Bud, Ham, Kevin, Becker, Myron E., Hum,
Tom P., Lacijan, Larry, and Lorsbach, Tom, ‘‘FCC
REVAMP—Conclusion: Canadian refiner gets 2-year
payout with FCC revamp,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12,
1996, p. 77.
‘‘Worldwide Catalyst Report,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 43.
Krishna, Ashok S., Arndt, John H., Kuehler, Chris W.,
and Kramer, Dave C., ‘‘Refiner details ‘best practices’
approach to catalyst selection,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
14, 1996, p. 44.
‘‘Experts reveal catalyst-selection methodologies,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 50.
Fletcher, Ray, ‘‘Three-step procedure optimizes FCC slide-
valve differential pressure,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 56.
‘‘New low-sulfur diesel debuts in Brazil,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 16, 1996, p. 22.
Musumeci, Joseph, ‘‘Refiners match Rvp reduction measures
to operating problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 3,
1997, p. 57.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Dutch refinery nears completion of major
renovation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 60.
Golden, Scott W., ‘‘FCC REVAMP-1: Case studies reveal
common design, equipment errors in revamps,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 7, 1997, p. 62.
Golden, Scott W., ‘‘FCC REVAMP-Conclusion: Simple
engineering changes to fix product recovery problems,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 7, 1997, p. 47.
Inomata, Makoto, Sato, Kyohei, Yamada, Yu, and Sasaki,
Hajime, ‘‘Engineering firm has designed refinery of the
future,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 28, 1997, p. 56.
Netzer, D., ‘‘Economically recover olefins from FCC off-
gases,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr.
1997, p. 83.
PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
Cresswell, L.W., ‘‘Refining in the Former Soviet Union,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 67.
McCarthy, Steve J., Raterman, Mike F., Smalley, Chris G.,
Sodomin, Joe F., and Miller, Rik B., ‘‘Refiner improves
FCC yields using latest process technologies,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 18, 1997, p. 56.
References
TOC/INDEX
IV. HYDROTREATING AND HYDROREFINING
‘‘NPRA Q&A—1: Experience exchanged on complex effects
of catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 22, 1993, p. 45.
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.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert F., ‘‘Visbreaker hard-
ware 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.
Cooper, B.H., et al., ‘‘Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel aro-
matics saturation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 06, June 1993, p. 83.
‘‘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 hydrotreat-
ing 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.
Farina, G.L. and Fontana, M., ‘‘Cogeneration refinery for
total residue destruction,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 52.
‘‘Conoco’s new Ponca City hydrotreater jumps low sulfur
diesel output,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 8, 1993, p. 34.
Schulman, B.L., et al., ‘‘Bottom-of-the-barrel upgrading
moves aggressively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 100C.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Lyondell, Citgo join for heavy oil upgrade
project at Houston refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
21, 1994, p. 60.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Refiners focus on FCC, hydroprocessing,
and alkylation catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28,
1994, p. 41.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
‘‘BP preparing for hydrofiner at Grangemouth,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 2, 1994, p. 138.
‘‘Oxygenate carry-over may cause overheating in naphtha
hydrotreaters,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 93.
Welch, J. Gary, Poyner, Paul, and Skelly, Robert F., ‘‘New
presulfiding technique proves successful in commercial
trials,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 10, 1994, p. 56.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Ernest, J.B. and Depew, C.A., ‘‘Use dynamic simulation to
model HPU reactor depressuring,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 72.
Kwang, Vincent and Meissner, Roland E., ‘‘Rounding up
sulfur,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1995, p. 74.
Landert, Jean-Pierre and Scubia, Tiaziano, ‘‘Make the most
of catalytic hydrogenations,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1995, p. 118.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Texas refiner optimizes by integrating
units from idle plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20,
1995, p. 49.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—1: Refiners discuss fluid catalytic cracking
at technology meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 24,
1995, p. 61.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—Conclusion: Hydrotreating operations dis-
cussed at refining meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 12,
1995, p. 128.
Ali, Syed A., and Anabtawi, Jamal A., ‘‘Olefins can limit
desulfurization of reformer feedstock,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July 3, 1995, p. 48.
‘‘Elf U.K. refinery to get hydrotreater,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July 24, 1995, p. 67.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Koyama, Hiroki, Nagai, Eiichi, Torii, Hidenobu, and Kuma-
gai, Hideaki, ‘‘RESID DESULFURIZATION—1: Japa-
nese refiner solves problems in resid desulfurization unit,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 13, 1995, p. 82.
Koyama, Hiroki, Nagai, Eiichi, Torii, Hidenobu, and Kuma-
gai, Hideaki, ‘‘RESID DESULFURIZATION—Con-
clusion: Simple changes reduce catalyst deactivation, pres-
sure-drop buildup,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 20,
1995, p. 68.
‘‘Grangemouth hydrofiner near start-up,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 1, 1996, p. 32.
Groce, Bernard C., ‘‘Chemical, mechanical treatment
options reduce hydroprocessor fouling,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Jan. 29, 1996, p. 81.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Venezuelan refiner completes $2.5 billion
refinery expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1996, p. 51.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
‘‘Simple tests determine catalyst regeneration temperature,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 29, 1996, p. 62.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Catalyst issues stir interest at technology
meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 45.
Stanger, C.W., et al, ‘‘Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996,
p. 69.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Refiner upgrades to meet worlds toughest
gasoline specs,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 23, 1996, p. 78.
203
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Worldwide Catalyst Report,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 43.
‘‘Experts reveal catalyst-selection methodologies,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 50.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Distillation capacity exceeds 76 million
b/d, hydrotreating surges,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23,
1996, p. 41.
Candido, Samuel S. and Crisostomo, Elino V., ‘‘Philippine
refiner completes diesel desulfurization project,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1997, p. 74.
Dickenson, R.L., et al, ‘‘Refiner options for converting and
utilizing heavy fuel oil,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb. 1997, p. 57.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
V. REFORMING
Baade, W.F., et al., ‘‘Generate hydrogen for reformulated
gasoline and clean diesel,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., ‘‘Improve methanol synthesis,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 89.
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.
‘‘Ashland refinery units take shape,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
19, 1993, p. 20.
Liers, J., et al., ‘‘Reforming using erionite catalysts,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 165.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Ancheyta-Juarez, Jorge, and Aguilar-Rodriguez, Enrique,
‘‘New model accurately predicts reformate composition,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 31, 1994, p. 93.
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., ‘‘Improve syngas pro-
duction using autothermal reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 39.
Ragsdale, Ralph, ‘‘U.S. refiners choosing variety of routes
to produce clean fuels,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 21,
1994, p. 51.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
Jeanneret, J.J., et al., ‘‘New strategies maximize para-xylene
production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 06,
June 1994, p. 43.
Aguilar-Rodriguez, Enrique, and Ancheyta-Juarez, Jorge,
‘‘New process model proves accurate in tests on catalytic
reformer,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 25, 1994, p. 80.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
204
Abrardo, J.M. and Khurana, V., ‘‘Hydrogen technologies
to meet refiners’ future needs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 43.
Ali, Syed A., and Anabtawi, Jamal A., ‘‘Olefins can limit
desulfurization of reformer feedstock,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July 3, 1995, p. 48.
Blashka, Stephen R., Welch, J. Gary, Nite, Kelly, and Furf-
aro, Angelo P., ‘‘Catalyst separation method reduces Plat-
former turnaround costs,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 18,
1995, p. 62.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Tindall, B.M. and Crews, M.A., ‘‘Alternative technologies
to steam-methane reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 75.
Nag, A., ‘‘Evaluate reformer performance at a glance,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996,
p. 59.
Al-Mutaz, I.S., ‘‘How to implement a gasoline pool lead
phase-down,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02,
Feb. 1996, p. 63.
Hohmann, F.W., ‘‘Improve steam reformer performance,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996,
p. 71.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Alverson, Ed and Mullenix, Andrew J., ‘‘New process
removes inorganic chlorides from reformate,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1996, p. 75.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Catalyst issues stir interest at technology
meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 45.
‘‘Program predicts reformate properties, including octane,
vapor pressure, and gravity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9,
1996, p. 68.
‘‘Worldwide Catalyst Report,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 43.
Krishna, Ashok S., Arndt, John H., Kuehler, Chris W.,
and Kramer, Dave C., ‘‘Refiner details ‘best practices’
approach to catalyst selection,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
14, 1996, p. 44.
‘‘Worldwide Catalyst Report,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
VI. TREATING AND DESALTING
‘‘Filtration method efficiently desalts crude in commercial
test,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 17, 1993, p. 59.
References
TOC/INDEX
Felten, J.R., et al., ‘‘Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environ-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 82B.
Cooper, B.H., et al., ‘‘Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel aro-
matics saturation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 06, June 1993, p. 83.
Farina, G.L. and Fontana, M., ‘‘Cogeneration refinery for
total residue destruction,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 52.
Schulman, B.L., et al., ‘‘Bottom-of-the-barrel upgrading
moves aggressively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 100C.
Monticello, D.J., ‘‘Biocatalytic desulfurization,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 39.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Auxiliary equipment, corrosion focus of
refiner meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 4, 1994, p. 62.
Stewart, E.J. and Lanning, R.A., ‘‘Reduce amine plant sol-
vent losses, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 05, May 1994, p. 67.
Stewart, E.J. and Lanning, R.A., ‘‘Reduce amine plant sol-
vent losses, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 06, June 1994, p. 51.
Tamburrano, F., ‘‘Disposal of heavy oil residues, Part 1,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994,
p. 79.
Tamburrano, F., ‘‘Disposal of heavy oil residues, Part 2,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994,
p. 77.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Ernest, J.B. and Depew, C.A., ‘‘Use dynamic simulation to
model HPU reactor depressuring,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 72.
Abry, R.G. and DuPart, M.S., ‘‘Amine plant troubleshooting
and optimization,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 41.
Kafesijan, A.S. and Dewey, R.C., ‘‘Demonstrating tail-gas
treater reliability reduces costs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 53.
Collins, C., et al, ‘‘Liquefaction plant design in the 1990s,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995,
p. 67.
Cook, P.J. and Losin, M.S., ‘‘Membranes provide cost-effec-
tive natural gas processing,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 79.
Guida, J.W. and Fruge, D.E., ‘‘Improve wastewater treat-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug.
1995, p. 55.
Price, J. and Burns, D., ‘‘Clean amine solvents economically
and online,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08,
Aug. 1995, p. 140.
Hennessey, P.M., et al, ‘‘Use coalescing methods to solve
emulsion problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 107.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Al-Mutaz, I.S., ‘‘How to implement a gasoline pool lead
phase-down,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02,
Feb. 1996, p. 63.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Barnett, Jack W. ‘‘New salt product dries distillate streams,
eliminates haze,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1996, p. 68.
Smith, D.L., ‘‘Optimize solid bed adsorption systems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996,
p. 129.
Lund, Dena L., ‘‘Wyoming operator solves mercury exposure
problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 70.
Alverson, Ed and Mullenix, Andrew J., ‘‘New process
removes inorganic chlorides from reformate,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1996, p. 75.
Harruff, Lewis G., and Bushkuhl, Stephen J., ‘‘Activated
carbon passes tests for acid-gas clean-up,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 31.
Lunsford, K.M., ‘‘Advantages of brazed aluminum heat
exchangers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07,
July 1996, p. 55.
Depew, C.A., and Nielsen, R.B., ‘‘Dynamic simulation for
process design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07,
July 1996, p. 67.
Gothenquist, Carol A., and Rooker, Karen M., ‘‘Carbon
adsorption system protects LPG storage sphere,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, July 1, 1996.
Harris, J.R., ‘‘Use desalting for FCC feedstocks,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 63.
Stanger, C.W., et al, ‘‘Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996,
p. 69.
Spears, Michael L., Hagan, Kathy M., and Michalik, Carl
J., ‘‘Converting to DEA/MDEA mix ups sweetening
capacity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1996, p. 63.
Suarez, F.J., ‘‘Pluses and minuses of caustic treating,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct. 1996, p. 117.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Absi-Halabi, M., et al, ‘‘Trends in catalysis research to meet
future refining needs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 02, Feb. 1997, p. 45.
Dickenson, R.L., et al, ‘‘Refiner options for converting and
utilizing heavy fuel oil,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb. 1997, p. 57.
Nag, A., ‘‘Assess hydrocracker performance using a short-
cut method,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03,
Mar. 1997, p. 79.
‘‘New technology appears to perform several processes in
one step,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 80.
Bourdon, J.C., ‘‘Improve operations and enhance refinery
sulfur recovery,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 57.
Netzer, D., ‘‘Economically recover olefins from FCC off-
gases,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr.
1997, p. 83.
205
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Fina/Total’s U.K. refinery starts up CHP project,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, May 5, 1997, p. 58.
Quinlan, Michael P., Echterhoff, Linda W., Leppin, Dennis,
and Meyer, Howard S., ‘‘Cost-cutting for offshore sulfur
recovery processes studied,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 21,
1997, p. 54.
Colbert, G.L., et al, ‘‘Make boiler feedwater with lower
risks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug.
1997, p. 57.
VII. CRUDE DISTILLATION
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s:
Papua New Guinea’s first commercial crude assayed,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 15, 1993, p. 73.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘FCC main fractionator revamps,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 77.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert F., ‘‘Visbreaker hard-
ware has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
Fair, J.R., ‘‘How to design baffle tray columns,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993, p. 75.
French, Eddie C., ‘‘New inhibitor reduces crude-unit corro-
sion problems at lower pH,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 24,
1993, p. 45.
Roberts, D.A., et al., ‘‘Recover additional distillate from
vacuum residue,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 07, July 1993, p. 75.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘Troubleshoot vacuum columns with
low-capital methods,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 07, July 1993, p. 81.
Lieberman, Norman P., ‘‘Four steps solve crude-tower over-
head corrosion problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 5,
1993, p. 47.
Campagne, W. v. L., ‘‘Use Ponchon-Savarit in your process
simulation, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 41.
Visigalli, R., et al., ‘‘Predict AGO quality,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 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.
Liebert, T.C., ‘‘Distillation feed preheat—is it energy effi-
cient?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 37.
206
Campagne, W. v. L., ‘‘Use Ponchon-Savarit in your process
simulation, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 63.
Cassata, J.R., et al., ‘‘Modeling of tower relief dynamics,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 71.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Northwest Australia’s Saladin crude
assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 50.
Farina, G.L. and Fontana, M., ‘‘Cogeneration refinery for
total residue destruction,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 52.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘Revamping FCC main fractionator
energy systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11,
Nov. 1993, p. 43.
Cassata, J.R., et al., ‘‘Modeling of tower relief dynamics,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov.
1993, p. 69.
Capps, R.W. and Thompson, J.R., ‘‘Statistical safety factors
reduce overdesign,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 77.
Miquel, J. and Castells, F., ‘‘Easy characterization of petro-
leum fractions, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 101.
Miquel, J. and Castells, F., ‘‘Easy characterization of petro-
leum fractions, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 99.
Ghoshal, P.C. and Mukhopadhyay, S., ‘‘Improve glycol
dehydration unit efficiency,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 75.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Lyondell, Citgo join for heavy oil upgrade
project at Houston refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
21, 1994, p. 60.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Two offshore Australian crudes assayed,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, May 9, 1994, p. 76.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Yemen’s light, sweet Alif crude assayed,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, May 23, 1994, p. 78.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Benchmark West Texas Intermediate
crude assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 88.
Daubert, T.E., ‘‘Petroleum fraction distillation interconver-
sions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept.
1994, p. 75.
Tamburrano, F., ‘‘Disposal of heavy oil residues, Part 1,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994,
p. 79.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Danish North Sea crude assayed,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 91.
Tamburrano, F., ‘‘Disposal of heavy oil residues, Part 2,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994,
p. 77.
Martin, G.R., et al, ‘‘Understand vacuum system fundamen-
tals,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct.
1994, p. 91.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Two
light, sweet, Indonesian crudes assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 31, 1994, p. 46.
References
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Golden, Scott W., Lieberman, Norm, and Martin, Gary R.,
‘‘Correcting design errors can prevent coking in main
fractionators,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 21, 1994, p. 72.
San, Yip Poh, Landells, Keith ., and Mackay, David C.,
‘‘INFERENTIAL CONTROL—Part 1: Crude unit
advanced controls pass accuracy and repeatability tests,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 28, 1994, p. 76.
San, Yip Poh, Landells, Keith ., and Mackay, David C.,
‘‘INFERENTIAL CONTROL—Conclusion: Crude
unit controls reduce quality giveaway,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 5, 1994, p. 56.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Australia’s Cooper Basin and Griffin
crudes assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 12, 1994, p. 51.
Swain, Edward J., ‘‘SULFUR, COKE, AND CRUDE
QUALITY—Conclusion: U.S. crude slate continues to
get heavier, higher in sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 9,
1995, p. 37.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘U.K. North Sea’s Forties Blend crude
assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 23, 1995, p. 48.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Brent blend, U.K. North Sea marker
crude assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 6, 1995, p. 63.
Gdula, Lowell Michael, and Wentworth, James A., ‘‘Alaskan
refiner raced against winter to relocate vacuum unit,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 20. 1995, p. 60.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘GUIDE TO EXPORT CRUDES: Four
Argentine crudes in world market,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 17, 1995, p. 58.
Kastner, H. and Kaminsky, W., ‘‘Recycle plastics into feed-
stocks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 109.
Bullerdiek, Edward A., and Hobbs, James W., ‘‘Advanced
controls pay out in 6 weeks at Texas refinery,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, June 19, 1995, p. 46.
Boduszynski, Mieczyslaw M., Grudoski, David A., Rechs-
teiner, Carl E., and Iwamoto, Josie D., ‘‘Deep-cut assay
reveals additional yields of high-value VGO,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 11, 1995, p. 39.
Moreno, Abel, del Consuelo Perez de Alba, Maria, Manri-
quez, Leonardo, and de la Guardia Mendoza, Patricia,
‘‘Correlations estimate volume distilled using gravity,
boiling point,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 23, 1995, p. 94.
Golden, S.W., et al, ‘‘Refinery analytical techniques optimize
unit performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 85.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO EXPORT CRUDES:
Colombia’s new light, sweet Cusiana crude assayed,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 11, 1995, p. 71.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Pre-
liminary assay reveals quality of Mars blend,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 10, 1996, p. 67.
Harris, J.R., ‘‘Use desalting for FCC feedstocks,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 63.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Unique Sardinian refinery focuses on third-
party crude processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 21,
1996, p. 16.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Distillation capacity exceeds 76 million
b/d, hydrotreating surges,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23,
1996, p. 41.
Swain, Edward, ‘‘Gravity, sulfur content of U.S. crude slate
holding steady,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1997, p. 46.
Chung, Keng H., Xu, Chunming, Hu, Yunxiang, and Wang,
Renan, ‘‘Supercritical fluid extraction reveals resid proper-
ties,: Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1997, p. 66.
Dickenson, R.L., et al, ‘‘Refiner options for converting and
utilizing heavy fuel oil,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb. 1997, p. 57.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Aus-
tralia’s Cossack crude oil is light and sweet,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 5, 1997, p. 113.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Welsh
crude is very light and sweet,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May
12, 1997, p. 71.
Golden, S.W., ‘‘Prevent preflash drum foaming,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 141.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Assays
of two Venezuelan crudes differ significantly,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 9, 1997, p. 58.
PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
Cresswell, L.W., ‘‘Refining in the Former Soviet Union,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 67.
VIII. PETROCHEMICAL
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Tagoe, C., et al., ‘‘Are there contaminants in your feeds-
tream?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 117.
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.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Lian, H.Y., et al., ‘‘Vibration effects of two-phase cross flow
on heat exchangers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 53.
207
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Methanol plant design choices affect operations, costs, other
equipment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29, 1993, p. 53.
‘‘New two-stage process converts butadiene to ethylben-
zene,’’ 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 gasoline benzene,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13,
1993, p. 63.
Sanchezllanes, Teresa, Perez, Ana Lilia, Martinez, Martha
P., Aguilar- Rodriguez, Enrique, and del Rosal, Rodolfo,
‘‘Simple rules help select best hydrocarbon distillation
scheme,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 50.
‘‘Quantum to shut down three LDPE units,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 29, 1993, p. 29.
‘‘Lyondell advances petrochemical operations,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 6, 1993, p. 20.
Myers, Philip E., ‘‘OSHA confined-space reg interpreted for
storage tank operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 14,
1994, p. 84.
‘‘Ammonia plant in Indonesia tops own world mark,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 30.
Higgins, Thomas, Thom, James, ‘‘Solvents: Know your
options,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 92.
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., ‘‘Improve syngas pro-
duction using autothermal reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 39.
Sedriks, W., ‘‘Understanding the petrochemical cycle, Part
1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar.
1994, p. 49.
Montagna, A.A. and Floyd, J.C., ‘‘Single-sited catalysis leads
next polyolefin generation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 57.
‘‘Dow starts up new ethyleneamines plant,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 81.
‘‘Total slates two ETBE units at its French refineries,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 14, 1994, p. 28.
‘‘Shell Nederland plans petrochem units,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 21, 1994, p. 48.
208 References
Sedriks, W., ‘‘Understanding the petrochemical cycle, Part
2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 04, Apr.
1994, p. 45.
‘‘Nigerian petrochemical project aims to start production by
midyear,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 4, 1994, p. 81.
‘‘Naphtha cracker starts up in Taiwan,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 4, 1994, p. 83.
‘‘Singapore petrochem contracts let,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 25, 1994, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘World ethylene capacity tops 71 million
mt/y,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 35.
‘‘Ethylene survey,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 40.
‘‘Industry analysts focus on U.S., Asian, Latin American
markets,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 45.
‘‘Argentine polybutenes producer installing dehydro unit,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 50.
‘‘China’s Campaign For Petrochem Self-Sufficiency,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, May 9, 1994, p. 43.
‘‘Polystyrene Weak Link In China’s Burgeoning Petrochem
Industry,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 9, 1994, p. 52.
‘‘New additive retards coke formation in ethylene furnace
tubes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 9, 1994, p. 73.
‘‘FINA polypropylene plant due expansion,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 11, 1994, p. 29.
‘‘Refinery, petrochemical plant injuries decline,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 25, 1994, p. 102.
‘‘New ammonia plant starts up at complex in E. Java, Indone-
sia,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 25, 1994, p. 114.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘New integrated methanol/NH3 plant
starts up in Oklahoma,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 8,
1994, p. 65.
‘‘Borealis to finish polyethylene plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 12, 1994, p. 106.
Detrait, Jean-Claude, and Grootjans, Jacques F., ‘‘Adsorbent
key to polypropylene catalyst activity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 10, 1994, p. 50
‘‘MTBE catalyst shows increased conversion in commercial
unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 10, 1994, p. 66.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION REPORT: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 17, 1994, p. 86.
Knott, David, ‘‘European petrochemical surge: a recovery or
temporary blip,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 31, 1994, p. 16.
‘‘Sabic sees big growth for MTBE,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
28, 1994, p. 30.
Landert, Jean-Pierre, and Scubia, Tiziano, ‘‘Make the most
of catalytic hydrogenations,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1995, p. 118.
Richard, Lynn A., Spencer, Mark, Schuster, Rudolf, Tup-
pinger, Dieter M., and Wilmsen, Wilhelm, ‘‘Austrian
refiner benefits from advanced control,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 20, 1995, p. 70.
‘‘Thailand rapidly developing into world class petrochemical
producer,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 3, 1995, p. 23.
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Neste begins tests of oxygenate process at Finnish refinery,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 40.
‘‘British question use of oxygenates in gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 40.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION REPORT: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 10, 1995, p. 73.
‘‘Perceived merits, demerits of MTBE still argued,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 17, 1995, p. 22.
‘‘Sabic to step up methanol production,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 17, 1995, p. 25.
Rhodes, Anne K. and Knott, David, ‘‘Ethylene capacity tops
77 million mty,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 17, 1995, p. 33.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘International survey of ethylene
from steam crackers,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 17,
1995, p. 38.
Krenek, Michael, ‘‘Latin America second only to Asia in
petrochemical prospects,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 17,
1995, p. 44.
Fallon, Kevin J., Wang, Henry K.H., and Venkat, Chaya
R., ‘‘U.K. refinery demonstrates ethylbenzene process,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 17, 1995, p. 50.
‘‘Exxon claims advances in polyolefin technology,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 24, 1995, p. 30.
‘‘BP confirms Scottish ethylene project,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 8, 1995, p. 32.
‘‘Asia/Pacific Ethylene Capacity To More Than Double By
2000,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 8, 1995, p. 50.
‘‘Chinese minister reports gain in ethylene output,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, May 22, 1995, p. 29.
‘‘Exxon slates big ethylene expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 29, 1995, p. 15.
‘‘Porvoo plant expansion under study,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
June 12, 1995, p. 32.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE GAS PROCESS-
ING SURVEY,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 12, 1995, p. 66.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Two of Singapore’s refiners expand
despite lack of land,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 14,
1995, p. 39.
‘‘Iran outlines petrochemical expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 2, 1995, p. 30.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘China’s refining/petrochemical industry continues expan-
sion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 78.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 16, 1995, p. 79.
Summers, Daniel R., McGuire, Peter J., Resetarits, Michael
R., Graves, Caryn E., Harper, Steven E., and Angelino,
Salvatore J., ‘‘High capacity trays debottleneck Texas C3
splitter,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 6, 1995, p. 45.
‘‘Tennessee facility to obtain methanol from coal syngas,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 6, 1995, p. 23.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
‘‘EDC/PVC plant starts up in Iran,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 1, 1996, p. 51.
‘‘Texas petrochemical expansions on tap,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 15, 1996, p. 58.
‘‘Membrane system recovers, recycles propylene from poly-
mer production,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 12, 1996, p. 51.
‘‘Ethylene survey,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 62.
‘‘Polyolefins operating rates to improve in 1997/98,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 56.
‘‘Revamp of Ukraine VCM plant will boost capacity, reduce
emissions,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 60.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘World ethylene capacity increased mar-
ginally in 1995,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 49.
Alverson, Ed and Mullenix, Andrew J., ‘‘New process
removes inorganic chlorides from reformate,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1996, p. 78.
Yoon, Seongkyu, Dasgupta, Surajit, and Mijares, Gerardo,
‘‘Real-time optimization boosts capacity of Korean olefins
plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1996, p. 36.
‘‘Chinese ethylene plant meets requirements,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 1, 1996, p. 38.
‘‘Korean aromatics plant commissioned,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 19, 1996, p. 80.
‘‘Global petrochemical R&D focus on projects that provide
a return,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 26, 1996, p. 17.
Brockmeier, Norman, et al, ‘‘Care & feeding of polyolefin
catalysts,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1996, p. 90.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30,
1996, p. 67.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: Size, age key for European
petrochem,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘Mobil, Pequiven slate Venezuelan petrochem plant,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘Mexican petrochemical plant sale revised,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 21, 1996, p. 19.
‘‘BASF in petrochem JVs with Shell, Hoechst,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 21, 1996, p. 19.
‘‘BP hikes global acetyls capacity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
21, 1996, p. 25.
‘‘Union Texas slates ethylene unit at Geismar,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 25.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘New ammonia process, catalyst proven
in Canadian plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11,
1996, p. 37.
Shanley, Anges, ‘‘Ammonia’s on the upswing,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Nov. 1996, p. 30.
‘‘China downstream investment focus shifting,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 2, 1996, p. 46.
‘‘Enhanced solvent recovery process boosts PTA production,
saves energy,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1996, p. 44.
‘‘New Borealis unit uses metallocene catalyst, ‘‘Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 30, 1996, p. 33.
‘‘Ethylene consumption seen doubling by 2015,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 13, 1997, p. 31.
209
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Borealis expands polypropylene interests,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Feb. 3, 1997, p. 35.
‘‘Shell France first French refiner in 12 years to cut capacity,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1997, p.26.
‘‘Petrochemical capacity expansions abound,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 24, 1997, p. 40.
‘‘Volatility to rule olefins, styrene markets to 2001,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 39.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 14,
1997, p. 67.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘World ethylene capacity jumped 5 mil-
lion mt/y, or 6.5% in past year,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May
19, 1997, p. 45.
Glauthier, Tad, Kalkstein, Harold, and Williamson, Robert,
‘‘Petrochemical producers gain advantage with novel busi-
ness strategies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 19, 1997, p. 54.
‘‘Ethylene survey,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 19, 1997, p. 59.
Picciotti, Marcello, ‘‘ETHYLENE TECHNOLOGIES-1:
Novel ethylene technologies developing but steam crack-
ing remains king,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 23, 1997,
p. 53.
Picciotti, Marcello, ‘‘ETHYLENE TECHNOLOGIES-
Conclusion: New ethylene routes are available, but eco-
nomics inhibit their use,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 30,
1997, p. 71.
‘‘South Korea’s refining/petrochemical capacity expansion
push continues to gather momentum,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July, 7, 1997, p. 19.
‘‘Chem Systems: outlook strong for Asian petrochemicals,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, July 7, 1997, p. 46.
‘‘Statoil, Conoco dedicate giant Norwegian methanol plant,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, July 14, 1997, p. 26.
‘‘Thailand’s petrochemical demand grows,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, July 21, 1997, p. 34.
‘‘W. Australia eyeing petrochemical complex,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 4, 1997, p. 32.
‘‘Global petrochemical markets to get tougher,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 11, 1997, p. 28.
‘‘BP cracks polymer recycling technique at Grangemouth,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 18, 1997, p. 18.
‘‘BP to expand olefins capacity in Southeast Asia,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 15, 1997, p. 27.
Aitani, Abdullah M. and Hamid, Syed Halim, ‘‘DOWN-
STREAM IN THE PERSIAN GULF-2: The Persian
Gulf’s petrochemical industry is proliferating,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 22, 1997, p. 73.
‘‘Petrochemical deals mark European shakeout,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 29, 1997, p. 50.
Aitani, Abdullah M. and Hamid, Syed Halillm, ‘‘DOWN-
STREAM IN THE PERSIAN GULF-Conclusion: To
diversify its petrochemicals portfolio, GCC needs liquid
feeds,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 29, 1997, p. 96.
210
IX. DELAYED COKING
Thorpe, Wilson A. and Sivaraman, Srini, ‘‘Simple techniques
reduce coke inventory, sales measurement errors,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 44.
‘‘DOE: New process cuts ethanol cost,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 15, 1993, p. 48.
‘‘Latest coker designs increase liquid yields, reduce emis-
sions,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 8, 1993, p. 82.
Schulman, B.L., et al., ‘‘Bottom-of-the-barrel upgrading
moves aggressively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 100C.
‘‘Bonner & Moore sees gain in U.S. delayed coking capacity,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 27, 1993, p. 30.
Sloan, H.D., ‘‘Refinery expansion/upgrading means lighter,
quality products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 82C.
Bansal, B.B., et al., ‘‘Improve your coking process,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 63.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Lyondell, Citgo join for heavy oil upgrade
project at Houston refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
21, 1994, p. 60.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Refiners exchange experiences on FCC prob-
lems, coking operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 2,
1994, p. 110.
‘‘Oman, India team up for proposed fertilizer plant,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 33.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Golden, Scott W., Lieberman, Norm, and Martin, Gary R.,
‘‘Correcting design errors can prevent coking in main
fractionators,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 21, 1994, p. 72.
Bennett, Robert P., Blevins, H.J. (Jim), and Cuevas, H.J.
(Joe), ‘‘New chemical reduces coke dust emissions at
Mississippi refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 26,
1994, p. 74.
Swain, Edward J., ‘‘SULFUR, COKE, AND CRUDE
QUALITY—1: Coke, sulfur recovery from U.S. refineries
continues to increase,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 2,
1995, p. 33.
Stefani, A., ‘‘Choosing a coke recovery system,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 61.
Golden, S.W., et al, ‘‘Refinery analytical techniques optimize
unit performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 85.
Parks, S.B. and Schillmoller, C.M., ‘‘Use alloys to improve
ethylene production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 53.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Venezuelan refiner completes $2.5 billion
refinery expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1996, p. 51.
Stefani, A., ‘‘Debottleneck delayed cokers for greater profit-
ability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June
1996, p. 99.
References
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Kansas refiner starts up coke gasification
unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 5, 1996, p. 31.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Alveal, Enrique Dávila and Karpenski, Martin J., ‘‘Partners
assume risks, lower finance costs of delayed coker-cogen-
eration project in Chile,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 31,
1997, p. 55.
Stefani, A., ‘‘Reduce the impact of coke fines on delayed
cokers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug.
1997, p. 111.
‘‘Phillips, Pdvsa ink coker, crude sale deal,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 1, 1997, p. 40.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
‘‘EPA issues clarification on rule governing benzene emis-
sions,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 24.
‘‘Tests show limits on oxygen content to be unwarranted,’’
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.
Kroupa, Ralph, ‘‘Selecting valves for tough conditions,’’
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 74.
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.
Petchonka, J., et al., ‘‘How CAA impacts polymer process-
ing,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 95.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—1: Experience exchanged on complex effects
of catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 22, 1993, p. 45.
McGowan, Thomas E., Lipinski, George E. and Santoleri,
Joseph J., ‘‘New rules affect the handling 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.
Sadhukhan, p. and Bradford, M., ‘‘Fluidized bed incinera-
tion: improved waste disposal method,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 61.
‘‘Diesel fuel quality is improving in most European coun-
tries,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 54.
‘‘Oxygenated fuel cuts emissions, EPA data show,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 32.
‘‘California approves Texaco diesel,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 22, 1993, p. 34.
‘‘U.S. refiners face record stacks of laws and regulations,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29, 1993, p. 32.
Hanisch, J.L., et al., ‘‘How to prepare a successful operating
permit,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr.
1993, p. 95.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
‘‘Italian refiners’ environmental spending to soar in 1990s,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 19.
Lin, Sheng H. and Yeh, Kuo L., ‘‘Looking to treat wastewa-
ter? Try ozone,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 112.
Blair, Hugo, ‘‘The Environmental pluses of diaphragm
pumps,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 118.
Quernemoen, B.L., ‘‘When is part substitution okay?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993,
p. 101.
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.
Stubblefield, Fred, Jr., ‘‘Get topnotch performance from
jacketed pipes,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 110.
Jespersen, Chris, Jerger, Douglas and Exner, Jurgen, ‘‘Bior-
emediation tackles hazwaste,’’ Chemical Engineering, June
1993, p. 116.
Fruci, Leonard, ‘‘Valves put a plug on emissions,’’ Chemical
Engineering, June 1993, p. 139.
Anspach, Kenneth, ‘‘Insuring against environmental risks,’’
Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 145.
Felten, J.R., et al., ‘‘Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environ-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 82-B.
Gallupe, W., ‘‘Retrofit methods reduce valves’ fugitive emis-
sions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 97.
Capps, R.W., et al., ‘‘Reduce oil and grease content in
wastewater,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06,
June 1993, p. 102.
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.
Crowley, E.D., ‘‘Stemming leaks with spiral-wound gaskets,’’
Chemical Engineering, July 1993, p. 139.
Loftus, D., et al., ‘‘Partnership programs can solve environ-
mental waste problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 07, July 1993, p. 90.
Portal, G.M.A., ‘‘Europe’s refiners face new horizons,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993,
p. 92-C.
Cindric, D.T., et al., ‘‘Reduce crude unit pollution with these
technologies,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08,
Aug. 1993, p. 45.
Agar, G., et al., ‘‘Energy absorption probes control oily-
water discharges,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 55.
211
TOC/INDEX
Callahan, B. and McCaw, P.A., ‘‘Risk assessment alleviates
environmental liabilities,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 61.
Anon, ‘‘Environmental Processes ’93,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 67.
Bergmann, E.P., ‘‘Approximate risk assessment prioritizes
remedial decisions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 111.
Robinson, J.E., ‘‘Underground storage tank: removal vs.
abandonment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08,
Aug. 1993, p. 149.
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.
Kuryla, Matthew, ‘‘TSCA traps for the unwary plant man-
ager,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1993, p. 161.
Martinson, B., ‘‘How to set up an environmental audit
program,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept.
1993, p. 55.
Grover, R. and Gomaa, H.M., ‘‘Proven technologies manage
olefin plant’s spent caustic,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 61.
Hill, J. and Brush, P., ‘‘Performing capital projects in ozone
nonattainment areas,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 76C.
‘‘Ashland produces low sulfur diesel for highway use,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 42.
Miller, M. and Jackson, R., ‘‘New valve packing technology
extends service life,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 105.
Riddle, A.L., ‘‘Recognize and advertise environmental suc-
cess,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 139.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Johnson, J.E., Tzap, Stephen J., Kelley, Robert E., and
Laczko, Lawrence P., ‘‘H2S IN EOR—Gas processing
for CO2 EOR involves sulfur removal,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 15, 1993, p. 61.
‘‘Stepwise approach selects most effective remediation alter-
native,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 15, 1993, p. 68.
Johnson, J.E., Tzap, Stephen J., Kelley, Robert E., and
Laczko, Lawrence P., ‘‘H2S IN EOR—Options narrowed
to Claus or redox processes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
22, 1993, p. 70.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Technology, efficient operation key ele-
ments in environmental strategy,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 29, 1993, p. 39.
Frayne, Stephen P., ‘‘Refinery operating experiences reveal
common steam-stripper problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 29, 1993, p. 50.
212 References
Fewel, Kenneth J., and Conroy, John H., ‘‘Design guidelines
for NH3 injection grids optimize SCR Nox removal,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 29, 1993, p. 56.
Sweetland, Kirk, ‘‘Dealing with lead in the workplace,’’
Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1993, p. 127.
Goldblatt, M., ‘‘How to justify water conservation projects,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993,
p. 65.
Chieu, J. and Foster, S., ‘‘Improve storm water management
for refineries, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 73.
Capps, R.W., et al., ‘‘Design more flexibility into wastewater
treatment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12,
Dec. 1993, p. 81.
Davis, Gregory B., Goss, Michael L., Schoemann, Pete, and
Tyler, Susan S., ‘‘Crude oil tank-cleaning process recovers
oil, reduces hazardous wastes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.
13, 1993, p. 35.
Rasmussen, George P., ‘‘New desorption process treats refin-
ery K and F wastes in demo trial,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 10, 1994, p. 48.
Morelli, Janis A., ‘‘Performing environmental audits,’’ Chem-
ical Engineering, Feb. 1994, p. 104.
Giffin, Gary L., ‘‘Keeping a lid on volatile liquids,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 1994, p. 147.
Radigan, M.J., ‘‘How to select a continuous emission moni-
toring system,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02,
Feb. 1994, p. 73.
‘‘Dutch refinery remediating contaminated soils on site,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 7, 1994, p. 62.
Higgins, Thomas and Thom, James, ‘‘Solvents: Know your
options,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 92.
Gorry, Matthew, Amin, Pradeep and Richardson, D. Wayne,
‘‘Take the guesswork out of demineralization design,’’
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 112.
La Russo, Anthony, ‘‘Audit your environmental contrac-
tors,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 149.
‘‘Gulf Coast plant slated to process, recycle wastes,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 37.
‘‘Russian refiner tests new one-stage H2S removal process,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 81.
AL-Tell, Nasser, and Lueders, Richard, ‘‘Texas refiner starts
up new waste water treatment plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 21, 1994, p. 72.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
Portz, Bruce, ‘‘Compression upgrade at Texas plant hits
emissions targets,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 11, 1994,
p. 55.
Leahy, Maureen C. and Brown, Richard A., ‘‘Bioremedia-
tion: Optimizing results,’’ Chemical Engineering, May
1994, p. 108.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Hawaii offers challenge and opportunity to
refiner,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 30, 1994, p. 43.
TOC/INDEX
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Danube refinery operates under complex air
regulations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 30, 1994, p. 50.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Employee participation key to meeting
environmental goals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 30,
1994, p. 60.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Public, agencies key players in L.A.
refiner’s program,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 30, 1994,
p. 64.
Boyes, Walt, Jean, Randall, ‘‘Look at your process non-
invasively,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1994, p. 84
Blattner, J. Wray and Bramble, Gary M., ‘‘Avoiding criminal
liabilities,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1994, p. 127.
‘‘Emissions fine imposed at Philadelphia refinery,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, June 13, 1994, p. 36.
Sokic, M.I., ‘‘Life-cycle model assesses petrochemical tech-
nology,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July
1994, p. 77.
‘‘Shell inaugurates U.K. water treatment plant,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 25, 1994, p. 113.
Morgan, D.J. and Swett, G.H., ‘‘Simplify remedial decisions
by using risk-based management,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 37.
Davis, M., ‘‘Use advanced methods to treat wastewater,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 43.
King, G.P. and Sinauskas, D., ‘‘Does the HON apply to
your facility?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08,
Aug. 1994, p. 47.
Anon, ‘‘Environmental Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 51.
Radecki, P.P., et al., ‘‘Build pollution prevention into system
design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug.
1994, p. 55.
Vivona, M.A., ‘‘Audit environmental processes using life
cycle costs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08,
Aug. 1994, p. 115.
Gomaa, H. and Allawi, A., ‘‘Minimize air-toxic emissions,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 121.
‘‘Study sparks German call for benzene reduction in Euro-
pean gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, p. 25.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘New process effectively recovers oil from
refinery waste streams,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 15,
1994, p. 92.
Yaws, Carl L., Bu, Li, and Nijhawan, Sachin, ‘‘New correla-
tion accurately calculates water solubilities of aromatics,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 29, 1994, p. 80.
Law, Denny, ‘‘New MDEA design in gas plant improves
sweetening, reduces CO2,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 29,
1994, p. 83.
Cartwright, Peter, ‘‘Pollution prevention drives membrane
technologies,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 84.
Barber, Terry A., and Miller, Brian D., ‘‘Pervaporation tech-
nology: Fundamentals and environmental applications,’’
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 88.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Simmons, Vicki, et al., ‘‘Membrane systems offer a new
way to recover volatile organic air pollutants,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 1994. p. 92.
Wagschal, JoAnna J., ‘‘Do not let a crisis catch you off
guard,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 159.
Dean, C. and Stevenson, D., ‘‘How to develop calibration
curves for fuel gas,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 97.
‘‘Supercritical water oxidation unit destroys organic wastes,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 31, 1994, p. 44.
‘‘Pollution prevention—a global perspective,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 66C.
Head, S.J. and Dumdei, B.E., ‘‘Guidelines simplify prepar-
ing air-operating permits,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 73.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Rials, Ron, and Hagen, Ty, ‘‘Leak detection method ensures
integrity of double-bottom storage tanks,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 14, 1994, p. 74.
Thornton, David, ‘‘Membrane process for CO2 removal
from NGLs gets trial in Louisiana plant,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 14, 1994, p. 86.
Denham, V. Robert, Jr., ‘‘Superfund, round two: Natural
resource damages,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1994,
p. 123.
Goyal, R.K., ‘‘Understand quantitative risk assessment, Part
1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec.
1994, p. 105.
‘‘Low NOx system for gas turbines in cogen being devel-
oped,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 19, 1994, p. 134.
Bennett, Robert P., Blevins, H.J. (Jim), and Cuevas, H.J.
(Joe), ‘‘New chemical reduces coke dust emissions at
Mississippi refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 26,
1994, p. 74.
Bond, Gregory G., ‘‘Produce stewardship shifts into high
gear,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1995, p. 78.
Stobbe, A.W., ‘‘Manage leak detection and repair programs
cost-effectively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01,
Jan. 1995, p. 101.
Ammann, Paul R., Koch, Gayle S., et al., ‘‘The best approach
to environmental compliance,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Feb. 1995, p. 104.
Crandall, J.A., ‘‘How to choose an online analytical system,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995,
p. 69.
Hennigan, S. and Day, S., ‘‘Improve portable monitor selec-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb.
1995, p. 76.
Yaws, Carl L., Bu, Li, and Nijhawan, Sachin, ‘‘Equation
calculates activated carbon’s capacity for adsorbing pollut-
ants,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 13, 1995, p. 64.
Badrock, John, Coutu, Robert, Johnson, Norman, and Mar-
tin, Andrea, ‘‘Bulk, heating cleans paraffinic bottoms from
crude tanks,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 20, 1995, p. 66.
213
TOC/INDEX
Sage, Louis and Strang, Richard, ‘‘Lending credence to
water-quality improvements,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Mar. 1995, p. 145.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Cressman, Paul R., Hurren, Maureen L., Smith, Edward
F., and Holbrook, David L., ‘‘Caustic-Free jet fuel Merox
unit reduces waste disposal,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
20, 1995, p. 80.
‘‘Concawe reports reduced emissions from European refiner-
ies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 3, 1995, p. 64.
Straitz, John F. And Mendoza, Vincente A., ‘‘Keeping burn-
ers in fighting trim,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1995,
p. 66.
Meason, James E., and Beutler, Curt, ‘‘Confused about
rules on hazardous materials transportation?’’ Chemical
Engineering, May 1995, p. 94.
Miles, M.E., ‘‘Valves: meeting proof of design,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 51.
Kastner, H. and Kaminsky, W., ‘‘Recycle plastics into feed-
stocks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 109.
Moore, C.W., ‘‘Reduce pollution costs through better pro-
cess design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05,
May 1995, p. 115.
Corbett, Richard A., ‘‘Conversions to non-CFC refrigerants
simple, inexpensive,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 29,
1995, p. 32.
Smith, Bruce R., ‘‘Monitoring wet scrubber performance,’’
Chemical Engineering, June 1995, p. 96.
Manuele, Vincent O., ‘‘Avoid dangerous surprises during
site cleanups,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1995, p. 125.
Goyal, R. and Ramirez, R., ‘‘Reduce power outages,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995, p. 71.
Carnell, Peter J.H., Joslin, Ken W., and Woodham, Peter
R., ‘‘Fixed-bed processes provide flexibility for COS, H2S
removal,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 5, 1995, p. 52.
Byers, Bill, ‘‘Zero discharge: A systematic approach to water
reuse,’’ Chemical Engineering, July 1995, p. 96.
Cappos, Steve, ‘‘Membrane minimize liquid discharge,’’
Chemical Engineering, July 1995, p. 102.
Boffardi, Bennett P., and Smith, Alan L., ‘‘Chemical treat-
ment makes cooling water reusable,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, July 1995, p. 106.
Shaikh, A. and Lee, C.J., ‘‘Minimize flaring during ethylene
plant startup,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07,
July 1995, p. 89.
Crow, Patrick, ‘‘WATCHING GOVERNMENT: EPA’s
tale from the crypt,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 10,
1995, p. 36.
Carr, David M., ‘‘Where sealless pumps make sense,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Aug. 1995, p. 78.
Netzel, James, Pecht, Glenn, and Kalodimos, Mike, ‘‘Gas
lubricated seals change pump choices,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Aug. 1995, p. 82B.
214 References
Guida, J.W. and Fruge, D.E., ‘‘Improve wastewater treat-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug.
1995, p. 55.
Leahy, M.C. and Erickson, G.P., ‘‘Bioventing reduces soil
cleanup costs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08,
Aug. 1995, p. 63.
Price, D., et al, ‘‘Improve RCRA corrective actions,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 67.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Control VOC emissions,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 77.
Brenneman, D.R. and Hattaway, D.R., ‘‘Incorporate pollu-
tion prevention into your business plan,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 84.
Ranade, S.M. and Braswell, J.B., ‘‘How to design a styrene-
vapor collection and disposal system,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 89.
Vivona, M.A., ‘‘Design an effective storm water pollution
prevention plan,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 95.
‘‘EPA issues final MACT rule on refinery emissions,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 7, 1995, p. 34.
Bird, Warren A., ‘‘ISO 14000: How to decide what is right
for your company,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1995,
p. 94.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Recover heat from waste incineration,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995,
p. 51.
Ferry, Robert L., and Kissell, J. Randolph, ‘‘New equation
estimates emissions from tank turnovers,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 25, 1995, p. 75.
Isaacs, Mark, Heywood, Nigel, Blake, Nigel, and Alderman,
Neil, ‘‘Getting a grip on sludge,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Oct. 1995, p. 80.
Hassebrock, F., ‘‘Reduce losses through smarter valve selec-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct.
1995, p. 53.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
‘‘European gasoline survey shows decreasing lead, MON,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 77.
‘‘Controversy over U.S. RFG still alive,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 9, 1995, p. 40.
‘‘Tank-cleaning method removes, processes F037 waste,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 86.
McKenna, Joshua, and Pickering, Edward, ‘‘Testing contam-
inated soil,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1995, p. 175.
Hennessey, P.M., et al, ‘‘Use coalescing methods to solve
emulsion problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 107.
‘‘API session focuses on U.S. motor fuels,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 27, 1995, p. 32.
TOC/INDEX
Meier, Alan L., and Nikolic, Ognjen, ‘‘Croatian refiner meets
waste water treatment standards, reduces fines,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Nov. 27, 1995, p. 70.
Vatavuk, William M., ‘‘Air pollution control escalate equip-
ment costs,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1995, p. 88.
Conway, Richard A., Lee, Kun-chieh, ‘‘Get workers involved
in pollution prevention,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec.
1995, p. 111.
Dhole, Viaks R., Ramchandani, Tainsh, Richard A., and
Wasilewski, Marek, ‘‘Make your process water pay for
itself,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1996, p. 100.
Geiger, G.E., ‘‘Improve corrosion and deposition control
in alkaline. . .,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01,
Jan. 1996, p. 93.
Nedrow, J., ‘‘Use belowground storage tanks to manage
stormwater,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01,
Jan. 1996, p. 101.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-year-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 105.
Gabriel, R. and Lundy, W., ‘‘Industry initiative sets stan-
dards for pumps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 117.
‘‘Toxicity, emissions test results in for RFG,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘U.S. gasoline plagued by economic, technical uncertainty,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 29.
‘‘NOx reduction gives compressor spark plugs long life,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 29, 1996, p. 99.
Croom, Miles L., ‘‘New development in filter dust collec-
tion,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 80.
Hilaly, Ahmad, and Sikdar, Subhas, ‘‘Process tools for pollu-
tion prevention,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 98.
Beedie, M., ‘‘Energy waste: A process quality defect?,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 84B.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 87.
‘‘Texas plant treats natural gas for use as alternative fuel,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 38.
‘‘New HF detector accepted for use by refining consortium,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 46.
‘‘WATCHING GOVERNMENT: New battle over
MMT,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 26, 1996, p. 42.
Menon, Raghu, Chou, Ting, Tamhankar, Satish, Ramachan-
dran, Ram, Hull, Randall, and Watson, Richard, ‘‘FCC
O2 ENRICHMENT—1: Proper choice of O2 supply
enhances enrichment benefits,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
26, 1996, p. 54.
Shalney, Agnes, ‘‘Beyond ‘Pump and treat’,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Mar. 1996, p. 30.
Reynolds, John A., ‘‘Use minimum flow data to prolong
centrifugal pump life,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1996, p. 92.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Fahrer, Sharon, ‘‘Making sense of the options,’’ Chemical
Engineering, , Mar. 1996, p. 139.
Baker, R.W. and Jacobs, M., ‘‘Improve monomer recovery
from polyolefin resin degassing,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 49.
Shah, G.C., ‘‘ISO-14000: To be or not to be?,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 132D.
Tamhankar, Satish, Menon, Raghu, Chou, Ting, Ramachan-
dran, Ram, Hull, Randall, and Watson, Richard, ‘‘FCC
O 2 ENRICHMENT—Conclusion: Enrichment can
decrease NOx, SOx formation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
4, 1996, p. 60.
Skinner, F. Douglas, Kosch, and Gamez, Jorge P., ‘‘Analyzer
for H2S, CO2 promises savings for amine operations,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 11, 1996, p. 76.
‘‘California refinery RFG modifications finished by Unocal,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 37.
‘‘Catalyst handling, disposal become more important in envi-
ronmental era,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 64.
‘‘Automakers’ fuel specs trouble U.S. refiners,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 37.
‘‘Wood Mackenzie assesses effect of new EC auto fuel rules
on refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 22.
Fouhy, Ken, ‘‘Europe breaks with command and control,’’
Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1996, p. 37.
Oolman, T., et al, ‘‘Refinery uses bioslurry process to treat
RCRA wastes,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04,
Apr. 1996, p. 71.
Spencer, C. and Tolpa, G., ‘‘Use computer-based design
tools to meet OSHA reporting crit.,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 75, No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 79.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
‘‘Marketers seek suspension of California fuel rules,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘U.S. refiners face more challenges in wake of RFG introduc-
tion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 23.
Liesenring Jr., Roger L., ‘‘Low sulfur diesel controversy con-
tinues,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 75.
Parkinson, Gerald, and Ondrey, Gerald, ‘‘Batteries not
included,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1996, p. 37.
Frish, M.B. and Melnyk, J.M., ‘‘Detect fugitive emissions
with lasers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05,
May 1996, p. 99.
‘‘CARB: Gasoline shortages could ease California rules,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 6, 1996, p. 42.
‘‘Revamp of Ukraine VCM plant will boost capacity, reduce
emissions,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 60.
‘‘EPA cleared to expand toxic release list,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 20, 1996, p. 30.
Heaven, David L., ‘‘Gasification converts variety of problem
feedstocks and wastes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,
1996, p. 49.
Siegell, Jeffrey, ‘‘Exploring VOC control options,’’ Chemical
Engineering, June 1996, p. 92.
215
TOC/INDEX
McManus, Anne Marie, ‘‘Get the most from environmental
audits,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1996, p. 143.
Straitz, III, J.F., ‘‘Improve flare safety and reliability to meet
ISO-9000 stds.,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 06, June 1996, p. 109.
‘‘WATCHING GOVERNMENT: World Bank urges lead
phaseout,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 10, 1996, p. 36.
‘‘WATCHING GOVERNMENT—NRC: More studies
required on MTBE,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 17,
1996, p. 25.
Ebadat, Vahid, ‘‘Electrostatic hazards in the CPI,’’ Chemical
Engineering, July 1996, p. 141.
Geyer, Wayne, ‘‘How do your tanks measure up’’ Part 1:
Underground storage,’’ Chemical Engineering, July
1996, p. 84.
Reid, J.A. and McPhaul, D.R., ‘‘Control contaminants in
olefin feedstocks and products, Pt 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July 1996, p. 45.
Anderson, R., et al, ‘‘Use proactive permitting to expand
capacity,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July
1996, p. 65.
‘‘EC moves to slash vehicle emissions by 2010,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 8, 1996, p. 37.
‘‘Europe’s downstream firms back EC air goals,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 22, 1996, p. 22.
‘‘Price, quality controls alter Saudi fuels sector,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 29, 1996, p. 103.
Grainawi, Lorri, ‘‘Aboveground storage. Part I: Decoding
shop-build tanks.’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1996,
p. 98.
Braune, Steven, Thorpe, Greg, et al., ‘‘Aboveground storage
tanks. Part II: Field-erected tanks,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Aug. 1996, p. 104.
‘‘Environmental Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 85.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Kansas refiner starts up coke gasification
unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 5, 1996, p. 31.
‘‘In situ remediation cleans hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 26, 1996, p. 56.
Straitz, John F III, ‘‘Clearing the air about flare systems,’’
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1996, p. 116.
Ferrantd, John and Verdibello, Mario S., ‘‘Services with a
global accent,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sep. 1996, p. 147.
‘‘Texas facility treats, recycles refinery, petrochemical
wastes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 16, 1996, p. 49.
‘‘Texas JV to burn residue gas in cogen unit,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 23, 1996, p. 43.
Ledbetter, D., ‘‘Reduce accidental releases of hazardous
materials,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09,
Sep. 1996, p. 113.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘How to comply with VOC emission require-
ments cost-effective,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 121.
Reid, J.A. and McPhaul, D.R., ‘‘Control contaminants in
olefin feedstocks and products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 128.
216
Crumpler, D.K. and Whittle, D.K., ‘‘How to effectively
revalidate PHAs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 10, Oct. 1996, p. 55.
Emerson, G., ‘‘Improve safety with pilot operated relief
valves,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct.
1996, p. 67.
Carucci, V.A. and Ay, R.L., ‘‘Revise storage tank inspec-
tions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct.
1996, p. 85.
Tripathi, Paul, ‘‘Pinch technology reduces wastewater,’’
Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Hohl, Howard M., ‘‘Flameless thermal oxidation reduces
emissions at California refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
4, 1996, p. 77.
‘‘Kunz, R.G., et al, ‘‘Predict NOx from gas-fired furnaces,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1996,
p. 65.
Shah, G.C., ‘‘Use environmental audits to improve facility-
wide compliance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 83.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Baumann, Hans D., ‘‘A firm new handle of valve noise,’’
Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 78.
Hummel, Bob, ‘‘Lining aboveground storage tanks,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 115.
Radiowave-based process recovers oil from sludge at Texas
site,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 2, 1996, p. 66.
Vivona, M.A. and Delany, T.P., ‘‘Use enhanced coatings to
safeguard wastewater systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 93.
Thurman, J., ‘‘Do you manage your environmental risks
effectively?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12,
Dec. 1996, p. 99.
Stokman, Sofia K., Sogorka, Brian J., ‘‘Soil contamination:
Dealing with petroleum spills,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Jan. 1997, p. 113.
Zetter, M.S. and Gethner, J.S., ‘‘Use software to power-
up analyzers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01,
Jan. 1997, p. 83.
Mandel, S.B., ‘‘What is the total cost for emissions monitor-
ing?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 99.
Saunders, Barbara, ‘‘U.S. refiners must piece together RFG,
pollution control puzzle,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 6,
1997, p. 18.
Miller, L.R. and Kroll, T.R., ‘‘Minimize environmental
impacts when replacing underground pipe,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb. 1997, p. 85.
Musumeci, Joseph, ‘‘Refiners match Rvp reduction measures
to operating problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 3,
1997, p. 57.
Hassan, N., ‘‘Successfully transfer HPI proprietary technol-
ogy,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb.
1997, p. 91.
References
TOC/INDEX
Huban, Christopher M., Plowman, Robert D., ‘‘Bioaugmen-
tation: Put microbes to work,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Mar. 1997, p. 74.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
Walsh, Brian, McDonald, G.W.G., and Perkins, J. Douglas,
‘‘Canadian refiner finds simple route to reformulated gas-
oline production,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997,
p. 70.
Saunders, Barbara, ‘‘Major overcapacity woes loom for oxy-
genates despite rising demand,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
31, 1997, p. 21.
‘‘EPA proposes changes to U.S. RFG program,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 7, 1997, p. 32.
Chesnoy, Andre-Bernard and Pack, David J., ‘‘S8 threatens
natural gas operations, environment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 28, 1997, p. 74.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Improve VOC emission predictions,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 119.
Jackson, S.L., ‘‘ISO 14000: What you need to know,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997,
p. 133.
Kinsley, George P., Dusing, David C., and Price, Michael E.,
‘‘Accidental chemical releases: An ounce of prevention,’’
Chemical Engineering, May 1997, p. 169.
Roote, Diane S., et al, ‘‘Groundwater clean-up options,’’
Chemical Engineering, May 1997, p. 104
Clift, M.T., ‘‘Reduce storage tank emissions,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 121.
‘‘EPA eyes changes for RFG imports,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 12, 1997, p. 36.
‘‘Fuel reformulation has benefits but may not reduce NOx
emission,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 19, 1997, p. 78.
Spencer, C.L. and Watson, L.A., ‘‘Optimize wastewater
operations,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06,
Jun. 1997, p. 77.
Tate, J.D., Chauvel, Paul, and Taylor, Kent, ‘‘Monitor ambi-
ent air with optical sensing systems,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, June 1997, p. 110.
Ray, Isaac, ‘‘Particulate emissions: Evaluating removal meth-
ods,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1997, p. 135.
Turner, J., ‘‘Control corrosion in washwater systems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 87.
Shelley, Suzanne, ‘‘Destroying emissions with catalysts,’’
Chemical Engineering, July 1997, p. 57.
Sulkowski, John, Process safety and risk management: Is
your facility under control?’’, Chemical Engineering, Aug.
1997, p. 119.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Control valve fugitive emissions,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 45.
Iyer, K.R., ‘‘Pump seal standard API 682 has deficiencies,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 49.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Colbert, G.L., et al, ‘‘Make boiler feedwater with lower
risks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug.
1997, p. 57.
PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
Cresswell, L.W., ‘‘Refining in the Former Soviet Union,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 67.
Shah, G.C., ‘‘Use ISO-14000 as a compliance and productiv-
ity tool,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug.
1997, p. 75.
Braithwaite, J.R., ‘‘Improve sulfur unit reliability,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 79.
Moores, T. and Venkatesh, M., ‘‘Do your environmental
practices offer a payback?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 85.
Tedesco, J.A. and Cichon, E.J., ‘‘Outsource water/wastewa-
ter management,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 87.
Weiss, W.H., ‘‘Practicing ergonomics in the plant,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 125.
‘‘Oxygenates seen working as intended in U.S.,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 11, 1997, p. 31.
‘‘Closed-loop hydrocarbon recovery system meets waste
water regulations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 11, 1997,
p. 70.
Maimone, Mark, ‘‘Coping with groundwater contamina-
tion,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1997, p. 195.
Johnston, Alan, ‘‘Breathing easy,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Nov. 1997, p. 147.
‘‘Ion exchange: Curb water and chemical use,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Dec. 1997, p. 117.
Keller, Robert A., Dyer, James A., ‘‘Abating halogenated
VOCs,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1998, p. 100.
Zwayyed, Saleem K., Novak, Rudy G., ‘‘Predicting actual
incinerator system capacity,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan.
1998, p. 115.
XI. INSTRUMENTATION, PRODUCT BLENDING,
AND QUALITY CONTROL
Dailey, W.V., ‘‘Improve process analyzer availability,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 69.
Gruhn, P., ‘‘Safety system performance terms: clearing up
the confusion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02,
Feb. 1993, p. 63.
Beckman, L.V., ‘‘Selecting redundant microprocessor-based
systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 71.
Kobyakov, A.I., ‘‘Include heuristics in protection systems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993,
p. 79.
Edalat, M., Bozar-Jomehri, R.B., and Mansoori, G.A., ‘‘Gen-
eralized equation predicts vapor pressure of hydrocar-
bons,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 1, 1993, p. 39.
217
TOC/INDEX
Lipták, Béla G., ‘‘Level measurement with problem liquids,’’
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 130.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘FCC main fractionator revamps,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 77.
Haq, I., ‘‘Improve machinery vibration data,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 94.
Forsell, K.A., ‘‘Protect motors with solid-state overloads,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 100.
Zetter, M.S. and Politzer, B.A., ‘‘On-line octane control
with NIR analyzers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 103.
Dollar, R., et al., ‘‘Consider adaptive multivariable predictive
controllers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03,
Mar. 1993, p. 109.
King, Myke, ‘‘OIL MOVEMENTS—1: Automation of oil
movement systems prevents mistakes, saves money,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 76.
Crandall, John A., ‘‘How to specify, design and maintain
on-line process analyzers,’’ Chemical Engineering, Apr.
1993, p. 94.
Berkowitz, P.N., et al., ‘‘On-line optimal NGL recovery in
lean oil plants,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04,
Apr. 1993, p. 55.
Fleming, G. and Dupuis, G.E., ‘‘Hydrogen membrane recov-
ery estimates,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04,
Apr. 1993, p. 61.
Lin, T.D.V., ‘‘FCCU advanced control and optimization,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993,
p. 107.
King, Myke, ‘‘OIL MOVEMENTS—Conclusion: Integrat-
ing oil movement and data systems beefs project benefits,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
Kopple, L.B., ‘‘Information system master planning,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993, p. 45.
Yoshimura, J.S., ‘‘Computer integrated manufacturing/pro-
cessing in the HPI,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 05, May 1993, p. 65.
Haskins, D.E., ‘‘How to justify small-refinery info/control
system modernization,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 05, May 1993, p. 69.
Coonan, T. and Strobhar, D., ‘‘Manage plant modernization
projects ‘humanistically’,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993, p. 55.
Quernemoen, B.L., ‘‘When is part substitution okay?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993,
p. 101.
Hussain, M.S., ‘‘Improve planetary gear vibration analysis,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993,
p. 105.
DiFoggio, Rocco, Sadhukhan, Maya, and Ranc, Martha
L., ‘‘Near-infrared techniques for octane analysis have
limitations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 3, 1993, p. 87.
218
Lines, B., et al., ‘‘Polyethylene reactor modeling and control
design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 119.
Hodgson, Steve and Holden, David, ‘‘Scaling new heights
in plant automation,’’ Chemical Engineering, July 1993,
p. 103.
Dragoo, R.E. and Letendre, R., ‘‘Manage costs in real time,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 41.
Stoll, K.E., et al., ‘‘Simplify fuzzy controller implementa-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July
1993, p. 49.
King, M.J. and Evans, H.N., ‘‘Assessing your competitors’
application of CIM/CIP,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 57.
Roberson, C.G., et al., ‘‘Benefits of standardized advanced
controls,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July
1993, p. 63.
Pelham, R.O., ‘‘Process optimization in the HPI,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 69.
Riazi, Mohammad-Reza and Mansoori, G. Ali, ‘‘Simple
equation of state accurately predicts hydrocarbon densi-
ties,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 12, 1993, p. 108.
Agar, G., et al., ‘‘Energy absorption probes control oily-
water discharges,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 55.
Singh, B., et al., ‘‘Heavy oil viscosity range from one test,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993,
p. 157.
Jaisinghani, R., et al., ‘‘Delayed coker fractionator advanced
control,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug.
1993, p. 173.
‘‘EPA to require addition of dye to higher-sulfur diesel fuel,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 2, 1993, p. 76.
Visigalli, R., et al., ‘‘Predict AGO quality,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 47.
Anon, ‘‘Advanced process control strategies ’93,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 77.
Wadi, I., ‘‘Take an integrated approach to refinery automa-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept.
1993, p. 155.
Leibovici, C.F., et al., ‘‘Improve prediction with data recon-
ciliation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 79.
Hall, J. and Verne, T., ‘‘RCU optimization in a DCS gives
fast payback,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10,
Oct. 1993, p. 85.
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.
Valleur, M., ‘‘Integrate offsites management with informa-
tion systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11,
Nov. 1993, p. 63.
Pugh, T., et al., ‘‘Improve heat exchanger leak detection,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 85.
References
TOC/INDEX
Christie, D.A., ‘‘Improve plant performance with automa-
tion studies,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11,
Nov. 1993, p. 103.
Gill, Milton R., Sisk, Linden B., Warren, Wayne F., and
Simpson, Terry W., ‘‘PLC/PC monitoring, control sys-
tems a boon for smaller NGL plants,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 1, 1993, p. 62.
Khan, H.U., Dilawar, S.V.K., Nautiyal, S.P., and Srivastava,
S.P., ‘‘New methods determine pour point more accu-
rately than ASTM D-97,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 1,
1993, p. 74.
Bayard, Pete, ‘‘Improved, integrated yield-accounting system
saves time and money,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 22,
1993, p. 67.
Wentworth, Craig E., ‘‘Guidelines useful for incorporating
DCS in existing process plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
29, 1993, p. 74.
Smithline, Herb, ‘‘Practical guidelines for temperature mea-
surement.’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1993, p. 78.
Lewis, Clifford W., ‘‘Accuracy in temperature measure-
ments,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1993, p. 85.
Early, P.L., Jr., and Miller, J., ‘‘Fieldbus: How a worldwide
standard will benefit the HPI,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 107.
Wittliff, M., et al., ‘‘Improve plant reliability with informa-
tion systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01,
Jan. 1994, p. 63.
Page, E.A. and Berggren, J.C., ‘‘Improve predictive mainte-
nance with HFE monitoring,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 69.
Faust, E., ‘‘Pressure calibration standards: How accurate
should they be?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 79.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘U.S. reformulated gasoline rule complex,
confusing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 17, 1994, p. 16.
‘‘When a refinery stops making JP-4,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 17, 1994, p. 17.
Morris, William E., Smith, William E., and Snee, Ronald D.,
‘‘Interaction blending equations enhance reformulated
gasoline profitability,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 17,
1994, p. 54.
‘‘California refiners’ RFG worries compounded by dual
rules,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 24, 1994, p. 17.
‘‘GPM Gas Corp. brings New Mexico plant on line,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 24, 1994, p. 41.
Lee, Anthony L., Feldkirchner, Harlan L., Gamez, Jorge P.,
and Meyer, Howard S., ‘‘Membrane process for CO2
removal tested at Texas plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan.
31, 1994, p. 90.
Lang, G.A., ‘‘NIRs monitor critical gasoline parameters,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994,
p. 69.
Radigan, M.J., ‘‘How to select a continuous emission moni-
toring system,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02,
Feb. 1994, p. 73.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Jiskoot, R.J.J., ‘‘Improve natural gas sampling techniques,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994,
p. 77.
Moon, J., ‘‘Monitor fluid density accurately,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 87.
Friedman, Y.Z., ‘‘Model-based control of crude product
qualities,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb.
1994, p. 97.
Anderson, Jim, et al., ‘‘Getting the most from advanced
process control,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 78.
McPherson, Lori, ‘‘Understanding ORP systems,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 143.
Albers, J.E., ‘‘Data reconciliation with unmeasured vari-
ables,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar.
1994, p. 65.
‘‘Meters to answer needs for low cost EFM, energy measure-
ment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 49.
Trosper, Robert L., Stubbs, Robert G., and Carver, Darrell,
‘‘New Mexico gas plant operator automates field control,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 54.
Stark, Stephen T., and Heuer, Richard D., ‘‘Testing paves
way for electronic flow monitoring system,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 58.
‘‘European diesel fuel quality continues to improve,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 14, 1994, p. 68.
Morgan, S.W., et al., ‘‘Improve process training with
dynamic simulation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 51.
Treiber, S., et al., ‘‘Optimize control of natural gas plants,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 04, Apr. 1994,
p. 63.
Poynter, Wesley G., and Barrios, Roy J., ‘‘Coulometric Karl
Fischer titration simplifies water content testing,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 11, 1994, p. 53.
Ziegler, J.G. and Connell, J.R., ‘‘For optimum control:
Modify the process, not the controls-Part I,’’ Chemical
Engineering, May 1994, p. 132.
McCracken, Philip G., ‘‘Technical audits and crucial clues,’’
Chemical Engineering, May 1994, p. 161.
Iscovici, R.S., ‘‘Kinetic model solves visbreaker constraint
control problem,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 05, May 1994, p. 109.
Boyes, Walt, ‘‘Look at your process non-invasively,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, June 1994, p. 84.
Edwards, L.A. and Kipper, J.P., ‘‘Computerization: prob-
lems and solutions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 06, June 1994, p. 57.
Semwal, Prem B., and Varshney, Ram G., ‘‘New pour point
correlations improve economics of distillate blending,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, June 6, 1994, p. 89.
‘‘New correlations predict diesel cold-flow properties accu-
rately,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 20, 1994, p. 51.
Welch, William T., Bain, Michael L., Maggard, Steven M.,
and May, Jack M., ‘‘Experience leads to accurate design
219
TOC/INDEX
of NIR gasoline analysis systems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
June 27, 1994, p. 48.
Ziegler, J.G. and Connell, J.R., ‘‘For optimum control:
Modify your process- Part 2,’’ Chemical Engineering, July
1994, p. 107.
Wilson, David H., ‘‘Automate bulk-solids delivery with feed-
back control,’’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1994, p. 87.
Brenner, Raul, ‘‘Nuclear radiation sees it all,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Aug. 1994, p. 118.
Cunningham, D.B., ‘‘Adaptive control of sulfur recovery
units,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug.
1994, p. 147.
Book, Neil, Sitton, Oliver, et al., ‘‘The road to a common
Byte,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 98.
Farley, K.R. and Kennedy, J.P., ‘‘Constructing a refinery
information system,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 43.
Michalek, T.F., et al, ‘‘Using a relational database for blend
optimization,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09,
Sept. 1994, p. 47.
Ramaganesan, S., et al, ‘‘Online quality control of multivari-
able systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09,
Sept. 1994, p. 51.
Lange, S.T., ‘‘Considerations for batch control,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 61.
Perino, J.O., et al, ‘‘Process model-based multivariable con-
trol alternatives,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 65.
Daubert, T.E., ‘‘Petroleum fraction distillation interconver-
sions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept.
1994, p. 75.
Dean, C. and Stevenson, D., ‘‘How to develop calibration
curves for fuel gas,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 97.
Giacone, G.D. and Logue, D.A., ‘‘Updated advanced con-
trols improve hydrocracker performance,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994, p. 103.
Espinosa, Alain, Sanchez, Michel, Osta, Sebastien, Boniface,
Christian, Gil, Jose, Martens, Andre, Descales, Bernard,
Lambert, Didier, and Valleur, Marc, ‘‘On-line NIR analy-
sis and advanced control improve gasoline blending,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 17, 1994, p. 49.
Williams, A.K., et al, ‘‘Reformer model improves control,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov. 1994,
p. 43.
San, Yip Poh, Landells, Keith, and Mackay, David C.,
‘‘INFERENTIAL CONTROL—Part 1: Crude unit
advanced controls pass accuracy and repeatability tests,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 28, 1994, p. 76.
Wenstrup, Robert A., ‘‘When control instruments ‘talk’,
performance improves,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec.
1994, p. 80.
Nishikawa, Tadashi, Kobayashi, Takashi, et al., ‘‘Take pres-
sure sensing to new levels,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec.
1994, p. 86.
220
Bakker, Andre, Smith, John M., and Myers, Kevin J., ‘‘How
to disperse gases in liquids,’ Chemical Engineering, Dec.
1994, p. 98.
Friedman, Y.Z., ‘‘Tuning averaging level controllers,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994,
p. 101.
San, Yip Poh, Landells, Keith, and Mackay, David C.,
‘‘INFERENTIAL CONTROL—Conclusion: Crude
unit controls reduce quality giveaway,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 5, 1994, p. 56.
‘‘Russian gas plant gets advanced UV monitoring,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 19, 1994, p. 131.
Cohen, M.H. and Arzenheimer, M., ‘‘Benefits of advanced
process control maintenance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 49.
Stobbe, A.W., ‘‘Manage leak detection and repair programs
cost-effectively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01,
Jan. 1995, p. 101.
Crandall, J.A., ‘‘How to choose an online analytical system,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995,
p. 69.
Hennigan, S. and Day, S., ‘‘Improve portable monitor selec-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb.
1995, p. 76.
Espinosa, A., et al, ‘‘Use NIR technology to optimize plant
operations,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02,
Feb. 1995, p. 86.
Alexander, R.E. and Vickers, A.K., ‘‘Use new detectors to
find halogenated contaminants,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 93.
Padalkar, Samir, Karsal, Gabor, et al., ‘‘Online diagnostics
makes manufacturing more robust—Part 1,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1995, p. 80.
Riner, J.L., Hashemian, H.M., et al., ‘‘Online testing assures
integrity of sensors, Part 2,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1995, p. 84.
Richard, L., et al, ‘‘Advanced control improves MHC-VGO
unit operation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 03,
Mar. 1995, p. 163.
Richard, Lynn A., Spencer, Mark, Schuster, Rudolf, Tup-
pinger, Dieter M., and Wilmsen, Wilhelm, ‘‘Austrian
refiner benefits from advanced control,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 20, 1995, p. 70.
Trotter, Remi, ‘‘The many measures of fine particles,’’ Chem-
ical Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 78.
Jung, C.S., et al, ‘‘MPC improves reformer control,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 115.
Parker, Sarah, ‘‘On the level. Measuring liquids: A guide
for CPI users,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1995, p. 76.
George, J.A., ‘‘Use barstock instrument valves to save space
and money,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05,
May 1995, p. 69.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Measure engineering performance,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 108A.
References
TOC/INDEX
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Gasoline formulations draw interest at
technical meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 22, 1995,
p. 61.
Baratti, R., et al, ‘‘Neural network modeling of distillation
columns,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June
1995, p. 35.
Koppel, L.B., ‘‘Quantify information system benefits,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995,
p. 41.
Ramasamy, S., et al, ‘‘Consider neural networks for process
identification,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06,
June 1995, p. 59.
Korchinski, W.J., ‘‘Advanced level control: explained and
analyzed,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June
1995, p. 65.
Wells, W. and Taylor, K.L., ‘‘Chemical plant satisfies OSHA
and ISO standards,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 06, June 1995, p. 169.
Bullerdiek, Edward A., and Hobbs, James W., ‘‘Advanced
controls pay out in 6 weeks at Texas refinery,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, June 19, 1995, p. 46.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling centrifugal pumps,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July 1995, p. 43.
Haskell, D.M., ‘‘New approach to thermodynamics
improves custody transfer,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 07, July 1995, p. 51.
Ostling, H., ‘‘Consider vortex flowmeters for gas custody
transfer,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July
1995, p. 61.
Verne, Tim, and Hall, Jim, ‘‘Advanced controls improve
operation of lubes plant dewaxing unit,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, July 24, 1995, p. 25.
Leahy, M.C. and Erickson, G.P., ‘‘Bioventing reduces soil
cleanup costs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08,
Aug. 1995, p. 63.
Ranade, S.M. and Braswell, J.B., ‘‘How to design a styrene-
vapor collection and disposal system,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 89.
Agrawal, S.S., ‘‘Integrate blending control, optimization and
planning,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug.
1995, p. 129.
Boland, Mark, ‘‘Boost plant performance through upgraded
instrumentation,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1995,
p. 80.
Forest, John, ‘‘ISO 9000: Putting the quality process to
work,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1995, p. 90.
Bird, Warren A., ‘‘ISO 14000: How to decide what is right
for your company,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1995,
p. 94.
Murphy, John M., ‘‘ISO certification: Use quality-manage-
ment software as a guide,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1995, p.98.
‘‘Advanced control and information systems ’95,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 67.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
‘‘Interkama/ISA Shows ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 69.
Haxthausen, Niels, ‘‘The painkiller for batch control head-
aches,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1995, p. 119.
Jones, R.B., ‘‘Use reliability-centered maintenance to iden-
tify real-world,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10,
Oct. 1995, p. 57.
Friedman, Y.Z., ‘‘What’s wrong with unit closed loop opti-
mization?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct.
1995, p. 107.
‘‘European gasoline survey shows decreasing lead, MON,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 77.
Golden, S.W., et al, ‘‘Refinery analytical techniques optimize
unit performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 85.
Kuttelwascher, H. and Rhemann, H., ‘‘Tank farm automa-
tion with a DCS,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 149.
Barszczewski, L. and Flanagan, M.A., ‘‘Detect shaft cracks
earlier,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov.
1995, p. 155.
Lambert, D., et al., ‘‘Optimize steam cracking with online
NIR analysis,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12,
Dec. 1995, p. 103.
Vardy, Joel M., ‘‘Process control improvement via discov-
ery,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1996, p. 88.
Grover, P., et al., ‘‘Find equipment misalignment quickly
and easily,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan.
1996, p. 57.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-year-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 105.
Bascur, O.A. and Kennedy, J.P., ‘‘Measuring, managing and
maximizing refinery performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 111.
Strozier, Robert W., ‘‘Unocal’s patent of gasoline formulas
is complex,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 43.
Diaz, A. and Barsamian, J.A., ‘‘Meet changing fuel require-
ments with online blend optim.,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 71.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 87.
‘‘New HF detector accepted for use by refining consortium,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 46.
‘‘Fiber optic sensing detects hot spots in methane reformers,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 47.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling shell and tube exchangers,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996,
p. 111.
Hobman, G., ‘‘Electrical and instrumentation CAD improve
plant design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03,
Mar. 1996, p. 133.
Skinner, F. Douglas, Kosch, and Gamez, Jorge P., ‘‘Analyzer
for H2S, CO2 promises savings for amine operations,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 11, 1996, p. 76.
221
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Venezuelan refiner completes $2.5 billion
refinery expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1996, p. 51.
Bauman, D.E., ‘‘Interpreting short circuit study coordina-
tion curves,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04,
Apr. 1996, p. 61.
Spencer, C. and Tolpa, G., ‘‘Use computer-based design
tools to meet OSHA reporting crit.,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 75, No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 79.
Liesenring Jr., Roger L., ‘‘Low sulfur diesel controversy con-
tinues,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 75.
Pomroy, James, ‘‘Selecting the right flowmeter,’’ Chemical
Engineering, May 1996, p. 94.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling positive displacement
pumps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May
1996, p. 47.
Belevich, P., ‘‘Selecting and applying flowmeters,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 67.
Clevett, K.J., ‘‘Improve process analyzer performance,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996,
p. 77.
Zilberman, I., et al, ‘‘Use telecommunications for real-time
process control,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 05, May 1996, p. 91.
Frish, M.B. and Melnyk, J.M., ‘‘Detect fugitive emissions
with lasers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05,
May 1996, p. 99.
Alverson, Ed and Mullenix, Andrew J., ‘‘New process
removes inorganic chlorides from reformate,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1996, p. 78.
‘‘Fieldbus technology passes beta tests at Texas plant,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 20, 1996, p. 78.
Goble, W.M., ‘‘Using PLCs in safety applications,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June 1996, p. 47.
‘‘Process design and optimization ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June 1996, p. 51.
Yoon, Seongkyu, Dasgupta, Surajit, and Mijares, Gerardo,
‘‘Real-time optimization boosts capacity of Korean olefins
plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1996, p. 36.
Pelham, R. and Pharris, C., ‘‘Refinery operations and con-
trol: a future vision,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 07, July 1996, p. 89.
‘‘Integrating process design and control improves plant oper-
ability,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 15, 1996, p. 67.
Martinez, Heberto, and Garcia, César Ortega, ‘‘Venezuelan
plant completes instrument upgrade,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July 22, 1996, p. 37.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—Conclusion: Process control strategies key
to refining operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 22,
1996, p. 45.
Tay, M.E., ‘‘Keeping tabs on plant energy and mass flow,’’
Chemical Engineering, Sep. 1996, p. 82.
Bodington, C.E. and Shobrys, D.E., ‘‘Optimize the supply
chain,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep.
1996, p. 55.
222 References
Brambilla, A. and Trivella, F., ‘‘Estimate product quality
with Anns,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09,
Sep. 1996, p. 61.
Giacone, G., et al, ‘‘Manage fuel gas with an expert system,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep. 1996,
p. 69.
Kennedy, J.P., ‘‘Reengineering refinery systems: the next
generation desktop,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 75.
Deshpande, P. E., et al, ‘‘Improve control with software
monitoring technologies,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 81.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Integrated process plant management
systems proliferating,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1996, p. 31.
Gomez, José Vicente, ‘‘New equations predict boiling point
from viscosity, gravity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1996, p. 92.
Chia, T.L., et al, ‘‘Modular multivariable control improves
hydrocracking,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 10, Oct. 1996, p. 107.
Sigal, R., ‘‘Challenges in simulating heat exchanger net-
works,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct.
1996, p. 125.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling steam heaters,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 151.
Wadi, Issam, ‘‘Neural network model predicts naphtha cut
point,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 67.
Latour, P. R., ‘‘Process control: CLIFFTENT shows it’s
more profitable than,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 75.
Roffel, B. and Kanters, E.M., ‘‘Multivariable control of inte-
grated distillation towers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 87.
Zetter, M.S. and Gethner, J.S., ‘‘Use software to power-
up analyzers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01,
Jan. 1997, p. 83.
Davidson, F. and Tsang, C., ‘‘Improve online freeze and
cloud point control,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 95.
Mandel, S.B., ‘‘What is the total cost for emissions monitor-
ing?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 99.
Steinruck, P., et al, ‘‘Better reciprocating compressor capacity
control,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb.
1997, p. 79.
Robertson, D., et al, ‘‘Multivariable controller increased
MTBE complex capacity,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar. 1997, p. 53.
Anderson, M. and Dimmer, R.C., ‘‘Analyze trace sulfur
compounds in hydrocarbon gas streams,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 73.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling fired heaters,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 103.
TOC/INDEX
McCarthy, A.J. and Miller, U.R., ‘‘Inherently safer design
principles are proven in expansions,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 122.
Early, P.L., et al, ‘‘Integrated terminal operations improves
profitability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05,
May 1997, p. 101.
Clift, M.T., ‘‘Reduce storage tank emissions,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 121.
Chatterjee, S.R., ‘‘Control systems upgrade: a users perspec-
tive,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May
1997, p. 131.
Collins, Kevin, Treiber, Steven, and Walker, John, ‘‘Multi-
variable control benefits Alberta plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 5, 1997, p. 118.
‘‘Hungarian refiner to implement refinery-wide information
system,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 12, 1997, p. 64.
Tate, J.D., Chauvel, Paul, and Taylor, Kent, ‘‘Monitor ambi-
ent air with optical sensing systems,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, June 1997, p. 110.
Abdel-Waly, A.A., ‘‘New correlation estimates viscosity of
paraffinic stocks,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 16, 1997,
p. 61.
White, D.C., ‘‘Online optimization: what, where and esti-
mating ROI,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06,
Jun. 1997, p. 43.
Rinehart, N. and Jury, F., ‘‘How control valves impact
process optimization,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 06, Jun. 1997, p. 53.
Ezernack, D.D., ‘‘Minimize FCCU startup problems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 67.
Garg, A., ‘‘Optimize fired heater operations to save money,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 97.
Funk, G.L., ‘‘Wanted: a few good technologies,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997, p. 143.
Haveman, K.H., Jr. and McGhee, M.C., ‘‘Using mass meters
for liquid measurement,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 73.
Albers, J.E., ‘‘Online data reconciliation and error detec-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul.
1997, p. 101.
‘‘How evolving new fuel specs are challenging Asia’s refin-
ers,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 7, 1997, p. 35.
Vermeer, Peter J., Pedersen, Clifford C., Canney, William
M., and Ayala, John S., ‘‘Blend-control system all but
eliminates reblends for Canadian refiner,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 28, 1997, p. 74.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Control valve fugitive emissions,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 45.
Cresswell, L.W., ‘‘Refining in the Former Soviet Union,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 67.
van Wijck, M.P.C.M., et al, ‘‘Implementing reformer
advanced control on PC platforms,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 91.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Weaver, C.E., ‘‘Applying FT-IR in chemical cleaning,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 97.
Milosevic, Zoran and Ponhöfer, Clemens, ‘‘Refiner improves
steam system with custom simulation/optimization pack-
age,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 25, 1997, p. 90.
Mastrogiacomo, Michael, Bilodeau, Denis, Treiber, Steven,
and Walker, John, ‘‘Advanced control of hydrogen net-
work reduces energy consumption,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 1, 1997, p. 72.
Markman, Scott, ‘‘A new look at sight glass gages,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 1997, p. 130.
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.
Holm, Peter, ‘‘Offshore TEG dehydration unit performance
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., ‘‘Louisiana
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, Glenn C., and Ross, Michael M.,
‘‘Noncryogenic N2-rejection process gets Hugoton field
test,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 24, 1993, p. 62.
‘‘Italian refinery plans cogen unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May
31, 1993, p. 78.
Sasson, Richard and Pate, Robin, ‘‘Retraying and revamp
double big LPG fractionator’s capacity,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Aug. 2, 1993, p. 71.
Connell, David E., Horth, Paul, and Powell, R.H.W., ‘‘Anal-
ysis sets optimum C3 recovery for N. Sea gas terminal,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 74.
‘‘Temporary sweetening unit aids early oil, gas production,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 13, 1995, p. 74.
223
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Syngas plant eyes anhydrous ammonia increase,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 13, 1995, p. 31.
Butts, R. Clark, Chou, Kelley, and Slaton, Barbara, ‘‘Nitro-
gen-rejection process developed for small fields,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 13, 1995, p. 92.
‘‘Biocatalytic desulfurization under way,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 20, 1995, p. 42.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Texas refiner optimizes by integrating
units from idle plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20,
1995, p. 49.
Cressman, Paul R., Hurren, Maureen L., Smith, Edward
F., and Holbrook, David L., ‘‘Caustic-Free jet fuel Merox
unit reduces waste disposal,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
20, 1995, p. 80.
Festen, Leo J.F.M., Bronneberg, Joseph P.A., Brugman,
Wilfried P.T., Hartmann, David W., and Huber, Brian
L., ‘‘Gas treatment installed on Dutch North Sea plat-
form,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1995, p. 95.
Knott, David, ‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: Bug process
studied for low sulfur diesel,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
3, 1995, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K. ‘‘Enzymes desulfurizing diesel fuel in pilot
plant tests,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 15, 1995, p. 39.
Corbett, Richard A., ‘‘Conversions to non-CFC refrigerants
simple, inexpensive,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 29,
1995, p. 32.
Carnell, Peter J.H., Joslin, Ken W., and Woodham, Peter
R., ‘‘Fixed-bed processes provide flexibility for COS, H2S
removal,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 5, 1995, p. 52.
‘‘Liquids from coal plant due in Tennessee,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 19, 1995, p. 26.
Lane, Mark J., and Huey, Melton A., ‘‘Lithium bromide
absorption chiller passes gas conditioning field test,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, July 31, 1995, p. 70.
Summers, Daniel R., McGuire, Peter J., Resetarits, Michael
R., Graves, Caryn E., Harper, Steven E., and Angelino,
Salvatore J., ‘‘High capacity trays debottleneck Texas C3
splitter,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 6, 1995, p. 45.
‘‘Fiber optic sensing detects hot spots in methane reformers,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 47.
Martin, Gary R., ‘‘Refinery experience provides guidelines
for centrifugal pump selection,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
11, 1996, p. 80.
‘‘Key work practices lower refinery operating costs,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996, p. 50.
Durand, Alejandro Anaya, Osorio, Rául Abraján, and Suárez,
Rogelio Hernández, ‘‘New program sizes pressure-relief
drums,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 6, 1996, p. 104.
‘‘Sasol schedules major upgrade of synfuel plant,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 44.
Heaven, David L., ‘‘Gasification converts variety of problem
feedstocks and wastes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,
1996, p. 49.
‘‘BP plant to get gas fired power unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 26, 1996, p. 23.
224 References
‘‘Texas JV to burn residue gas in cogen unit,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 23, 1996, p. 43.
‘‘Work starts on S. African TAME unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 28, 1996, p. 24.
Hohl, Howard M., ‘‘Flameless thermal oxidation reduces
emissions at California refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
4, 1996, p. 77.
‘‘Conoco inaugurates new unit at its U.K. Humber refinery,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 21.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Gasification, polygeneration, capture interest
of refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9, 1996, p. 40.
Bravo, Roberto Del, Starace, Francesco, Chellini, Igino M.,
and Chiantore, Paolo V., ‘‘Italian IGCC project sets pace
for new refining era,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9,
1996, p. 43.
‘‘New etherification process commercialized in Finland,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 6, 1997, p. 44.
Walsh, Brian, McDonald, G.W.G., and Perkins, J. Douglas,
‘‘Canadian refiner finds simple route to reformulated gas-
oline production,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997,
p. 70.
‘‘New technology appears to perform several processes in
one step,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 80.
XIII. LUBE OIL & WAXES
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Refinery operating variables key to
enhanced lube oil quality,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 4,
1993, p. 45.
‘‘New extraction-based re-refining process saves money,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 30, 1994, p. 87.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Bloch, Heinz P., and Williams, John B., ‘‘Synthetic lubri-
cants measure up to claims,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan.
1995, p. 127.
Mowrer, D.S., ‘‘Use quantitative analysis to manage fire
risk,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr.
1995, p. 123.
Kastner, H. and Kaminsky, W., ‘‘Recycle plastics into feed-
stocks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 109.
Verne, Tim, and Hall, Jim, ‘‘Advanced controls improve
operation of lubes plant dewaxing unit,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, July 24, 1995, p. 25.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 8, 1996, p. 68.
Hairston, Deborah, ‘‘Slip sliding in lubricants,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 64.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Conoco, Pennzoil start up lubes plant in Louisiana,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 21, 1997, p. 26.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘New lubes plants use state-of-the-art
hydrodewaxing technology,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 1,
1997, p. 63.
XIV. MAINTENANCE
‘‘Nelson-Farrar Cost Index,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, 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.
Pradhan, S., ‘‘Apply reliability centered maintenance to seal-
less pumps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01,
Jan. 1993, p. 43.
Singh, B., ‘‘Specifying clad CRA piping,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 51.
Peterson, J.R. and Davidse, G.J., ‘‘Consider pump cast
refractory for critical linings,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 55.
Nelson, W.E., ‘‘Improve relief valve reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 59.
Dailey, W.V., ‘‘Improve process analyzer availability,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 69.
Gamboa, R., ‘‘Consider insulation reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 73.
‘‘Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 4, 1993, p. 52; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 64.
Campos, Mario Cesar M.M., and Rodrigues, Paulo Sergio
B., ‘‘Practical control strategy eliminates FCCU compres-
sor surge problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 11, 1993,
p. 29.
Thorman, G.O. and Unruh, C., ‘‘Use a simple color code for
maintenance priorities,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 116-D.
Bloch, Heinz, ‘‘Bearing seals ward off failures,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 149.
Haq, I., ‘‘Improve machinery vibration data,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 94.
Forsell, K.A., ‘‘Protect motors with solid-state overloads,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 100.
Karassik, I.J., ‘‘When to maintain centrifugal pumps,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993,
p. 101.
‘‘New cat converter design for compressors cuts service time,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 19, 1993, p. 53.
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.
Hussain, M.S., ‘‘Improve planetary gear vibration analysis,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993,
p. 105.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Woollatt, D., ‘‘Factors affecting reciprocating compressor
performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06,
June 1993, p. 57.
Leonard, S.C., ‘‘Improve maintenance reliability,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 162-C.
El Sherif, A.H., ‘‘Monitor lube-oil quality in service,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 171.
Andrews, Robert and Weber, Paul, ‘‘High pressure opera-
tions: Part 1: Upkeep of equipment,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1993, p. 98.
Hingoraney, Rajan, ‘‘Putting expert systems to work,’’ Chem-
ical Engineering, Jan. 1994, p. 121.
Pradhan, S., ‘‘Maintenance strategies for greater availability,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 39.
Ward, K.A., ‘‘Retrofitting older turbomachinery with vibra-
tion monitors,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01,
Jan. 1994, p. 49.
Rayner, R.E., ‘‘Better metallurgy for process equipment,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 53.
Wittliff, M., et al., ‘‘Improve plant reliability with informa-
tion systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01,
Jan. 1994, p. 63.
Page, E.A. and Berggren, J.C., ‘‘Improve predictive mainte-
nance with HFE monitoring,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 69.
Young, L.A. and Key, W.E., ‘‘Select the right seal barrier
fluid,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan.
1994, p. 74.
Faust, E., ‘‘Pressure calibration standards: How accurate
should they be?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 79.
‘‘NPRA MAINTENANCE Q&A: Engineers discuss main-
tenance programs, procedures at meeting,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 24, 1994, p. 42.
Clark, Ed and Littlefield, David, ‘‘Maximize centrifugal
pump reliability,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1994,
p. 90.
Myers, Philip E., ‘‘OSHA confined-space reg interpreted for
storage tank operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 14,
1994, p. 84.
Murphy, Martin A., ‘‘Analysis, calculation techniques pre-
dict FCC erosion and fluidization,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 21, 1994, p. 54.
‘‘Gas turbine unit pushes past 300,000 hr of service,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 49.
Roy, G.K., ‘‘Improve FCCU expander reliability,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 67.
Van Way, Chris, ‘‘Plant replacement key to Louisiana field
revival,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28, 1994, p. 58.
El Sherif, A.H., ‘‘Analyze bearing problems by ball path
inspection,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 04,
Apr. 1994, p. 120.
McGuiness, N., ‘‘Specifying and applying metal-seated ball
valves,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July
1994, p. 48.
225
TOC/INDEX
Ricketts, Richard, ‘‘Survey points to practices that reduce
refinery maintenance spending,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July
4, 1994, p. 37.
King, G.P. and Sinauskas, D., ‘‘Does the HON apply to
your facility?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08,
Aug. 1994, p. 47.
Gomaa, H. and Allawi, A., ‘‘Minimize air-toxic emissions,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 121.
Petersen, David G., ‘‘Capacitance: Redefining mainte-
nance,’’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1994, p. 78.
Deley, Stephen J., and Graf, Kenneth, ‘‘Random packing
debottlenecks refinery de-ethanizing stripper,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, p. 39.
Ciliberti, V. Anthony, ‘‘Ranking equipment critically,’’
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1994, p. 175.
Thielsch, Helmut, Cone Florence M., ‘‘Forestall failures
by nondestructive testing,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov.
1994, p. 112.
Bloch, Heinz P., ‘‘How and why centrifugal pumps continue
to fail,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1994, p. 122.
Rials, Ron, and Hagen, Ty, ‘‘Leak detection method ensures
integrity of double-bottom storage tanks,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 14, 1994, p. 74.
May, Donald L., ‘‘Automatic steam-load shedding cuts
costs,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1994, p. 117.
Ricketts, R., ‘‘Organize to manage reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 51.
Burns, B.M., ‘‘Try a maintenance ’makeover’,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 63.
Mancuso, J., et al, ‘‘Flexible-element couplings: How safe
is safe?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec.
1994, p. 93.
‘‘Mobil sites cause of refinery blast,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 26, 1994, p. 27.
Nelson, William E., Dufour, John W., ‘‘Problem-free pump-
ing systems: A guide to holistic design,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Jan. 1995, p. 87.
Haq, I., ‘‘Machinery vibration: origins, impressions and
cures,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan.
1995, p. 35.
Bloch, H. and Pate, A.R., ‘‘Consider synthetic lubricants
for process machinery,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 43.
Cohen, M.H. and Arzenheimer, M., ‘‘Benefits of advanced
process control maintenance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 49.
Stedham, D., ‘‘Are your valves operating at top efficiency?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 59.
Sutton, I.S., ‘‘Integrated management systems improve plant
reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan.
1995, p. 63.
Cassolato, B.M., ‘‘Use a spreadsheet for turbomachinery
alignment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan.
1995, p. 67.
226 References
Reynolds, John T., ‘‘Risk-based inspection improves safety
of pressure equipment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 16,
1995, p. 37.
Padalkar, Samir, Karsai, Gabor, et al., ‘‘Online diagnostics
makes manufacturing more robust, Part 1,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1995, p. 80.
Riner, J.L., Hashemian, H.M., et al., ‘‘Online testing assures
integrity of sensors, Part 2,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1995, p. 84.
LeBleu, J.B. and Hummel, B., ‘‘Consider FRP linings instead
of replacing storage tank bottoms,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 83.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Buecker, Brad, ‘‘Beware of condenser fouling,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 108.
Kreder, R.A., and Berwanger, P.C., ‘‘Making safety data
‘safe’,’’ Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 131.
Hassan, N., ‘‘How to achieve plant startups in developing
countries,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr.
1995, p. 84B.
Godse, A.G., ‘‘Understand mechanical seals,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 103.
Hayes, W.R., ‘‘Match valves with pumps to improve system
performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05,
May 1995, p. 45.
Smith, Bruce R., ‘‘Monitoring wet scrubbing performance,’’
Chemical Engineering, June 1995, p. 96.
Goyal, R. and Ramirez, R., ‘‘Reduce power outages,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995, p. 71.
Wells, W. and Taylor, K.L., ‘‘Chemical plant satisfies OSHA
and ISO standards,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 06, June 1995, p. 169.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Control VOC emissions,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 77.
Godse, A.G., ‘‘Improve reliability of liquid film shaft seals,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995,
p. 143.
Hassebrock, F., ‘‘Reduce losses through smarter valve selec-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct.
1995, p. 53.
Jones, R.B., ‘‘Use reliability-centered maintenance to iden-
tify real-world,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10,
Oct. 1995, p. 57.
Barzuza, Isaac, ‘‘Minimizing solids buildup in cooling
towers,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1995,p. 114.
Nelson-Farrar Cost Index, Oil & Gas Journal: Oct. 2, 1995,
p. 67; Nov. 6, 1995, p. 50; Dec. 4, 1995, p. 58; Jan. 1,
1996, p. 40; Feb. 5, 1996, p. 53; Mar. 4, 1996, p. 54;
Apr. 1, 1996, p. 68; May 6, 1996, p. 116; June 3, 1996,
p. 48; July 1, 1996, p. 123; Aug. 5, 1996, p. 44; Sept.
2, 1996, p. 80.
Nelson-Farrar Cost Index, Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7, 1996,
p. 91; Nov. 4, 1996, p. 89; Dec. 2, 1996, p. 67; Jan. 6,
1997, p. 51; Feb. 3, 1997, p. 53; Apr. 7,1997, p. 77;
TOC/INDEX
May 5, 1997, p. 112; June 2, 1997, p. 143; July 7, 1997,
p. 71; Aug. 4, 1997, p. 67; Sept. 1, 1997, p. 61.
Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating, Oil & Gas Journal:
Oct. 2, 1995, p. 78; Jan. 1, 1996, p. 52; Apr. 1, 1996,
p. 72; July 1, 1996, p. 124.
Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating, Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 7, 1996, p. 100; Jan. 6, 1997, p. 42; Apr. 7, 1997,
p. 78; July 7, 1997, p. 72.
Aglitz, John, Bhatnager, Rajender K., et al, ‘‘Installing liquid-
ring vacuum pumps,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov.
1995, p. 132.
Devender, A.V. and Ganesan, S.T., ‘‘Improve reliability with
operator log sheets,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 61.
Leonard, S.M., ‘‘Increase reliability of reciprocating hydro-
gen compressors,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 67.
Cervera, S.M., ‘‘Improve filtration for optimum equipment
reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan.
1996, p. 77.
Paluh, J.H., ‘‘Metallic flexible coupling service life and failure
modes,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan.
1996, p. 89.
Gabriel, R. and Lundy, W., ‘‘Industry initiative sets stan-
dards for pumps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 117.
Monroe, Perry C. Jr., ‘‘Pump installation: Penny pinch at
your own risk,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 88.
Reynolds, John A., ‘‘Use minimum flow data to prolong
centrifugal pump life,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1996, p. 92.
Whitmire, Kent, ‘‘Installing and maintaining gear pumps,’’
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 96.
Clark, Edward E., ‘‘Protect against rotating equipment
loss—Part 1: Steam turbines,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Mar. 1996, p. 106.
Nierman, Herbert H., ‘‘How to monitor pulsejet bag-
houses,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 114.
Roy, G.K., ‘‘Selecting heavy-duty or aero-derivative gas tur-
bines,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04, Apr.
1996, p. 57.
Roup, J.P., ‘‘The planning and scheduling process,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 157.
Martin, Gary R., ‘‘Refinery experience provides guidelines
for centrifugal pump selection,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, p. 80.
‘‘Key work practices lower refinery operating costs,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996, p. 50.
Reynolds, John A., ‘‘Use minimum flow data to prolong
centrifugal pump life,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1996, p. 92.
Nierman, Herbert H., and Hood, Alex M., ‘‘How to monitor
pulse-jet baghouses,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996,
p. 115.
Martin, G.R., ‘‘Pumps and NPSH: Avoid problems and
improve reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 05, May 1996, p. 63.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Mashburn, B.S. and Bailey, C.D., ‘‘A quality assurance pro-
gram for refurbished process plants,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 81.
Lamb, R.G., ‘‘Reengineer maintenance for corporate com-
petitiveness,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01,
Jan. 1996, p. 51.
Grover, P., et al, ‘‘Find equipment misalignment quickly
and easily,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan.
1996, p. 57.
Aisembrey, E.J., et al, ‘‘Computer delivery of operating and
maintenance procedures,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 100C.
Bloch, H.P., ‘‘How the best petrochemical companies
achieve reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 07, Jul. 1996, p. 83.
Revelt, Jean, ‘‘Don’t take electric motors for granted,’’ Chem-
ical Engineering, Aug. 1996, p. 84.
Daintith E. and Glatt, P., ‘‘Reduce costs with laser shaft
assignment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08,
Aug. 1996, p. 55.
Braithwaite, John, ‘‘Reliability program improves refinery
sulfur plant operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 2,
1996, p. 83.
Paxton, Nate, ‘‘Increasing longevity of valves,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 84.
Bays, Joseph N., ‘‘Minimizing wastes from vacuum pumping
systems,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 124.
Moore, Frank, ‘‘Cut stream-trap costs,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, Oct. 1996, p. 132.
McHaney, J.H. and Williamson, G.C., ‘‘Cost effective
response to equipment failure,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct. 1996, p. 75.
Idhammar, Christer, ‘‘Strive for maintenance without
waste,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1996, p. 163.
Myers, Philip E., ‘‘Use of video camera expedites tank inspec-
tion procedure,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 83.
Iyer, K.R., ‘‘Manage turnarounds effectively,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 100C.
Nosowicz, J. and Schopplein, W., ‘‘Experience with pump
gas seals,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 47.
McHaney, J.H. and Williamson, G.C., ‘‘Manage equipment
failure investigation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 53.
Twomey, M., ‘‘Detect corrosion under insulation,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 61.
Gupta, S.K. and Paisie, J.E., ‘‘Reduce turnaround costs,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan. 1997,
p. 67.
Lamb, R.G., ‘‘Reliability and maintenance strategy to drive
business performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 77.
Davidson, F. and Tsang, C., ‘‘Improve online freeze and
cloud point control,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 95.
227
TOC/INDEX
Golden, S.W., ‘‘Minimize capital investment for refinery
revamps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 103.
Vella, Philip, ‘‘Improved cleaning method safely removes
pyrophoric iron sulfide,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24,
1997, p. 65.
Hwang, Thomas T. and Wehnes, William C., ‘‘California
refinery meets seismic codes using new wrapping tech-
nique,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 31, 1997, p. 70.
Bozant, G.C., ‘‘Reduce automation costs in today’s HPI
facility,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May
1997, p. 178.
Bradt, D., ‘‘Use reliability, availability and maintainability
techniques to optimize system operation,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997, p. 63.
Ezernack, D.D., ‘‘Minimize FCCU startup problems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 67.
Weiss, W.H., ‘‘Designing and maintaining plant piping and
valve systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 59.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Control valve fugitive emissions,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 45.
Braithwaite, J.R., ‘‘Improve sulfur unit reliability,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 79.
Weaver, C.E., ‘‘Applying FT-IR in chemical cleaning,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 97.
Bloch, Heinz, ‘‘Automatic lubrication saves money,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Dec. 1997, p. 125.
Ray, Rudolf K., ‘‘Taking the guesswork out of plant upkeep,’’
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1998, p. 68.
Garcia-Borras, Thomas, ‘‘Improving boilers and furnaces,’’
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1998, p. 127.
XV. PIPING
Lindley, Nancy L. and Lloyd, Joe C., ‘‘Piping systems: How
installation costs stack up,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan.
1993, p. 94.
Kroupa, Ralph, ‘‘Selecting valves for tough conditions,’’
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1993, p. 74.
Spock, 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,’’ Chemical
Engineering, June 1993, p. 139.
Hartman, Richard R., ‘‘Piping design: One phase at a time-
Part I,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1993, p. 82.
Patel, M.R. and Mehta, B.P.S., ‘‘Optimize thermal insula-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 51.
Higoraney, Rajan, ‘‘Putting expert systems to work,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Jan. 1994, p. 121.
228 References
Baumann, H.D., ‘‘Solve valve noise and cavitation prob-
lems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar.
1997, p. 45.
Clark, Edward E., ‘‘Protect against rotating equipment
loss—Part 2: Compressors, gas turbines, engines,
motors,’’ Chemical Engineering, April 1997, p. 103.
Cassolato, B.M., ‘‘Turbogear bearing analysis,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 93.
Pylel, Alan S., ‘‘Efficient turbomachinery turnaround,’’
Chemical Engineering, May 1997, p. 132.
Clark, Ed and Littlefield, David, ‘‘Maximize centrifugal
pump reliability,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1994,
p. 90.
Murphy, Martin A., ‘‘Analysis, calculation techniques pre-
dict FCC erosion and fluidization,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 21, 1994, p. 54.
Yu, F.C., ‘‘Calculate optimum pipe size for vapor,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 99.
Sloane, B.A., ‘‘Select pipe size based on payback,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 55.
King, G.P. and Sinauskas, D., ‘‘Does the HON apply to
your facility?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08,
Aug. 1994, p. 47.
Gomaa, H. and Allawi, A., ‘‘Minimize air-toxic emissions,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 121.
Morran, Don, ‘‘How to design stressless steam lines-Part
II,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1994, p. 88.
Moustakakis, B., ‘‘Pitfalls of piping flexibility analysis,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994,
p. 99.
Broyles, R.K., ‘‘Improve high-temperature expansion joint
design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov.
1994, p. 55.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, ‘‘New equation predicts viscosity of
unknown hydrocarbon vapors,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
6, 1995, p. 60.
Cochran, T.W., ‘‘Simplifying piping network analysis,’’
Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 104.
Kreder, R.A., and Berwanger, P.C., ‘‘Making safety data
‘safe’,’’ Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 131.
Montgomery, G., ‘‘How to predict temperatures during gas
depressuring,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04,
Apr. 1995, p. 85.
Hayes, W.R., ‘‘Match valves with pumps to improve system
performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05,
May 1995, p. 45.
Kannappan, S., ‘‘Piping specifications: Determine the limit-
ing component,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 05, May 1995, p. 59.
Daniels, Lawrence, ‘‘Dealing with two-phase flows,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, June 1995, p. 70.
Baumann, Hans C., ‘‘What’s new in valve sizing,’’ Chemical
Engineering, June 1995, p. 104.
TOC/INDEX
Capps, Ronald W., ‘‘Select the optimum pipe size,’’ Chemical
Engineering, July 1995, p. 128.
Grosboll, M.P. and Stover, L., ‘‘Avoid flow maldistribution
problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07,
July 1995, p. 57.
Ranade, S.M. and Braswell, J.B., ‘‘How to design a styrene-
vapor collection and disposal system,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 89.
Hairston, Deborah, ‘‘Removing joints from plastic lined
pipe,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1995, p. 37.
Fitzgerald, Bill, ‘‘Keep valve top works from becoming a
bottom priority,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1995, p. 75.
Costello, Rocky C., ‘‘Pipeflow—A pressure drop calculator,’’
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1996, p. 125.
Paxton, Nate, ‘‘Increasing longevity of valves,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 84.
Wetzel, Loren, ‘‘Proper piping for vacuum systems,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Nov. 1996, p. 104.
Bell, Michael R., ‘‘Avoid pitfalls when specifying control
valves,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 75.
Baumann, Hans D., ‘‘A firm new handle on valve noise,’’
Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 78.
Kalnins, John M., Lindley, Nancy L., ‘‘The case for flangeless
plastic-lined pipe,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1997,
p. 96.
Farina, Italo H., ‘‘Critical length helps calculate compressible
flow,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1997, p. 88.
Baumann, H.D., ‘‘Solve valve noise and cavitation prob-
lems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar.
1997, p. 45.
Bussler, Michael, Paulin, Tony, ‘‘Pipe design for robust
systems,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1997, p. 84.
Darby, Ron, ‘‘Control valves: Match the trim to the selec-
tion,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1997, p. 147.
Ezernack, D.D., ‘‘Minimize FCCU startup problems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 67.
Page, George W. Jr., ‘‘Predict control valve noise,’’ Chemical
Engineering, July 1997, p. 137.
Weiss, W.H., ‘‘Designing and maintaining plant piping and
valve systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 59.
Manadili, George, ‘‘Replace implicit equations with signom-
ial functions,’’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1997, p. 129.
XVI. FURNACES & HEAT EXCHANGERS
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Effective use of heat-recovery steam genera-
tors,’’ 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. and Santoleri,
Joseph J., ‘‘New rules affect the handling of waste fuels,’’
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 122.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Richardson, Kenneth W. and Taibi, Frank D., ‘‘Louisiana
joint venture starts up coke-fueled cogen plant,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 38.
Talavera, P.G., ‘‘Calculate nonfluidized flow in cyclone
diplegs and transition,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 89.
Parks, S.B. and Schillmoller, C.M., ‘‘Use alloys to improve
ethylene production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 53.
Baltz, Neculae, ‘‘Flow control with three-way valves,’’ Chem-
ical Engineering, Apr. 1996, p. 98.
Epstein, Fred S., White, Gary L., ‘‘Understanding imped-
ance heating,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1996, p. 112.
Saravanan, S., et al, ‘‘Improve piping design,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 59.
Boyer, John and Trumpfheller, Gary, ‘‘Specification tips
to maximize heat transfer,’’ Chemical Engineering, May
1993, p. 90.
Campagne, W.v.L., ‘‘Use Ponchon-Savarit in your process
simulation, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 41.
Liebert, T.C., ‘‘Distillation feed preheat—is it energy effi-
cient?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 37.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘BASIC program calculates flue gas energy
balance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 47.
Patel, M.R. and Mehta, B.P.S., ‘‘Optimize thermal insula-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 51.
Hellander, J.C. and Bryant, G.B., ‘‘Use ceramic coatings to
improve efficiency of gas-fired furnaces,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 59.
Campagne, W.v.L., ‘‘Use Ponchon-Savarit in your process
simulation, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 63.
Kerner, Jeff, ‘‘Sizing plate heat exchangers,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Nov. 1993, p. 177.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘Revamping FCC main fractionator
energy systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11,
Nov. 1993, p. 43.
Pugh, T., et al., ‘‘Improve heat exchanger leak detection,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 85.
Goldblatt, M., ‘‘How to justify water conservation projects,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993,
p. 65.
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., ‘‘Improve syngas pro-
duction using autothermal reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 39.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
Yaws, Carl L., Lin, Xiaoyan, Bu, Li, and Nijhawan, Sachin,
‘‘New equation calculates thermal conductivities of C1-
C4 gases,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 18, 1994, p. 43.
229
TOC/INDEX
Finn, Adrian, ‘‘Enhance gas processing with reflux heat-
exchangers,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1994, p. 142.
Hall, Stephen G. and Morgan, Steve W., ‘‘Heat exchanger
databases accelerate process design & costing,’’ Chemical
Engineering, July 1994, p. 139.
Tindall, B.M. and King, D.L., ‘‘Designing steam reformers
for hydrogen production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 69.
Wojdon, W. and George, M., ‘‘How to replace CFC refriger-
ants,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug.
1994, p. 107.
Gomaa, H. and Allawi, A., ‘‘Minimize air-toxic emissions,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 121.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Understand boiler performance characteris-
tics,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug.
1994, p. 131.
Kals, W., ‘‘Air-cooled heat exchangers: conventional and
unconventional,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 138.
Burger, R., ‘‘Select the right cooling tower fill,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 141.
Brandstatter, A.L. and Sawatzki, Howard, ‘‘Hot tips to reju-
venate old boilers,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994,
p. 153.
Martin, G.R., et al., ‘‘Understand vacuum system fundamen-
tals,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct.
1994, p. 91.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Customizing pays off in steam generators,’’
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1995, p. 108.
Frens, L.L. and Lines, J.R., ‘‘Troubleshooting crude vacuum
tower overhead ejector systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 53.
Hall, S.G., et al, ‘‘Use process integration to improve FCC/
VRU design, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 63.
Green, Richard L. and Morris, Ronald L., ‘‘Heat transfer
fluids—too easy to overlook,’’ Chemical Engineering, Apr.
1995, p. 88.
Buecker, Brad, ‘‘Beware of condenser fouling,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 108.
Montgomery, G., ‘‘How to predict temperatures during gas
depressuring,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04,
Apr. 1995, p. 85.
Hall, S.G., et al, ‘‘Use process integration to improve FCC/
VRU design, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 95.
Straitz, John F., ‘‘Keeping burners in fighting trim,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, May 1995, p. 66.
Trom, L., ‘‘Use spiral plate exchangers for various applica-
tions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 73.
Cooley, D.H., ‘‘Steam condenser performance,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 83.
230
Kneile, R., ‘‘Anatomy of combustion calculations,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 87.
Shahani, G.H., et al, ‘‘Increase TPA production,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 99.
Realff, Matthew J. and Sommerfeld, Jude T., ‘‘Drain heating
or cooling coils accurately,’’ Chemical Engineering, June
1995, p. 121.
Martin, G.R. and Sloley, A.W., ‘‘Effectively design and
stimulate thermosyphon. . ., Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995, p. 101.
Haraburda, Scott S., ‘‘Three-phase flow? Consider helical-
coil heat exchangers,’’ Chemical Engineering, July 1995,
p. 149.
Haskell, D.M., ‘‘New approach to thermodynamics
improves custody transfer,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 07, July 1995, p. 51.
Grosboll, M.P. and Stover, L., ‘‘Avoid flow maldistribution
problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July
1995, p. 57.
Martin, G.R. and Sloley, A.W., ‘‘Effectively design and
simulate thermosyphon. . ., Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July 1995, p. 67.
Shaikh, A. and Lee, C.J., ‘‘Minimize flaring during ethylene
plant startup,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07,
July 1995, p. 89.
Durand, Alejandro Anaya and Bonilla, Marco A. Osario,
‘‘Fast estimation of reboiler reliability,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Aug. 1995, p. 113.
Alesson, T., ‘‘All steam traps are not equal,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 123.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Recover heat from waste incineration,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995,
p. 51.
Barzuza, Issac, ‘‘Minimizing solids buildup in cooling
towers,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1995, p. 114.
Pase, G.K. and O’Donnell, J., ‘‘Use titanium tubes to create
higher-capacity, corrosion. . .,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1995, p. 101.
Gandhi, S.L., et al, ‘‘Dynamic simulation analyzes expanded
refinery steam system,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 55.
Tindall, B.M. and Crews, M.A., ‘‘Alternative technologies
to steam-methane reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 75.
Golden, S.W., et al, ‘‘Refinery analytical techniques optimize
unit performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 85.
Yaws, Carl, Sheth, Sachin D., and Han, Mei, ‘‘New thermo-
dynamic diagrams developed for methane and ethane,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 4, 1995, p. 62.
Geiger, G.E., ‘‘Improve corrosion and deposition control
in alkaline. . .,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01,
Jan. 1996, p. 93.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-year-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 105.
References
TOC/INDEX
Mukherjee, R., ‘‘Conquer heat exchanger fouling,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 121.
Korchinski, W.J. and Turpin, L.E., ‘‘The five-minute chemi-
cal engineer,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01,
Jan. 1996, p. 129.
Trom, Larry, ‘‘Heat exchangers: Is it time for a change,’’
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 70.
Wharry, Samuel R., Jr., ‘‘Transfer heat in a resin sheath,’’
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 74.
Pase, Glennwood K., Sr., ‘‘A closer look at integrally finned-
tube heat exchangers,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb.
1996, p. 76.
Cheng, S., et al, ‘‘Predict amine solution properties accu-
rately,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb.
1996, p. 81.
Beedie, M., ‘‘Energy waste: A process quality defect?,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 84B.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt. 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 87.
‘‘Fiber optic sensing detects hot spots in methane reformers,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 47.
Parks, S.B. and Schillmoller, C.M., ‘‘Use alloys to improve
ethylene production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 53.
Wiebus, E. and Cornils, B., ‘‘Water-soluble catalysts improve
hydroformylation of olefins,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 63.
Yaws, C.L., et al, ‘‘Use simplified olefin thermodynamic
diagrams,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar.
1996, p. 77.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling shell and tube exchangers,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996,
p. 111.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Epstein, Fred S., and White, Gary L., ‘‘Understanding
impedance heating,’’ Chemical Engineering, May 1996,
p. 112.
Trivedi, K.K., et al, ‘‘Optimize a licensor’s design using
pinch technology,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 05, May 1996, p. 113.
Rao, K. Ramanada, and Shrinivasa, Srinivasan J., ‘‘Cons-
trained optimization of heat exchangers,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, June 1996, p. 112.
Lynch, Joe T. and Pitman, Richard N., ‘‘Texas plant retrofit
improves the throughput, C2 recovery,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, June 3, 1996, p. 41.
Risko, James R., ‘‘Steam heaters need complete condensate
drainage,’’ Chemical Engineering, July 1996, p. 114.
Lunsford, K.M., ‘‘Advantages of brazed aluminum heat
exchangers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07,
July 1996, p. 55.
Anderson, R., et al, ‘‘Use proactive permitting to expand
capacity,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July
1996, p. 65.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Depew, C.A. and Nielsen, R.B., ‘‘Dynamic simulation for
process design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07,
July 1996, p. 67.
Stanger, C.W., et al, ‘‘Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996,
p. 69.
Mahajani, V.V, ‘‘Estimate batch reactor heating or cooling
time,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sep. 1996, p. 143.
Braithwaite, John, ‘‘Reliability program improves refinery
sulfur plant operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 2,
1996, p. 83.
Durand, Alejandro Anaya, ‘‘Fouling, viscosity, & the heat
transfer coefficient,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996,
p. 153.
Gulley, D., ‘‘Troubleshooting shell-and-tube heat
exchangers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09,
Sep. 1996, p. 91.
Walkoff, H., ‘‘Use cellular glass insulation for low-tempera-
ture operations,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 101.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Design and evaluate finned tube bundles,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep. 1996,
p. 103.
Durand, Alejandro Anaya, ‘‘Fouling, viscosity, & the heat
transfer coefficient,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996,
p. 153.
Sigal, R., ‘‘Challenges in simulating heat exchanger net-
works,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct.
1996, p. 125.
Gulyani, B.B., ‘‘Estimating log mean temperature difference
in multi-pass exchangers,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov.
1996, p. 127.
Pacalowska, B., et al, ‘‘Improve hydrogen recovery from
refinery offgases,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 55.
Kunz, R.G., et al, ‘‘Predict NOx from gas-fired furnaces,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1996,
p. 65.
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling steam heaters,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 151.
Bornt, Butch, ‘‘Spreadsheets for heat loss rates and tempera-
tures,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 107.
Sams, G. and Jordon, J., ‘‘How to design low-noise burners,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996,
p. 101.
Golden, S.W., ‘‘Minimize capital investment for refinery
revamps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 103.
Hellander, J.C., ‘‘Ceramic cost furnace tubes for improved
operations,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01,
Jan. 1997, p. 115.
Mukherjee, R., ‘‘Avoid operating problems in air-cooled heat
exchangers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03,
Mar. 1997, p. 69.
231
TOC/INDEX
Driedger, W.C., ‘‘Controlling fired heaters,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 103.
Golden, S.W., ‘‘Prevent preflash drum foaming,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 141.
Ruggles, W.L., ‘‘Lessons learned from troubleshooting steam
generators,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05,
May 1997, p. 155.
Ezernack, D.D., ‘‘Minimize FCCU startup problems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 67.
Garg, A., ‘‘Optimize fired heater operations to save money,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 97.
Krawczyk, J.R., ‘‘Applications and limitations of CFD in
the HPI,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul.
1997, p. 53.
Sundaram, K.M. and Albano, J.V., ‘‘Design pyrolysis heaters
using CFD models,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 79.
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Understand the basics of packaged steam
generators,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07,
Jul. 1997, p. 85.
Dharmadhikari, S., ‘‘Consider trigeneration techniques for
process plants,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 91.
King, Myke, ‘‘OIL MOVEMENTS—1: Automation of oil
movement systems prevents mistakes, saves money,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 76.
King, Myke, ‘‘OIL MOVEMENTS—Conclusion: Integrat-
ing oil movement and data systems beefs Project benefits,
‘‘Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
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., ‘‘Design-
ing steam-jet vacuum systems,’’ Chemical Engineering,
July 1993, p. 116.
Chen, C.C., ‘‘Cope with dissolved gases in pump calcula-
tions,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1993, p. 106.
Bittermann, Hans-Jurgen, ‘‘Avoid downtime in centrifugal
pumps,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1993, p. 145.
Vetter, Gerhard, Schlucker, Eberhard, et al., ‘‘Know your
diaphragm pump internals,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov.
1993, p. 130.
Clark, Ed and Littlefield, David, ‘‘Maximize centrifugal
pump reliability,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1994,
p. 90.
Giffin, Gary L., ‘‘Keeping a lid on volatile liquids,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 1994, p. 78.
Myers, Philip E., ‘‘OSHA confined-space reg interpreted for
storage tank operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 14,
1994, p. 84.
True, Warren R., ‘‘GRI plays critical role in U.S. gas mea-
surement research,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994,
p. 45.
232
‘‘Meters to answer needs for low cost EFM, energy measure-
ment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 49.
Colbert, G.L., et al, ‘‘Make boiler feedwater with lower
risks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug.
1997, p. 57.
Cresswell, L.W., ‘‘Refining in the Former Soviet Union,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997,
p. 67.
Guffey, Gerald II, ‘‘Sizing up heat transfer fluids & heaters,’’
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1997, p. 126.
Willa, James L., ‘‘Improving cooling towers,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Nov. 1997, p. 92.
Garcia-Borras, Thomas, ‘‘Improving boilers and furnaces,’’
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1998, p. 127.
XVII. STORAGE & TRANSFER
Vandell, Craig and Foerg, Wolfgang, ‘‘The pluses of positive
displacement,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993, p. 74.
Sumbry, Louis C. and Bogner, Ben R., ‘‘Lining tank bottoms
to extend service life,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan.
1993, p. 131.
Thorpe, Wilson A. and Sivaraman, Srini, ‘‘Simple techniques
reduce coke inventory, sales measurement errors,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 44.
Trosper, Robert L., Stubbs, Robert G., and Carver, Darrell,
‘‘New Mexico gas plant operator automates field control,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 54.
Stark, Stephen T., and Heuer, Richard D., ‘‘Testing paves
way for electronic flow monitoring system,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 58.
Carson, John W., ‘‘Characterize bulk solids to ensure smooth
flow,’’ Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1994, p. 78.
‘‘China Facing Revamp of Outmoded Crude Tanker Termi-
nal System,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 9, 1994, p. 54.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Hawaii offers challenge and opportunity to
refiner,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 30, 1994, p. 43.
Yedidiah, Shmariahu, ‘‘Recirculation sheds its villainous
image,’’ Chemical Engineering, July 1994, p. 118.
Wilson, David H., ‘‘Automate bulk-solids delivery with feed-
back control,’’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1994, p. 87.
‘‘‘Cascaded’ pilot regulators help reduce LPG loss in hot
weather,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 8, 1994, p. 63.
Buxton, L. William and Henthorn, Gregory V., ‘‘Get the
most out of plastic lined pipe,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Sept. 1994, p. 133.
Bloch, Heinz P., ‘‘How and why centrifugal pumps continue
to fail,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1994, p. 122.
Rials, Ron, and Hagen, Ty, ‘‘Leak detection method ensures
integrity of double-bottom storage tanks,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 14, 1994, p. 74.
de Laguerie, Patrick, and Durup, J. Gerard, ‘‘French gas-
storage project nearing completion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 12, 1994, p. 35.
References
TOC/INDEX
Tihanyi, Laszlo, ‘‘Planning method for gas storage devel-
oped,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 19, 1994, p. 109.
Nelson, William E. and Dufour, John W., ‘‘Problem-free
pumping systems: A guide to holistic design,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Jan. 1995, p. 87.
Mei, Kenneth W., ‘‘Unslotted gauge wells cause tank-level
measurement errors,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 30,
1995, p. 89.
Badrock, John, Coutu, Robert, Johnson, Norman, and Mar-
tin, Andrea, ‘‘Bulk, heating cleans paraffinic bottoms from
crude tanks,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 20, 1995, p. 66.
Gupta, Dinesh and Rafferty, Bob, ‘‘Proven tools and tech-
niques for electric heat tracing,’’ Chemical Engineering,
May 1995, p. 104.
True, Warren R., ‘‘First year of AGA’s weekly storage survey
suggests useful patterns,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 17,
1995, p. 50.
Carr, David M., ‘‘Where sealless pumps make sense,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Aug. 1995, p. 78.
Netzel, James, Pecht, Glenn, and Kallodimos, Mike, ‘‘Gas
lubricated seals change pump choices,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Aug. 1995, p. 82B.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Control VOC emissions,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 77.
Ferry, Robert L., and Kissell, J. Randolph, ‘‘New equation
estimates emissions from tank turnovers,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 25, 1995, p. 75.
Isaac, Mark, et al, ‘‘Getting a grip on sludge,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Oct. 1995, p. 80.
‘‘Tank-cleaning method removes, processes F037 waste,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 86.
Shuai, Xiaoshan, and Meisen, Axel, ‘‘New correlations pre-
dict physical properties of elemental sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 16, 1995, p. 50.
Kusha, A.A., ‘‘Lessons learned from relocation,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 85.
Cochran, T.W., ‘‘Calculate pipeline flow of compressible
fluids,’’ Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 115.
Aglitz, John, Bhatnager, Rajender K., Bolt, Donald E., and
Butzbach, Thomas L., ‘‘Installing liquid-ring vacuum
pumps,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1995, p. 132.
Crossley, N. Graeme, ‘‘Converting LPG caverns to natural-
gas storage permits fast response to market,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 39.
Monroe, Perry C., ‘‘Pump installation: Penny pinch at your
own risk,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 88.
Reynolds, John A., ‘‘Use minimum flow data to prolong
centrifugal pump life,’’ Chemical Engineering, Mar.
1996, p. 92.
Whitmire, Kent, ‘‘Installing and maintaining gear pumps,’’
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 96.
Heng, Thomas, ‘‘A pump for high-value products,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 110.
Baker, R.W. and Jacobs, M., ‘‘Improve monomer recovery
from polyolefin resin degassing,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 49.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Oolman, T., et al, ‘‘Refinery uses bioslurry process to treat
RCRA wastes,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04,
Apr. 1996, p. 71.
Jarosch, Josef, ‘‘High-pressure diaphragm pumps,’’ Chemical
Engineering, May 1996, p. 120.
Geyer, Wayne, ‘‘How do your tanks measure up? Part 1:
Underground storage,’’ Chemical Engineering, July
1996, p. 84.
Gothenquist, Carol A. and Rooker, Karen M., ‘‘Carbon
adsorption system protects LPG storage sphere,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, July 1, 1996.
Caruthers, Steve, ‘‘Here are guidelines for inspecting AST
terminals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 8, 1996, p. 52.
Grainawi, Lorri, ‘‘Aboveground storage, Part 1: Decoding
shop-built tanks,’’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1996,
p. 98.
Braune, Steven, Thorpe, Greg, et al, ‘‘Aboveground storage
tanks—Part II: Fielderected tanks,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, Aug. 1996, p. 104.
Bays, Joseph N., ‘‘Minimizing wastes from vacuum pumping
systems,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 123.
Cameron, Donald B., ‘‘How fluid properties affect hydrau-
lically balanced metering pumps,’’ Chemical Engineering,
Nov. 1996, p. 100.
Hummel, Bob, ‘‘Lining aboveground storage tanks,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 116.
Prang, Allan J., ‘‘Selecting multiphase pumps,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 1997, p. 74.
Vella, Philip, ‘‘Improved cleaning method safely removes
pyrophoric iron sulfide,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24,
1997, p. 65.
Berto, Frank J., ‘‘TANK GAUGING-1: Review of tank
measurement errors reveals techniques for greater accu-
racy,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 3, 1997, p. 68.
Berto, Frank J., ‘‘TANK GAUGING-Conclusion: Auto-
matic gauging technologies have advanced, but better
accuracy is needed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 10,
1997, p. 63.
Krenek, M.R., ‘‘Improve global competitiveness with supply-
chain management,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 05, May 1997, p. 97.
Early, P.L., et al, ‘‘Integrated terminal operations improves
profitability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05,
May 1997, p. 101.
Karlsson, Per, ‘‘Put steel belts to work,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, Sept. 1997, p. 124.
Tolan, William A., ‘‘Get to know your application,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Jan. 1998, p. 78.
XVIII. CORROSION
Sumbry, Louis C. and Bogner, Ben R., ‘‘Lining tank bottoms
to extend service life,’’ Chemical Engineering, Jan.
1993, p. 131.
233
TOC/INDEX
Schwinn, V. and Streisselberger, A., ‘‘Avoid H2S corrosion in
refinery vessels,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01,
Jan. 1993, p. 103.
Gallaher, Dale M. and Malhoney, Michael J., ‘‘MOBILE
BAY—1: 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.
Miller, W.A., ‘‘How to choose a fluoropolymer,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1993, p. 163.
DuPart, M.S., et al., ‘‘Understanding corrosion in alkano-
lamine gas treating plants, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 75.
DuPart, M.S., et al., ‘‘Understanding corrosion in alkano-
lamine gas treating plants, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993, p. 89.
French, Eddie C., ‘‘New inhibitor reduces crude-unit corro-
sion problems at lower pH,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 24,
1993, p. 45.
Lieberman, Norman P., ‘‘Four steps solve crude-tower over-
head corrosion problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 5,
1993, p. 47.
Brown, R.L., Jr., and Wines, T.H., ‘‘Improve suspended
water removal from fuels,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 95.
Wu, Yiing-Mei, ‘‘Calculations estimate process stream depo-
sitions,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 3, 1994, p. 38.
Babaian-Kibala, Elizabeth, ‘‘Phosphate ester inhibitors solve
naphthenic acid corrosion problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 28, 1994, p. 31.
Kohley, Bill, ‘‘Consider plastic spray nozzles,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1994, p. 147.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Auxiliary equipment, corrosion focus of
refiner meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 4, 1994, p. 62.
‘‘Study scheduled on fouling of refinery units,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 23, 1994, p. 41.
Buxton, L. William, ‘‘Get the most out of plastic lined pipe,’’
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 133.
Fultz, Benjamin S., Rogers, Robert H., Young, J.S., ‘‘Take
the guesswork out of plastics selection,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Oct. 1994, p. 84.
Hendrix, D.E. and Carucci, V.A., ‘‘Improve storage tank
inspections,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01,
Jan. 1995, p. 89.
Dobis, J.D., Clarida, D.R., and Richert, J.P., ‘‘Survey reveals
nature of corrosion in HF alky units,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 6, 1995, p. 63.
Buecker, Brad, ‘‘Beware of condenser fouling,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 108.
Shahani, G.H., et al, ‘‘Increase TPA production,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 99.
234 References
Khaladkar, Pradip, ‘‘Fight corrosion with plastic,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Oct. 1995, p. 94.
Kane, R.D. and Cayard, M.S., ‘‘Improve corrosion control
in refining processes,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 129.
Groce, Bernard C., ‘‘Chemical, mechanical treatment
options reduce hydroprocessor fouling,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Jan. 29, 1996, p. 81.
Wharry, Samuel R., ‘‘Transfer heat in a resin sheath,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 74.
Hohmann, F.W., ‘‘Improve steam reformer performance,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996,
p. 71.
Rooney, P.C., et al, ‘‘Effect of heat stable salts on MDEA
solution corrosivity,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 95.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Brooks, Kevin and Martin, Mark W., ‘‘Ceramics stand up
to acid service,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 77.
Wessel, James K., ‘‘Breaking tradition with ceramic compos-
ites,’’ Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 80.
Hummel, Bob, ‘‘Lining aboveground storage tanks,’’ Chemi-
cal Engineering, Dec. 1996, p. 115.
Rooney, P.C., et al, ‘‘Effect of heat stable salts on MDEA
solution corrosivity, Pt. 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 65.
Turner, J., ‘‘Control corrosion in washwater systems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997,
p. 87.
Weiss, W.H., ‘‘Designing and maintaining plant piping and
valve systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 59.
XIX. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Ganapathy, V., ‘‘Effective use of heat-recovery steam genera-
tors,’’ 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 and Heffington, Warren,
‘‘Conserve energy to cut operating costs,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, Sept. 1993, p. 126.
Hahn, Glenn E., ‘‘Get the most out of steam,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Jan. 1994, p. 80.
Power, Robert B., ‘‘Pump up your energy savings,’’ Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 1994, p. 120.
Wellons, Michael C., Sapre, Ajit V., Chang, Arthur I., and
Laird, T.L., ‘‘On-line power plant optimization improves
Texas refiner’s bottom line,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 16,
1994, p. 53.
Nelson, Kenneth E., ‘‘A practical guide to energy account-
ing,’’ Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 122.
TOC/INDEX
Anderson, Kenneth E., ‘‘BTU accounting: Showing results,’’
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1994, p. 130.
Aguilar-Rodriguez, Enrique, Ortiz-Estrada, Ciro, and Aguil-
era-Lopez, Matin, ‘‘Thermal analysis finds optimum
FCCU revamp scheme,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 7,
1994, p. 70.
Straitz III, John F. and Mendoza, Vincente A., ‘‘Keeping
burners in fighting trim,’’ Chemical Engineering, May
1995, p. 66.
Gilbert, B.R., Nawaz, M., and Chen, T.P., ‘‘Fuel cells make
their CPI moves,’’ Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1995,
p. 92.
Bornt, Butch, ‘‘Spreadsheets for heat loss rates and tempera-
tures,’’ Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1995, p. 107.
Risko, James R., ‘‘Steam heaters need complete condensate
drainage,’’ Chemical Engineering, July 1996, p. 114.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Kansas refiner starts up coke gasification
unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 5, 1996, p. 31.
‘‘BP plant to get gas fired power unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 26, 1996, p. 23.
Tay, M.E., ‘‘Keeping tabs on plant energy and mass flows,’’
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1996, p. 82.
‘‘Texas JV to burn residue gas in cogen unit,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 23, 1996, p. 43.
Moore, Frank, ‘‘Cut steam-trap costs,’’ Chemical Engineer-
ing, Oct. 1996, p. 131.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Italian refinery gasification project to make
electricity, steam, and H2 from tar,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 21, 1996, p. 33.
Paffenbarger, John, ‘‘Despite increasing refinery power pro-
duction, oil-fired generation is declining,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 14, 1997, p. 35.
Philcox, Jack and Fenner, Gary W., ‘‘A Texas project illus-
trates the benefits of integrated gasification,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 14, 1997, p. 41.
Milosevic, Zoran and Ponhöfer, Clemens, ‘‘Refiner improves
steam system with custom simulation/optimization pack-
age,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 25, 1997, p. 90.
Mastrogiacomo, Michael, Bilodeau, Denis, Treiber, Steven,
and Walker, John, ‘‘Advanced control of hydrogen net-
work reduces energy consumption,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 1, 1997, p. 72.
XX. GENERAL
‘‘Nelson-Farrar Cost Index,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, 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.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Tagoe, C., et al., ‘‘Are there contaminants in your feeds-
tream?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 117.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Zoller, L. and Esping, J., ‘‘Use ‘What-If’ method for process
hazard analysis,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01,
Jan. 1993, p. 132-B.
‘‘California tech center plays major role in gasification
advances,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 21, 1996, p. 36.
Johnson, L.L., Renaudin, Gerard, ‘‘ ‘Liquid turbines’
improve LNG operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11,
1996, p. 31.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Gasification, polygeneration, capture interest
of refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9, 1996, p. 40.
Bravo, Roberto Del, Starace, Francesco, Chellini, Igino M.,
and Chiantore, Paolo V., ‘‘Italian IGCC project sets pace
for new refining era,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9,
1996, p. 43.
‘‘Enhanced solvent recovery process boosts PTA production,
saves energy,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1996, p. 44.
‘‘Abu Dhabi plant on track for major expansion,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1997, p. 52.
Alveal, Enrique Dávila and Karpenski, Martin J., ‘‘Partners
assume risks, lower finance costs of delayed coker-cogen-
eration project in Chile,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 31,
1997, p. 55.
Inomata, Makoto, Sato, Kyohei, Yamada, Yu, and Sasaki,
Hajime, ‘‘Engineering firm has designed refinery of the
future,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 28, 1997, p. 56.
‘‘Petrobras slates $2 billion cogeneration scheme for refiner-
ies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 9, 1997, p. 26.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: Cloud over Gulf as merger
folds,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 9, 1997, p. 27.
‘‘Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating,’’ Jan. 4, 1993, p. 52;
Apr. 5, 1993, p. 64;
‘‘Big upgrade slated at Shell’s Pernis refinery,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 25, 1993, p. 40.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Gruhn, P., ‘‘Safety system performance terms: clearing up
the confusion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02,
Feb. 1993, p. 63.
Beckman, L.V., ‘‘Selecting redundant microprocessor-based
systems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 71.
Kobyakov, A.I., ‘‘Include heuristics in protection systems,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993,
p. 79.
Bishop, K. and Knittel, T., ‘‘Do you have the ‘right’ flame
arrester in service?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 99.
‘‘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.
235
TOC/INDEX
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘FCC main fractionator revamps,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 77.
Forsell, K.A., ‘‘Protect motors with solid-state overloads,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 100.
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 septem-
ber,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 15, 1993, p. 48.
‘‘Coastal to idle Kansas refineries,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
22, 1993, p. 32.
King, Myke, ‘‘OIL MOVEMENTS—1: Automation of oil
movement systems prevents mistakes, saves money,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 76.
Aitani, A.M., ‘‘Sour natural gas drying,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 67.
King, Myke, ‘‘OIL MOVEMENTS—Conclusion: Integrat-
ing oil movement and data systems beefs project benefits,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
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.
‘‘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 Journal, Apr.
26, 1993, p. 64.
‘‘World refining outlook seen positive,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 26, 1993, p. 94.
Fair, J.R., ‘‘How to design baffle tray columns,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993, p. 75.
Goyal, R.K., ‘‘FMEA, the alternative process hazard
method,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May
1993, p. 95.
‘‘Asia-Pacific region’s oil demand growth strains refining
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 Jour-
nal, May 17, 1993, p. 23
Kletz, T.A., ‘‘Organizations have no memory when it comes
to safety,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 88.
Gallupe, W., ‘‘Retrofit methods reduce valves’ fugitive emis-
sions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 97.
236 References
‘‘Contracts let for German refinery units,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
June 21, 1993, p. 35.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Saudi Master Refining Program Takes
Shape,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 21, 1993, p. 39.
Dahl, Carol and Garcia, Wolfgang J., ‘‘Reformulated gaso-
line more profitable in Venezuela than in U.S.,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, June 21, 1993, p. 72.
True, Warren R., ‘‘Maxus starts up Texas Panhandle gas
plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 28, 1993, p. 68.
‘‘NPRA establishes ‘International Workshop’ at maintenance
meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 28, 1993, p. 70.
Roberts, D.A., et al., ‘‘Recover additional distillate from
vacuum residue,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 07, July 1993, p. 75.
Golden, S.W., et al., ‘‘Troubleshoot vacuum columns with
low-capital methods,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 07, July 1993, p. 81.
Loftus, D., et al., ‘‘Partnership programs can solve environ-
mental waste problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 07, July 1993, p. 90.
Bearrow, M.E., ‘‘How to shop for a PSM consultant,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 95.
‘‘How refinery fuel indexes have varied,’’ July 5, 1993, p. 56.
‘‘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.
Cindric, D.T., et al., ‘‘Reduce crude unit pollution with these
technologies,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08,
Aug. 1993, p. 45.
Agar, G., et al., ‘‘Energy absorption probes control oily-
water discharges,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 55.
Bergmann, E.P., ‘‘Approximate risk assessment prioritizes
remedial decisions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 111.
McSween, T.E., ‘‘Improve your safety program with a behav-
ioral approach,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08,
Aug. 1993, p. 119.
Dougan, K.W. and Reilly, M.C., ‘‘Quantitative reliability
methods improve plant uptime,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 131.
Robinson, J.E., ‘‘Underground storage tank: Removal vs.
abandonment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08,
Aug. 1993, p. 149.
TOC/INDEX
‘‘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.
Martinson, B., ‘‘How to set up an environmental audit
program,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept.
1993, p. 55.
Hill, J. and Brush, P., ‘‘Performing capital projects in ozone
nonattainment areas,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 76C.
Funk, G.L., ‘‘Systems integration: What is it and why do
it?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept.
1993, p. 151.
Goodale, J.G., ‘‘Improve productivity through effective
teamwork,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09,
Sept. 1993, p. 173.
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 regulations,
but. . .,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 34.
‘‘French refiners face shakeout with soaring costs, down-
turn,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 25.
‘‘Chevron schedules refinery outlays,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 20, 1993, p. 40.
‘‘Kuwaiti refinery back on stream,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
27, 1993, p. 40.
Love, R.A., ‘‘Attain ISO-9000 certification,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 82B.
Ganger, J.J. and Bearrow, M.E., ‘‘How to prioritize process
hazard analyses,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 95.
‘‘Supplying low sulfur diesel no great hurdle for U.S. refin-
ers,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 29.
‘‘Catalyst suppliers further consolidate business units,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 41.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Bell, Laura, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
REPORT—Refineries,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18,
1993, p. 59; Apr. 11, 1994, p. 65.
Bell, Laura, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
REPORT—Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
18, 1993, p. 71; Apr. 11, 1994, p. 78.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Bell, Laura, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
REPORT—Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993,
p. 84; Apr. 11, 1994, p. 89.
Bell, Laura, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
REPORT—Gas processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
18, 1993, p. 86; Apr. 11, 1994, p. 91.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Northwest Australia’s Saladin crude
assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 50.
Sanchezllanes, Teresa, Perez, Ana Lilia, Martinez, Martha
P., Aguilar- Rodriguez, Enrique, and del Rosal, Rodolfo,
‘‘Simple rules help select best hydrocarbon distillation
scheme,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 50.
‘‘Nelson-Farrar Cost Indexes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal; Oct. 18,
1993, p. 55; Nov. 1, 1993, p. 75; Dec. 6, 1993, p. 54;
Jan. 3, 1994, p. 47; Feb. 7, 1994, p. 61; Mar. 7, 1994,
p. 82; Apr. 4, 1994, p. 49; May 2, 1994, p. 108; June
6, 1994, p. 92; July 4, 1994, p. 41; Aug. 1, 1994, p. 51;
Sept. 5, 1994, p. 103; Oct. 3, 1994, p. 61.
‘‘Quarterly Costimating: Equipment costs rise moderately,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 56; Jan. 3, 1994,
p. 48; Apr. 4, 1994, p. 60; July 4, 1994, p. 58; Oct. 3,
1994, p. 62.
Jones, Jerry, Asher, William, et al., ‘‘Keep pilot plants on the
fast track-Part I,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1993, p. 98.
Lo, Francis and Oakes, Donald, ‘‘Leep from pilot to full-scale
production,’’ Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1993, p. 110.
Schneider, D.F., ‘‘How to calculate purge gas volumes,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 89.
Doane, R.C., ‘‘Rate pumps for viscous crudes quickly,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 94.
Lichtblau, J.H., ‘‘Forecasting oil trends: mirror or tele-
scope?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov.
1993, p. 148J.
West, J., ‘‘Employees feel ‘empowered’,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 155.
Vervalin, C.H., ‘‘Views from 1993 ECC conference,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 41.
Abbott, K.W., ‘‘TQM can improve project control,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 44.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Project-manage the owner/client,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 49.
Duty, J.M., et al., ‘‘New realities of modular construction,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993,
p. 57.
Winston, R.E., ‘‘Rapid method for capital investment deci-
sions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec.
1993, p. 132.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘World crude capacity stays flat while
conversion capability rises again,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 20, 1993, p. 37.
Bell, Laura, ‘‘WORLDWIDE REFINING REPORT,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 20, 1993, p. 46.
237
TOC/INDEX
Chieu, J. and Foster, S., ‘‘Improve storm water management
for refineries, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 83.
Bruce, S.R., ‘‘Who’s leading your process safety efforts?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 89.
Foo, K.W., ‘‘Size steam tracers quickly, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 93.
Boutte, F.D., et al., ‘‘Optimize project execution, Part 1,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994,
p. 116.
‘‘Survey of engineers, managers rates European E&C compa-
nies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 10, 1994, p. 57.
Foo, K.W., ‘‘Size steam tracers quickly, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 91.
Mehall, J.R., ‘‘State of worldwide refining,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 96A.
Myers, Philip E., ‘‘OSHA confined-space reg interpreted for
storage tank operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 14,
1994, p. 84.
Carroll, J.J., ‘‘Converting amine concentrations,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 91.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Risk management: a project manager’s
view,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar.
1994, p. 100C.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Project managers should know how to ‘man-
age’ the contract, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 119.
‘‘Turnaround progresses at Conoco refinery,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 28, 1994, p. 36.
Van Way, Chris, ‘‘Plant replacement key to Louisiana field
revival,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28, 1994, p. 58.
Derr, K.T., ‘‘Oil and its critics: The facts and the future,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 04, Apr. 1994,
p. 136G.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Project managers should know how to ‘man-
age’ the contract, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 141.
‘‘Russian refineries tap western technology,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 24.
Vervalin, C.H., ‘‘A view of ACHEMA ’94 conference,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994,
p. 47.
Peterson, F.M. and Johnson, J.E., ‘‘What’s ahead for propyl-
ene supply?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05,
May 1994, p. 61.
Rothman, S.N., ‘‘Asian petrochemicals: What impact?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994,
p. 64.
Crocco, J.R., ‘‘The global outlook for methanol,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 66C.
Thomas, J.H., ‘‘MTBE: Its impact and promise,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 66G.
Houston, J.H., ‘‘Detergents: The scene is changing,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 66U.
238 References
Wallace, S.J. and Hunter, B.L., ‘‘Optimize facility-siting
evaluations,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05,
May 1994, p. 85.
Fesharaki, F., ‘‘Oil prices in a new light,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 143.
‘‘China’s refiners face massive overhaul, expansion to meet
demand growth, crude slate,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May
9, 1994, p. 36.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Two offshore Australian crudes assayed,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, May 9, 1994, p. 76.
Dosher, John R., and Carney, Jack T., ‘‘Sulfur increase seen
mostly in heavy fractions of lower-quality crudes,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 23, 1994, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Yemen’s light, sweet Alif crude assayed,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, May 23, 1994, p. 78.
Bartholomew, Calvin H. and Hecker, William C., ‘‘Catalytic
reactor design,’’ Chemical Engineering, June 1994, p. 70.
Wu, K. and Dorian, J.P., ‘‘China’s petrochemical outlook,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 06, June 1994,
p. 50B.
Olstead, C.E., et al., ‘‘Objectives Matrix: A practitioner’s
perspective,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 06,
June 1994, p. 161.
True, Warren R., ‘‘World’s gas processing growth slows:
U.S., Canada retain greatest share,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
June 13, 1994, p. 49.
Haun, Rick R., Otto, Ken W., and Whitley, S. Craig,
‘‘Growing worldwide gas-processing market improving,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, June 13, 1994, p. 54.
‘‘Worldwide gas-processing survey,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June
13, 1994, p. 63.
‘‘World sulfur production,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 13,
1994, p. 110.
Coker, A.K., ‘‘Selecting and sizing process compressors,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 39.
Nasr, A., ‘‘Sealless pumps: Limitations and developments,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 63.
Fusaro, P.C., ‘‘Asia Pacific refining: What’s next?,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 66C.
Ranade, S.M., ‘‘Improve sizing for relief valves,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 83.
DeSilva, Francis, ‘‘The ion exchange deal,’’ Chemical Engi-
neering, July 1994, p. 86.
Molad, C., ‘‘New way to swap engineering data,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 109.
Ali, Mohammed Saleh Shaikh, ‘‘Need for refining capacity
creates opportunities for producers in Middle East,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, July 11, 1994, p. 37.
‘‘Processing, compliance options can reduce cost of produc-
ing new gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 11, 1994, p. 63.
Lieberman, Norman P., ‘‘Basic technology can improve
refinery profits,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 18, 1994, p. 50.
Crum, Fred S., and Dyer, James K., ‘‘Novel C3-recovery
scheme installed in Texas gas plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July 25, 1994, p. 94.
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Refinery, petrochemical plant injuries decline,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 25, 1994, p. 102.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘A project manager’s approach to quality
management,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08,
Aug. 1994, p. 156C.
Vervalin, C.H., ‘‘When you look for employment. . .,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 163.
‘‘Study sparks German call for benzene reduction in Euro-
pean gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, p. 25.
‘‘Blast damages Texaco refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.
1, 1994, p. 25.
Deley, Stephen J., and Graf, Kenneth, ‘‘Random packing
debottlenecks refinery de-ethanizing stripper,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, p. 39.
‘‘‘Cascaded’ pilot regulators help reduce LPG loss in hot
weather,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 8, 1994, p. 63.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Benchmark West Texas Intermediate
crude assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 88.
Yaws, Carl L., Bu, Li, and Nijhawan, Sachin, ‘‘New correla-
tion accurately calculates water solubilities of aromatics,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 29, 1994, p. 80.
Nath, B.K., ‘‘When you construct in India. . .,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 100A.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘How to determine training needs,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994,
p. 109.
‘‘Re-refiner fluidizes tank residue using portable mixer,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 5, 1994, p. 104.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Danish North Sea crude assayed,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 91.
Spitzer, T.Q., ‘‘Watch the ’human’ factor,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994, p. 98C.
Munisteri, J.G., ‘‘E/Cs must reengineer for survival,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994, p. 123.
‘‘California refiners face hurdle in federal, state RFG rules,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 10, 1994, p. 23.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION REPORT: Refining,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
17, 1994, p. 71.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Two
light, sweet, Indonesian crudes assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 31, 1994, p. 46.
‘‘Pollution prevention—a global perspective,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 66C.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Improve communication skills,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 191.
‘‘Nelson-Farrar Cost Index,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 7,
1994, p. 83; Dec. 5, 1994, p. 61; Jan. 2, 1995, p. 39;
Feb. 6, 1995, p. 64; Mar. 6, 1995, p. 68; Apr. 3, 1995,
p. 65; May 1, 1995, p. 104; June 5, 1995, p. 55; July 3,
1995, p. 54; Aug. 7, 1995, p. 64; Sept. 4, 1995, p. 92;
Oct. 2, 1995, p. 67.
Golden, Scott W., Lieberman, Norm, and Martin, Gary R.,
‘‘Correcting design errors can prevent coking in main
fractionators,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 21, 1994, p. 72.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Swain, J.H. and Maddux, M., ‘‘Improve your operations
training,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec.
1994, p. 47.
Ricketts, R., ‘‘Organize to manage reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 51.
Choate, D.E. and Christensen, G.A., ‘‘When there’s pride
in a facility,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12,
Dec. 1994, p. 57.
Burns, B.M., ‘‘Try a maintenance ’makeover’,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 63.
Ekholm, E.L., ‘‘Networking is cheap job insurance,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 66C.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Let’s quit blaming the E/Cs,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 67.
Boyce, W.J., ‘‘Design for constructability,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 81.
Vervalin, C.H., ‘‘Views from the ’94 ECC conference,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994,
p. 86.
Menzies, J., ‘‘How VENNET improved a project,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 89.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘When TQM isn’t working,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 121.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Australia’s Cooper Basin and Griffin
crudes assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 12, 1994, p. 51.
Williamson, Michelle, and Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLD-
WIDE REFINING REPORT: World crude capacity,
conversion capability inch upward,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 19, 1994, p. 45.
Kimmons, R.L., ‘‘Team-plan for project success,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 108A.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Become an effective leader,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 117.
Swain, Edward J., ‘‘SULFUR, COKE, AND CRUDE
QUALITY—1: Coke, sulfur recovery from U.S. refineries
continues to increase,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 2,
1995, p. 33.
‘‘Nelson Farrar Quarterly Costimating,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 2, 1995, p. 52; Apr. 3, 1995, p. 66; July 3, 1995,
p. 66; Oct. 2, 1995, p. 78.
Swain, Edward J., ‘‘SULFUR, COKE, AND CRUDE
QUALITY—Conclusion: U.S. crude slate continues to
get heavier, higher in sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 9,
1995, p. 37.
Reynolds, John T., ‘‘Risk-based inspection improves safety
of pressure equipment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 16,
1995, p. 37.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘U.K. North Sea’s Forties Blend crude
assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 23, 1995, p. 48.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Make better decisions,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 151.
Kimmons, R.L., ‘‘Be prepared for ’T-day’,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 155.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, ‘‘New equation predicts viscosity of
unknown hydrocarbon vapors,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
6, 1995, p. 60.
239
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Brent blend, U.K. North Sea marker
crude assayed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 6, 1995, p. 63.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘YPF Refineries Aiming For World Class
Operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 13, 1995, p. 54.
‘‘Mobil team plans Nigerian NGL project,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Feb. 20, 1995, p. 30.
‘‘Crude imports to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries to accelerate,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 27, 1995, p. 50.
Ali, M.M., ‘‘When you seek ISO-9000 certification. . .,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995,
p. 186E.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Become a better problem solver,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 193.
‘‘Ruwais refinery project scheduled,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 13, 1995, p. 30.
‘‘Portuguese refiner starts up new gasoline complex,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 13, 1995, p. 95.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Texas refiner optimizes by integrating
units from idle plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20,
1995, p. 49.
Gdula, Lowell Michael, and Wentworth, James A., ‘‘Alaskan
refiner raced against winter to relocate vacuum unit,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1995, p. 60.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Engineering/construction firms adjust
to downsized process sector,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
27, 1995, p. 20.
Leger, Mike W., and Lott, Larry H., ‘‘New gasoline regula-
tions require annual attestations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 27, 1995, p. 51.
Hassan, N., ‘‘How to achieve plant startups in developing
countries,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr.
1995, p. 84B.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Motivation: After the downsizing, Part
1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr.
1995, p. 137.
‘‘Concawe reports reduced emissions from European refiner-
ies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 3, 1995, p. 64.
‘‘Neste begins tests of oxygenate process at Finnish refinery,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 40.
‘‘British question use of oxygenates in gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 40.
Martin, Tim W., ‘‘Global refining industry preparing for
future,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 47.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION REPORT: Refining,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
10, 1995, p. 59.
‘‘Perceived merits, demerits of MTBE still argued,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 17, 1995, p. 22.
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘GUIDE TO EXPORT CRUDES: Four
Argentine crudes in world market,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 17, 1995, p. 58.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Measure engineering performance,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 108A.
Moore, C.W., ‘‘Reduce pollution costs through better pro-
cess design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05,
May 1995, p. 115.
240
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Motivation: After the downsizing, Part
2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 131.
‘‘Court tosses out EPA’s renewable fuel rule,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 8, 1995, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Demand, Deregulation May Attract
More Refiners To Asia,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 8,
1995, p. 35.
Wang, Haijiang, ‘‘Government Will Shape China’s Refining
Boom,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 8, 1995, p. 42.
‘‘Shifting U.S. gasoline programs cloud MTBE future,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 15, 1995, p. 20.
‘‘Unocal’s California RFG patent under legal attack by six
companies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 15, 1995, p. 22.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Gasoline formulations draw interest at
technical meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 22, 1995,
p. 61.
‘‘Big investments lie ahead for Canada’s refining industry,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, May 29, 1995, p. 12.
Koppel, L.B., ‘‘Quantify information system benefits,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995,
p. 41.
Sajid, M., ‘‘Strategic management of technology,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995, p. 116B.
Wells, W. and Taylor, K.L., ‘‘Chemical plant satisfies OSHA
and ISO standards,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 06, June 1995, p. 169.
‘‘MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE: RFG era poses big
questions for U.S. refining industry,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
June 5, 1995, p. 24.
Crow, Patrick, ‘‘WATCHING GOVERNMENT: More
controversy on RFG,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 12,
1995, p. 42.
‘‘California refinery calls a halt to processing,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 12, 1995, p. 44.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE GAS PROCESS-
ING SURVEY,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 12, 1995, p. 66.
‘‘Koch to buy Kerr-McGee’s Texas refinery,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 19, 1995, p. 27.
Zerboni, G., ‘‘How to prepare tender documents,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July 1995, p. 98C.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘How technical professionals succeed as
managers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July
1995, p. 109C.
Aoki, Ichizo, and Kikkawa, Yoshitsugi, ‘‘Technical Efforts
Focus On Cutting LNG Plant Costs,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July 3, 1995, p. 43.
Waguespack, Kevin, ‘‘Internal benchmarking can increase
refinery profits,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 17, 1995, p. 57.
Bohn, Aileen, Dale, Charles, Lidderdale, Tancred, Zyren,
John, Hackworth, John, Shore, Joanne, and Burdette,
Mike, ‘‘RFG in tight supply at introduction, then opt
outs reduced demand,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 31,
1995, p. 76.
References
TOC/INDEX
Ellington, R.T., ‘‘Corporate opportunities for chemical engi-
neers,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug.
1995, p. 82C.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘What’s expected of a supervisor?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995,
p. 161.
‘‘Asian product specifications to tighten by 2000,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 7, 1995, p. 63.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Two of Singapore’s refiners expand
despite lack of land,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 14,
1995, p. 39.
Van Houtert, M.J.A., ‘‘Improve your ISO-based quality
assurance system,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 66C.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Become a low cost, high-quality pro-
ducer,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep.
1995, p. 211.
Boduszynski, Mieczyslaw M., Grudoski, David A., Rechs-
teiner, Carl E., and Iwamoto, Josie D., ‘‘Deep-cut assay
reveals additional yields of high-value VGO,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 11, 1995, p. 39.
Graham, J.R., ‘‘How to prosper in the new economy,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1995,
p. 116E.
Tompkins, B.G. and Shepherd, P., ‘‘Re-engineering and
the material control department,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1995, p. 135.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Supervising professional employees,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1995,
p. 141.
‘‘Clark and OSHA agree to settlement of safety citations,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 31.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Nelson-Farrar Cost Index, Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995,
p. 67; Nov. 6, 1995, p. 67; Dec. 4, 1995, p. 58; Jan. 1,
1996, p. 40; Feb. 5, 1996, p. 53; Mar. 4, 1996, p. 54;
Apr. 1, 1996, p. 68; May 6, 1996, p. 116; June 3, 1996,
p. 48; July 1, 1996, p. 123; Aug. 5, 1996, p. 44; Sept.
2, 1996, p. 80.
‘‘European gasoline survey shows decreasing lead, MON,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 77.
Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating, Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 2, 1995, p. 78; Jan. 1, 1996, p. 52; Apr. 1, 1996,
p. 72; July 1, 1996, p. 124.
‘‘Controversy over U.S. RFG program still alive,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 40.
‘‘China’s refining/petrochemical industry continues expan-
sion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 78.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Refining,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
16, 1995, p. 65.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 16,
1995, p. 95.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 16, 1995, p. 79.
‘‘Pennzoil refinery explosion kills three,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 30, 1995, p. 24.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘ Improved catalysts, process reliability
are key refining trends,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 30,
1995, p. 40.
Robertson, R.F., ‘‘Train for the day after,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 154B.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Measure productivity in the real world,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov. 1995,
p. 193.
‘‘API session focuses on U.S. motor fuels,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 27, 1995, p. 32.
Nelson, E.C., et al, ‘‘Improve project implementation with
CDP,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec.
1995, p. 53.
Lowry, J.C., et al, ‘‘Views from the 1995 ECC conference,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995,
p. 59.
Burd, V.E., et al, ‘‘U.S.-Russia cooperation in E/C: recent
lessons,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec.
1995, p. 63.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘It takes experience to be a construction
contractor,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12,
Dec. 1995, p. 69.
Smith, R.A., ‘‘Pay-for-performance contracting,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 77.
Mashburn, B.S. and Bailey, C.D., ‘‘A quality assurance pro-
gram for refurbished process plants,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 81.
Kusha, A.A., ‘‘Lessons learned from relocation,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 85.
Yaws, Carl, Sheth, Sachin D., and Han, Mei, ‘‘New thermo-
dynamic diagrams developed for methane and ethane,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 4, 1995, p. 62.
‘‘Deadline looming for California refiners to supply Phase
II RFG,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 11, 1995, p. 21.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO EXPORT CRUDES:
Colombia’s new light, sweet Cusiana crude assayed,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 11, 1995, p. 71.
‘‘U.S. refineries show rising utilization rates,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 11, 1995, p. 29.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Asia/Pacific refineries spark growth in
conversion capacity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 18,
1995, p. 41.
Williamson, Michelle K., ‘‘Worldwide refining survey,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 18, 1995, p. 47.
Lamb, R.G., ‘‘Reengineer maintenance for corporate com-
petitiveness,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01,
Jan. 1996, p. 51.
241
TOC/INDEX
Bascur, O.A. and Kennedy, J.P., ‘‘Measuring, managing and
maximizing refinery performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 111.
Nath, B.K., ‘‘Methanol plant applies SPC: a case study,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996,
p. 116B.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘How to effectively manage change,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996,
p. 143.
Brehaut, W.J. and Concannon, M.J., ‘‘Australian LNG plant
debottlenecked to 7.5 million tons/year,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 54.
‘‘General Motors gives RFG the OK,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 8, 1996, p. 42.
Strozier, Robert W., ‘‘Unocal’s patent of gasoline formulas
is complex,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 43.
‘‘Toxicity, emissions test results in for RFG,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘U.S. gasoline plagued by economic, technical uncertainty,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 8, 1996, p. 29.
‘‘BP to sell our trim capacity at three refineries,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 15, 1996, p. 32.
Camps, Jorge A., ‘‘Simple steps help minimize costs, risks
in project contracts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 22,
1996, p. 32.
Oliver, John R., ‘‘Receipt plant for North Sea gas starts up
second train,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 29, 1996, p. 87.
‘‘Amuay refinery scene of big upgrade, expansion,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 29, 1996, p. 38.
Beedie, M., ‘‘Energy waste: A process quality defect?,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 84B.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Establish a quality system that works,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996,
p. 147.
‘‘Changes due in Russian petroleum product mix,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Feb. 5, 1996, p. 38.
Lidderdale, Tancred, Masterson, Nancy, and Dazzo, Nicho-
las, ‘‘Secondary processes key to gauging U.S. refining
capability,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 5, 1996, p. 54.
‘‘Texas plant treats natural gas for use as alternative fuel,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 38.
‘‘Fiber optic sensing detects hot spots in methane reformers,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 47.
‘‘Iran moves to beef up downstream operations,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 26, 1996, p. 40.
True, Warren, ‘‘Upgraded gas plant anchors reconfigured
gathering system,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 26, 1996,
p. 65.
Shah, G.C., ‘‘ISO-14000: To be or not to be?,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 132D.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Workplace trends: How will they affect
you?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar.
1996, p. 157.
‘‘Big refinery planned in Pakistan,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
11, 1996, p. 42.
242 References
‘‘Conoco expands Oklahoma refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 11, 1996, p. 42.
Martin, Gary R., ‘‘Refinery experience provides guidelines
for centrifugal pump selection,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, p. 80.
‘‘California refinery RFG modifications finished by Unocal,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 37.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Venezuelan refiner completes $2.5 billion
refinery expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1996, p. 51.
‘‘Catalyst handling, disposal become more important in envi-
ronmental era,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 64.
‘‘Complexity index indicates refinery capability, value,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 74.
‘‘Siberian company starts up modular refinery,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 68.
‘‘Automakers’ fuel specs trouble U.S. refiners,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 37.
‘‘Economic forces push down selling prices of U.S. refiner-
ies,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 82.
Plotnikov, Valeri S., Avgerinos, Gabriel F., Dvorets, Nikita
L., and Tyukov, Vladimir M., ‘‘Russian refining shows
signs of revival, needs investment,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 25, 1996, p. 47.
‘‘Shakeout gathers momentum in Europe’s refining sector,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 21.
‘‘Wood Mackenzie assesses effect of new EC auto fuel rules
on refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 22.
Ciurlizza, A., et al, ‘‘Quantitative safety measures in petro-
chemical plants,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 82F.
Roup, J.P., ‘‘The planning and scheduling process,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 157.
‘‘Crude inventories reflect U.S. refiners’ revamped strategy,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1996, p. 40.
‘‘Dagestan begins operating its first refinery,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 8, 1996, p. 29.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: Hungary’s problems with
Russian oil,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996, p. 30.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Gas processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 8, 1996, p. 86.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Refineries,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
8, 1996, p. 53.
‘‘Key work practices lower refinery operating costs,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996, p. 50.
Barnett, Jack W. ‘‘New salt product dries distillate streams,
eliminates haze,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1996, p. 68.
‘‘EC diagnoses problems of Europe’s refiners,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 15, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘Marketers seek suspension of California fuel rules,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘U.S. refiners face more challenges in wake of RFG introduc-
tion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 23.
TOC/INDEX
Liesenring Jr., Roger L., ‘‘Low sulfur diesel controversy con-
tinues,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 75.
‘‘Simple tests determine catalyst regeneration temperature,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 29, 1996, p. 62.
‘‘Operator/E&C relationship explored in Europe,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 29, 1996, p. 63.
Aisembrey, E.J., et al, ‘‘Computer delivery of operating and
maintenance procedures,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 100C.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Use technology effectively,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 147.
‘‘CARB: Gasoline shortages could ease California rules,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 6, 1996, p. 42.
Durand, Alejandro Anaya, Osorio, Rául Abraján, and Suárez,
Rogelio Hernández, ‘‘New program sizes pressure-relief
drums,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 6, 1996, p. 104.
‘‘Japan’s refiner/marketers headed for big shakeout after
deregulation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 6, 1996, p. 35.
Lund, Dena L., ‘‘Wyoming operator solves mercury exposure
problems,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 70.
‘‘Sasol schedules major upgrade of synfuel plant,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 13, 1996, p. 44.
‘‘Sabic and Mobil to add capacity at Yanbu complex,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, May 20, 1996, p. 39.
‘‘Thailand’s PTT expands gas separation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 20, 1996, p. 40.
‘‘Esso, OMW to combine Karlsruhe refineries,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 27, 1996, p. 25.
Heaven, David L., ‘‘Gasification converts variety of problem
feedstocks and wastes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,
1996, p. 49.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Collect useful engineering performance
data,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June
1996, p. 114C.
Munisteri, J.G., ‘‘E/Cs adopt matrix management,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June 1996, p. 169.
Lynch, Joe T. and Pitman, Richard N., ‘‘Texas plant retrofit
improves the throughput, C2 recovery,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, June 3, 1996, p. 41.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Gas processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal
Apr. 8, 1996, p. 86.
Lewis, Everett, ‘‘India’s refining prospects linked to eco-
nomic growth,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 10, 1996, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Pre-
liminary assay reveals quality of Mars blend,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 10, 1996, p. 67.
‘‘U.S. Ex-Im Bank to support refinery revamp in Russia,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, June 10, 1996, p. 38.
‘‘Reconfiguration set at Sun refineries in south Philadelphia,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 27.
Robertson, R., ‘‘Training technology enhances plant perfor-
mances,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July
1996, p. 66C.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Bloch, H.P., ‘‘How the best petrochemical companies
achieve reliability,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 07, July 1996, p. 83.
Anderson, R.F., ‘‘Total cost of ownership: getting past the
10% solution,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07,
July 1996, p. 105.
‘‘Chinese ethylene plant meets requirements,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 1, 1996, p. 38.
Haun, Rick R., Otto, Ken W., and Whitley, S. Craig,
‘‘Global gas processing will strengthen to meet expanding
markets,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 1, 1996, p. 55.
True, Warren R., ‘‘U.S. gas processing consolidates while
world tempo increases,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 1,
1996, p. 49.
‘‘Worldwide gas processing survey,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July
1, 1996, p. 65.
‘‘Argentine gas plant starts up,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 8,
1996, p. 57.
Waguespack, Kevin and Cantor, Brian D., ‘‘Oil inventories
should be based on margins, supply reliability,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, July 8, 1996, p. 39.
‘‘Integrating process design and control improves plant oper-
ability,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 15, 1996, p. 67.
‘‘U.S. refiners find benefits in JVs with foreign partners,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, July 22, 1996, p. 16.
‘‘Price, quality controls alter Saudi fuels sector,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 29, 1996, p. 103.
Thompson, R.G., et al, ‘‘Improve project decisions and
teams,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug.
1996, p. 68C.
Boutte, F.D., et al, ‘‘Group dynamics of video conferencing,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996,
p. 139.
‘‘Blasts cripple Mexico’s top gas complex,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 5, 1996, p. 22.
Bautista, Paul, ‘‘Rise in gas-fired power generation tracks
gains in turbine efficiency,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12,
1996, p. 43.
‘‘E. Europe refiners let big contracts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 12, 1996, p. 30.
‘‘Japan’s refiner/marketers headed for major shakeout,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 26, 1996, p. 31.
‘‘Processing plants reduce workplace injuries, illnesses,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 26, 1996, p. 57.
‘‘Uzbeki refinery in half way to completion,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 26, 1996, p. 57.
‘‘Kyrgyzstan’s first refinery to start up this month,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 9, 1996, p. 37.
‘‘Global gasoline, diesel quality continues to improve,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 16, 1996, p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Refiner upgrades to meet worlds toughest
gasoline specs,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 23, 1996, p. 78.
Straitz, John F., III, ‘‘Cleaning the air about flare systems,’’
Chemical Engineering, Sep. 1996, p. 116.
243
TOC/INDEX
Bodington, C.E. and Shobrys, D.E., ‘‘Optimize the supply
chain,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep.
1996, p. 55.
Sloley, A.W., ‘‘Teamwork, ownership and the modern proj-
ect,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep.
1996, p. 118C.
Kuehn, N.R., ‘‘Implementing NAFTA: one company’s suc-
cess story,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09,
Sep. 1996, p. 151.
‘‘Ultramar, Diamond Shamrock agree to merge,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 30, 1996, p. 34.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Refineries,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30,
1996, p. 55.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30,
1996, p. 67.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1996,
p. 85.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Gas processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30,
1996, p. 88.
Early, W.F., ‘‘Improve client-contractor working relation-
ships under PSM,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 10, Oct. 1996, p. 95.
Mueller, J.D., et al, ‘‘Winning projects in central Europe,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct. 1996,
p. 132C.
Deemer, G., ‘‘Modularization reduces cost and unexpected
delays,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 10, Oct.
1996, p. 143.
Gomez, José Vicente, ‘‘New equations predict boiling point
from viscosity, gravity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7,
1996, p. 92.
Nelson-Farrar Cost Index, Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7, 1996,
p. 91; Nov. 4, 1996, p. 89; Dec. 2, 1996, p. 67; Jan. 6,
1997, p. 51; Feb. 3, 1997, p. 53; Apr. 7,1997, p. 77;
May 5, 1997, p. 112; June 2, 1997, p. 143; July 7, 1997,
p. 71; Aug. 4, 1997, p. 67; Sept. 1, 1997, p. 61.
Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating, Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 7, 1996, p. 100; Jan. 6, 1997, p. 42; Apr. 7, 1997,
p. 78; July 7, 1997, p. 72.
Wheatley, Richard, ‘‘Shell, Texaco, Aramco eye R&M alli-
ance,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 29.
‘‘Mobil, Pequiven slate Venezuelan petrochem plant,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 34.
‘‘Worldwide Catalyst Report,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14,
1996, p. 43.
‘‘Experts reveal catalyst-selection methodologies,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1996, p. 50.
Krishna, Ashok S., Arndt, John H., Kuehler, Chris W.,
and Kramer, Dave C., ‘‘Refiner details ‘best practices’
approach to catalyst selection,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
14, 1996, p. 44.
244 References
Aalund, L.R., ‘‘Unique Sardinian refinery focuses on third-
party crude processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 21,
1996, p. 16.
‘‘BASF in petrochem JVs with Shell, Hoechst,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 21, 1996, p. 19.
‘‘Work starts on S. African TAME unit,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 28, 1996, p. 24.
‘‘U.S. refining margins reached nadir in 1995, upturn
expected,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1996, p. 80.
‘‘Sulfur problems loom for Europe’s refiners,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 4, 1996, p. 35.
‘‘EBRD to fund FSU downstream work,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 4, 1996, p. 36.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: R&D crunch awaits Euro-
pean refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 40.
‘‘U.K. refiners to shut refinery, merge interests,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 40.
‘‘Market squeeze delays sale of Peru’s Talara refinery,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 20.
‘‘U.K. products imbalance seen persisting,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 20.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘New ammonia process, catalyst proven
in Canadian plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11,
1996, p. 37.
Shah, G.C., ‘‘Use environmental audits to improve facility-
wide compliance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 83.
Weiss, W.H., ‘‘Is your plant inherently secure?,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 86C.
Wolfe, M.N., ‘‘Contract labor in the petrochemical indus-
try,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov.
1996, p. 197.
‘‘Tosco to acquire Unocal downstream unit,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 32.
‘‘Pemex under fire after tank farm blast,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 25, 1996, p. 34.
Statoil starts Kaarsto project,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec.1996, p. 34.
‘‘China downstream investment focus shifting,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 2, 1996, p. 46.
Hewitt, Robert J., Miller, Kenneth D., Eskew, Blake T.,
and Kelly, Steven J., ‘‘U.S. inland refiners becoming more
reliant on imported crude,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9,
1996, p. 20.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Europe’s refining industry woes detailed
at London meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 9, 1996,
p. 52.
Hunt, Phil, ‘‘European refiners must seek creative processes
to justify heavy-ends projects,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.
9, 1996, p. 53.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Distillation capacity exceeds 76 million
b/d, hydrotreating surges,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23,
1996, p. 41.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘1996 Worldwide Refining Survey,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1996, p. 49.
TOC/INDEX
‘‘Sun to restructure Puerto Rico refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 30, 1996, p. 33.
‘‘Ulsan refinery world’s largest,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.
30, 1996, p. 33.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Downstream, catalyst companies ally
with gas-to-liquids process developer.’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 30, 1996, p. 85.
Dragoo, R.E., ‘‘Real-time profit management,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 49.
Heuring, G. and Iocolano, A., ‘‘Optimize workforce perfor-
mance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec.
1996, p. 53.
Intille, G.M., et al, ‘‘Business interruption mitigation in the
HPI,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec.
1996, p. 55.
Woodruff, D.M., ‘‘Six critical management issues,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 65.
Kerridge, A.E., ‘‘Has quality management run out of
steam?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec.
1996, p. 71.
Latour, P.R., ‘‘Process control: CLIFFTENT shows it’s more
profitable than,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 75.
Robertson, R.F., ‘‘Develop a performance-focused organiza-
tion,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec.
1996, p. 81.
Thurman, J., ‘‘Do you manage your environmental risks
effectively?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12,
Dec. 1996, p. 99.
Iyer, K.R., ‘‘Manage turnarounds effectively,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 100C.
McHaney, J.H. and Williamson, G.C., ‘‘Manage equipment
failure investigation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 53.
Lamb, R.G., ‘‘Reliability and maintenance strategy to drive
business performance,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 77.
Davidson, F. and Tsang, C., ‘‘Improve online freeze and
cloud point control,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 01, Jan. 1997, p. 95.
Elmaleh, A. and Ores, I., ‘‘Industrial property: a valuable
weapon,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 102G.
Sarma, H., ‘‘Plan ahead for a smooth project hand over to
operations,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01,
Jan. 1997, p. 135.
Akande, B.O., ‘‘Kuwait: A country and a corporation,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb. 1997,
p. 84C.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: Margin hike ahead for
Europe’s refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1997,
p. 30.
‘‘French refiners to slash spending to 2000,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 17, 1997, p. 24.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
‘‘Shell France first French refiner in 12 years to cut capacity,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1997, p.26.
Olstead, C. and Choksi, T., ‘‘Innovative ideas at work:
leveraging best practices,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 02, Feb. 1997, p. 149.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: BP to share process secret,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 3, 1997, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Hostile operating climate augurs further
closures for U.S. refiners,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 10,
1997, p. 21.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Dutch refinery nears completion of major
renovation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 60.
‘‘Doubt looms over U.S. refining upturn,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 24, 1997, p. 24.
‘‘Valero to acquire Basis Petroleum in downstream push,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 24, 1997, p. 24.
Linsley, Jerald, ‘‘New, simpler equations calculate pressure-
compensated temperatures,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 24,
1997, p. 58.
Anderthal, N.E., ‘‘Manage consultants better,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar. 1997, p. 84C.
Dorweiler, V.P., ‘‘Legal systems and multinational business,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar. 1997,
p. 181.
‘‘UPR slates big Colorado gas/helium project,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 14, 1997, p. 29.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Refineries,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 14,
1997, p. 56.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Petrochemicals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 14,
1997, p. 67.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 14, 1997,
p. 82.
Radler, Marilyn, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Gas processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 14,
1997, p. 84.
‘‘Ultramar Diamond Shamrock acquiring Total NA,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 21, 1997, p. 26.
‘‘Conoco, Pennzoil start up lubes plant in Louisiana,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 21, 1997, p. 26.
Swain, Edward, ‘‘Sulfur recovery in U.S. refineries is at an
all-time high,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 21, 1997, p.71.
‘‘Argentina-Brazil NGL deal signed,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 21, 1997, p. 32.
Jenkins, John H., ‘‘State of European refining industry is
less bleak than reported,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 28,
1997, p. 49.
Inomata, Makoto, Sato, Kyohei, Yamada, Yu, and Sasaki,
Hajime, ‘‘Engineering firm has designed refinery of the
future,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 28, 1997, p. 56.
245
TOC/INDEX
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: New niche for gas-to-liq-
uids,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 28, 1997, p. 42.
Jackson, S. L., ‘‘ISO 14000: What you need to know,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997,
p. 133.
‘‘Fina/Total’s U.K. refinery starts up CHP project,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, May 5, 1997, p. 58.
McLeod, Gordon, ‘‘Kyrgyzstan starts up its first refinery,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, May 5, 1997, p. 108.
Collins, Kevin, Treiber, Steven, and Walker, John, ‘‘Multi-
variable control benefits Alberta plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
May 5, 1997, p. 118.
Milios, Paul B. and Harris, Richard A., ‘‘Large U.S. liquids
plant starts up,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, May 12, 1997, p. 60.
‘‘Malaysian refining/marketing boom on tap,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, May 19, 1997, p. 37.
Kernan, Kevin and Carranza, Daniel, ‘‘Argentine gas plant
expansion makes most of existing infrastructure,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, May 26, 1997, p. 64.
Kuhlke, W.C., ‘‘Polyolefins review 1997,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 3I.
‘‘A view of ACHEMA ’97 conference,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 53.
‘‘The petrochemical/chemical industry, by country,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 55.
Krenek, M.R., ‘‘Improve global competitiveness with supply-
chain management,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 05, May 1997, p. 97.
Smith, W., ‘‘Improve logistics to reduce distribution costs,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997,
p. 113.
Bozant, G.C., ‘‘Reduce automation costs in today’s HPI
facility,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May
1997, p. 178.
True, Warren R., ‘‘U.S., Canada continue dominance of
world’s gas processing,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 2,
1997, p. 50.
Bellow Jr., Edward J., Ghazal, Fouad P., Silverman, Alan
J., and Myers, Stephen D., ‘‘Technology advances keeping
LNG cost-competitive,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 2,
1997, p.74.
‘‘Worldwide gas processing survey,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June
2, 1997, p. 88.
Knott, David, ‘‘Gas-to-liquids projects gaining momentum
as process list grows,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 23,
1997, p. 16.
‘‘DOE plans gas-to-liquids conventional transportation proj-
ect,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 23, 1997, p. 20.
Naklie, Marie M., ‘‘Design advanced for large-scale, eco-
nomic, floating LNG plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June
30, 1997, p. 66.
White, D.C., ‘‘Online optimization: what, where and esti-
mating ROI,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06,
Jun. 1997, p. 43.
246
Chatterjee, S.R., ‘‘Competitiveness, DCS and management
of control projects,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 06, Jun. 1997, p. 110C.
Funk, G.L., ‘‘Wanted: a few good technologies,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 06, Jun. 1997, p. 143.
‘‘South Korea’s refining/petrochemical capacity expansion
push continues to gather momentum,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
July, 7, 1997, p. 19.
‘‘How evolving new fuel specs are challenging Asia’s refin-
ers,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 7, 1997, p. 35.
‘‘Asian refiners may see relief on margins as capacity additions
ease,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 7, 1997, p. 40.
‘‘Japan’s refiner/marketers continue to grapple with down-
stream deregulation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 7, 1997,
p. 51.
Rivas M., Margiori, Bracho, José Luis, and Murray, James
E., ‘‘NGL recovery being hiked by natural-gasoline recir-
culation,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 7, 1997, p. 67.
Aalund, Leo, ‘‘Global refining industry on verge of
rebound,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 14, 1997, p. 26.
‘‘Shell sees niche for new bitumen products,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, July 21, 1997, p. 38.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: India quietly joins gas-to-
liquids race,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 21, 1997, p. 36.
‘‘WATCHING THE WORLD: Gas-to-liquids’ rite of pas-
sage,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 28, 1997, p. 35.
Desmarest, T., ‘‘What changes will the oil industry face?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul. 1997,
p. 100C.
Reddi, S.V., ‘‘Structure better engineering specs,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 121.
Soltau, R.C., ‘‘A quantitative approach to quality,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 127.
‘‘U.S. gulf-related gas processing to expand,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 4, 1997, p. 32.
‘‘WATCHING GOVERNMENT: GTL research,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 4, 1997, p. 33.
Singleton, Alan H., ‘‘Advances make gas-to-liquids process
competitive for remote locations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 4, 1997, p. 68.
‘‘Japanese firms join BG in India LNG scheme,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 11, 1997, p. 32.
Rudin, Mikhail G. and Plotnikov, Valeri S., ‘‘Russia struggles
toward refinery modernization goals,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 18, 1997, p. 31.
Khartukov, Eugene M., ‘‘Incomplete privatization mixes
ownership of Russia’s oil industry,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 18, 1997, p. 36.
‘‘Merger of Venezuelan refineries delayed,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Aug. 25, 1997, p. 37.
Milosevic, Zoran and Ponhöfer, Clemens, ‘‘Refiner improves
steam system with custom simulation/optimization pack-
age,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 25, 1997, p. 90.
Shah, G.C., ‘‘Use ISO-14000 as a compliance and productiv-
ity tool,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug.
1997, p. 75.
References
TOC/INDEX
Moores, T. and Venkatesh, M., ‘‘Do your environmental
practices offer a payback?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 85.
Tedesco, J.A. and Cichon, E.J., ‘‘Outsource water/wastewa-
ter management,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 87.
Anderthal, N.E., ‘‘Pros and cons of using a PMC,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 102C.
‘‘Second group eyes gas-to-liquids membrane process,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 15, 1997, p. 27.
‘‘U.S. refiners set more records,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
22, 1997, p. 34.
XXI. LIGHT-OIL CAT PROCESSING
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Ludwig, G.H., ‘‘Industrial hydrogenation of aldehydes,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993,
p. 67.
Ladebeck, J., ‘‘Improve methanol synthesis,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 89.
Cooper, B.H., et al., ‘‘Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel aro-
matics saturation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 06, June 1993, p. 83.
Liers, J., et al., ‘‘Reforming using erionite catalysts,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 165.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
‘‘New high conversion etherification process tested and pat-
ented,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 27, 1993, p. 98.
Ragsdale, Ralph, ‘‘U.S. refiners choosing variety of routes
to produce clean fuels,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 21,
1994, p. 51.
‘‘Processing, compliance options can reduce cost of produc-
ing new gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 11, 1994, p. 63.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Catalyst suppliers consolidate further,
offer more catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995,
p. 35.
‘‘NPRA Q&A—2: Catalyst issues stir interest at technology
meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 45.
‘‘New technology appears to perform several processes in
one step,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1997, p. 80.
Weiss, W.H., ‘‘Practicing ergonomics in the plant,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 125.
‘‘Phillips, Pdvsa ink coker, crude sale deal,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 1, 1997, p. 40.
‘‘India attracting foreign firms with LNG deals,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 8, 1997, p. 37.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Hajdik, Brock, Lorey, Manfred, Steinle, Jürgen, and
Thomas, Keith, ‘‘Vortex tube can increase liquid hydro-
carbon recovery at plant inlet,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
8, 1997, p. 76.
Aitani, Abdullah M. and Hamid, Syed Halim, ‘‘DOWN-
STREAM IN THE PERSIAN GULF-1: Gulf countries
continue to increase refinery capacity, complexity,’’ Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 15, 1997, p. 36.
XXII. ISOMERIZATION
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 89.
Sarathy, P.R. and Suffridge, G.S., ‘‘Etherify field butanes,
Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb.
1993, p. 43.
Pescarollo, E., et al., ‘‘Etherify light gasolines,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
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.
Ragsdale, Ralph, ‘‘U.S. refiners choosing variety of routes
to produce clean fuels,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 21,
1994, p. 51.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
‘‘Processing, compliance options can reduce cost of produc-
ing new gasoline,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, July 11, 1994, p. 63.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘European gasoline survey shows decreasing lead, MON,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 77.
Al-Mutaz, I.S., ‘‘How to implement a gasoline pool lead
phase-down,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02,
Feb. 1996, p. 63.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
XXIII. AROMATICS EXTRACTION
Goelzer, Alan R., Ram, Sanjeev, Hernandez-Robinson,
Agustin, Chin, Arthur A., Harandi, Mohsen N., and
Smith, C. Morris, ‘‘Refiners have several options for
247
TOC/INDEX
reducing gasoline benzene,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13,
1993, p. 63.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Ragsdale, Ralph, ‘‘U.S. refiners choosing variety of routes
to produce clean fuels,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 21,
1994, p. 51.
Sloley, Andrew W., and Kolmetz, Karl, ‘‘Texas refiner
expands aromatics capacity 20% with staged revamp,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28, 1994, p. 61.
Tsai, Tseng-Chang, Hu, Hsin-Chung, Tsai, Kun-Yung, and
Jeng, Fu-Sou, ‘‘Improved calculations increased toluene
conversion at Taiwan refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, June
13, 1994, p. 115.
Daubert, T.E., ‘‘Petroleum fraction distillation interconver-
sions,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept.
1994, p. 75.
Martin, G.R., et al, ‘‘Understand vacuum system fundamen-
tals,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct.
1994, p. 91.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
Papa, G. and Zenz, F.A., ‘‘Correlating throughput and back-
mixing in fluidized beds,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 81.
Hall, S.G., et al, ‘‘Use process integration to improve FCC/
VRU design, Part 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 63.
Albert, B.D. and DeCou, M.A., ‘‘Install column packing
and trays using an integrated approach,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 77.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Hall, S.G., et al, ‘‘Use process integration to improve FCC/
VRU design, Part 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 95.
Shahani, G.H., et al, ‘‘Increase TPA production,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 99.
Kastner, H. and Kaminsky, W., ‘‘Recycle plastics into feed-
stocks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 109.
Aubrey, D.C., ‘‘Use performance indicators to improve fore-
casting,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July
1995, p. 81.
Leahy, M.C. and Erickson, G.P., ‘‘Bioventing reduces soil
cleanup costs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08,
Aug. 1995, p. 63.
Ranade, S.M. and Braswell, J.B., ‘‘How to design a styrene-
vapor collection and disposal system,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 89.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
Hartman, E.L., et al, ‘‘Startup, shutdown and control of
refinery packed fractionator,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 67.
248 References
Hennessey, P.M., et al, ‘‘Use coalescing methods to solve
emulsion problems,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 107.
Kane, R.D. and Cayard, M.S., ‘‘Improve corrosion control
in refining processes,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 129.
Cheng, S., et al, ‘‘Predict amine solution properties accu-
rately,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb.
1996, p. 81.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-year-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 105.
Nag, A., ‘‘Evaluate reformer performance at a glance,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996,
p. 59.
Hunter, M.L., ‘‘How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater
treating plant, Pt. 2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 87.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Trivedi, K.K., et al, ‘‘Optimize a licensor’s design using
pinch technology,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 05, May 1996, p. 113.
Straitz, III, J.F., ‘‘Improve flare safety and reliability to meet
ISO-9000 stds.,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 06, June 1996, p. 109.
Reid, J.A. and McPhaul, D.R., ‘‘Control contaminants in
olefin feedstocks and products, Pt 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July 1996, p. 45.
Anderson, R., et al, ‘‘Use proactive permitting to expand
capacity,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July
1996, p. 65.
Depew, C.A. and Nielsen, R.B., ‘‘Dynamic simulation for
process design,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07,
July 1996, p. 67.
Sloley, A.W., ‘‘Teamwork, ownership and the modern proj-
ect,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep.
1996, p. 118C.
Reid, J.A. and McPhaul, D.R., ‘‘Control contaminants in
olefin feedstocks and products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 128.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Twu, C.H. and Coon, J.E., ‘‘Estimate octane numbers using
an enhanced method,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 03, Mar. 1997, p. 65.
Nag, A., ‘‘Assess hydrocracker performance using a short-
cut method,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03,
Mar. 1997, p. 79.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’97,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar. 1997, p. 103.
Siegell, J.H., ‘‘Improve VOC emission predictions,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 119.
Manning, T.J., ‘‘What are future petrochemical feedstocks?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997,
p. 85.
TOC/INDEX
Gentry, J.C. and Kumar, C.S., ‘‘Generate more revenues
from pygas recovery,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 06, Jun. 1997, p. 73.
Kwon, S.H., et al, ‘‘Improve flare management,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 07, Jul. 1997, p. 105.
PERF, ‘‘New refinery stream profiles available,’’ Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 63.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Environmentally advanced refinery nears
start-up in Germany,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 17,
1997, p. 49.
XXIV. VISBREAKING
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert F., ‘‘Visbreaker hard-
ware has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
Iscovici, R.S., ‘‘Kinetic model solves visbreaker constraint
control problem,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 05, May 1994, p. 109.
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., ‘‘Improve syngas pro-
duction using autothermal reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 39.
Babik, Anton, and Kurt, Josef, ‘‘Slovakian refiner operating
new hybrid hydrogen-production process,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 21, 1994, p. 66.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
Patel, Nitin M., Davis, Ruth A., Eaton, Norm, Carlson,
Daniel L., Kessler, Fred, and Khurana, Vinay, ‘‘‘Across-
the-fence’ hydrogen plant starts up at California refinery,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 3, 1994, p. 54.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Mastrogiacomo, Michael, Bilodeau, Denis, Treiber, Steven,
and Walker, John, ‘‘Advanced control of hydrogen net-
work reduces energy consumption,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 1, 1997, p. 72.
XXV. HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
Baade, W.F., et al., ‘‘Generate hydrogen for reformulated
gasoline and clean diesel,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., ‘‘Improve methanol synthesis,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 89.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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.
Fleming, G.K. and Dupuis, G.E., ‘‘Hydrogen membrane
recovery estimates,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 61.
Ladeur, Peter and Bijwaard, Harry, ‘‘Shell plans $2.2-billion
renovation of Dutch refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
26, 1993, p. 64.
Felten, J.R., et al., ‘‘Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environ-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 82-b.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Schulman, B.L., et al., ‘‘Bottom-of-the-barrel upgrading
moves aggressively,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 100c.
Golden, S.W., ‘‘Minimize capital investment for refinery
revamps,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 01, Jan.
1997, p. 103.
Braithwaite, J.R., ‘‘Improve sulfur unit reliability,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 79.
Kister, H.Z., et al, ‘‘Does your distillation simulation reflect
the real world?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 08, Aug. 1997, p. 103.
Aitani, Abdullah M. and Hamid, Syed Halim, ‘‘DOWN-
STREAM IN THE PERSIAN GULF-2: The Persian
Gulf’s petrochemical industry is proliferating,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 22, 1997, p. 73.
XXVI. SULFUR PLANT OPERATIONS
Ladebeck, J., ‘‘Improve methanol synthesis,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 89.
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.
Aitani, A.M., ‘‘Sour natural gas drying,’’ Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 67.
Felten, J.R., et al., ‘‘Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environ-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 82-B.
Judd, Bill, ‘‘Mercaptan removal rate exceeds 99% at Cana-
dian gas plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 81.
‘‘Process for H2S removal from low-volume gas streams tes-
ted,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 70.
Schendel, Ronald, ‘‘SO2-generation process can double refin-
ery Claus unit capacity,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 27,
1993, p. 63.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Johnson, J.E., Tzap, Stephen J., Kelley, Robert E., and
Laczko, Lawrence P., ‘‘H2S IN EOR—Options narrowed
249
TOC/INDEX
to Claus or redox processes,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
22, 1993, p. 70.
Sloan, H.D., ‘‘Refinery expansion/upgrading means lighter,
quality products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 82C.
Nasato, Elmo, MacDougall, R. Steve, and Lagas, Jan. A.,
‘‘New catalyst improves sulfur recovery at Canadian
plant,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 28 1994, p. 45.
‘‘Russian refiner tests new one-stage H2S removal process,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 81.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Lyondell, Citgo join for heavy oil upgrade
project at Houston refinery,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
21, 1994, p. 60.
Anon, ‘‘Gas Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 04, Apr. 1994, p. 67.
‘‘NPRA Q&A: Auxiliary equipment, corrosion focus of
refiner meeting,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 4, 1994, p. 62.
Dean, C. and Stevenson, D., ‘‘How to develop calibration
curves for fuel gas,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 97.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION REPORT: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 17,
1994, p. 97.
Swain, Edward J., ‘‘SULFUR, COKE, AND CRUDE
QUALITY—1: Coke, sulfur recovery from U.S. refineries
continues to increase,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 2,
1995, p. 33.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Kafesijan, A.S. and Dewey, R.C., ‘‘Demonstrating tail-gas
treater reliability reduces costs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 53.
Cook, P.J. and Losin, M.S., ‘‘Membranes provide cost-effec-
tive natural gas processing,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995, p. 79.
Keller, A., et al, ‘‘How efficient are refinery amine units?,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 04, Apr. 1995,
p. 91.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION REPORT: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 10,
1995, p. 88.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more cata-
lysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Shuai, Xiaoshan, and Meisen, Axel, ‘‘New correlations and
physical properties of elemental sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 16, 1995, p. 50.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 16,
1996, p. 95.
Kane, R.D. and Cayard, M.S., ‘‘Improve corrosion control
in refining processes,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 129.
250 References
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Venezuelan refiner completes $2.5 billion
refinery expansion,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18,
1996, p. 51.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Williamson, Michelle, ‘‘WORLDWIDE CONSTRUC-
TION UPDATE: Sulfur,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8,
1996, p. 84.
Harruff, Lewis G., and Bushkuhl, Stephen J., ‘‘Activated
carbon passes tests for acid-gas clean-up,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 31.
Braithwaite, John, ‘‘Reliability program improves refinery
sulfur plant operations,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 2, 1996.
‘‘New low-sulfur diesel debuts in Brazil,’’ Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 16, 1996, p. 22.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’97,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar. 1997, p. 103.
Swain, Edward, ‘‘Sulfur recovery in U.S. refineries is at an
all-time high,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 21, 1997, p. 71.
Bourdon, J.C., ‘‘Improve operations and enhance refinery
sulfur recovery,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 57.
Anderson, M. and Dimmer, R. C., ‘‘Analyze trace sulfur
compounds in hydrocarbon gas streams,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 04, Apr. 1997, p. 73.
XXVII. POLYMERIZATION
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,’’ Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Sedriks, W., ‘‘Understanding the petrochemical cycle, Part
1,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar.
1994, p. 49.
Montagna, A.A. and Floyd, J.C., ‘‘Single-sited catalysis leads
next polyolefin generation,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 57.
Sedriks, W., ‘‘Understanding the petrochemical cycle, Part
2,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 04, Apr.
1994, p. 45.
Kuhlke, W.C., ‘‘World polymers market outlook,’’ Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 57.
Jeanneret, J.J., et al., ‘‘New strategies maximize para-xylene
production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 06,
June 1994, p. 43.
Tindall, B.M. and King, D.L., ‘‘Designing steam reformers
for hydrogen production,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 69.
‘‘Refining Processes ’94,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73,
No. 11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Kastner, H. and Kaminsky, W., ‘‘Recycle plastics into feed-
stocks,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 109.
TOC/INDEX
Aubrey, D.C., ‘‘Use performance indicators to improve fore-
casting,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July
1995, p. 81.
Rhodes, Anne K., ‘‘Catalyst suppliers consolidate further,
offer more catalysts,’’ Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995,
p. 35.
‘‘OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation—1995,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
Baker, R.W. and Jacobs, M., ‘‘Improve monomer recovery
from polyolefin resin degassing,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 49.
Reid, J.A. and McPhaul, D.R., ‘‘Control contaminants in
olefin feedstocks and products, Pt 1,’’ Hydrocarbon Pro-
cessing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July 1996, p. 45.
Sloley, A.W., ‘‘Teamwork, ownership and the modern proj-
ect,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep.
1996, p. 118C.
Fleming, G.K. and Dupuis G.E., ‘‘Hydrogen membrane
recovery estimates,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 61.
Felten, J.R., et al., ‘‘Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environ-
ment,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 82-B.
Babik, Anton, and Kurt, Josef, ‘‘Slovakian refiner operating
new hybrid hydrogen-production process,’’ Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 21, 1994, p. 66.
Patel, Nitin M., Davis, Ruth A., Eaton, Norm, Carlson,
Daniel L., Kessler, Fred, and Khurana, Vinay, ‘‘‘Across-
the-fence’ hydrogen plant starts up at California refinery,’’
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 3, 1994, p. 54.
Abrardo, J.M. and Khurana, V., ‘‘Hydrogen technologies
to meet refiners’ future needs,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 43.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’95,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 89.
Tindall, B.M. and Crews, M.A., ‘‘Alternative technologies
to steam-methane reforming,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov. 1995, p. 75.
1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Hohmann, F.W., ‘‘Improve steam reformer performance,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996,
p. 71.
‘‘Gas Processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 103.
Pacalowska, B., et al, ‘‘Improve hydrogen recovery from
refinery offgases,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 55.
Reid, J.A. and McPhaul, D.R., ‘‘Control contaminants in
olefin feedstocks and products,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 09, Sep. 1996, p. 128.
‘‘Refining processes ’96,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
‘‘Petrochemical Processes ’97,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 76, No. 03, Mar. 1997, p. 103.
Kuhlke, W.C., ‘‘Polyolefins review 1997,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 76, No. 05, May 1997, p. 3I.
Rothman, S.N., ‘‘How will Southeast Asian petrochemicals
impact the HPI?,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76,
No. 05, May 1997, p. 91.
XXVIII. HYDROGEN
Baade, W.F., et al., ‘‘Generate hydrogen for reformulated
gasoline and clean diesel,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., ‘‘Improve methanol synthesis,’’ Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 89.
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.
Kunz, R.G., et al, ‘‘Predict NOx from gas-fired furnaces,’’
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1996,
p. 65.
Nag, A., ‘‘Assess hydrocracker performance using a short-
cut method,’’ Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 76, No. 03,
Mar. 1997, p. 79.
251
TOC/INDEX

NPRA Q & A Session on

Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Registration List
NAME COMPANY LOCATION
Leo R. Aalund . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Jim Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, England
Mohammed Sibawaih Abdalla . . . El Nasr Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egypt
Mohamed Akhir Abdul Rashid . . . Petronas Penapisan (Melaka) Sdn Bhd . . . . . . . Melaka, Malaysia
Warren F. Ache . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jimmy Achee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Rich Ackman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Alfredo Acosta . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Scott Adair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Robert Adamski . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Raul Adarme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Devendra Agrawal . . . . . . . . . . . The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . Houston, TX
Enrique Aguilar . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Kamal Bahrin Ahmad . . . . . . . . . Petronas Penapisan (Melaka) Sdn Bhd . . . . . . . Melaka, Malaysia
Shin Akaishi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Chiba, Japan
Adeel Akhter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Musaad Al-Eissa . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Ali Al-Hazmi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Wahib Al-Juhani . . . . . . . . . . . . Aramco Overseas Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading, England
Abdulhadi Al-Mureeh . . . . . . . . . Aramco Overseas Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading, England
Mohammad Al-Shaikh . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Nasser M. Al-Shamma . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Wannas Al-Shammari . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Brian D. Albert . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
David R. Alberts . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Rex Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C&I Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Luciano Alexim . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Elias Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Elizabeth Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company LP . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Michael Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul Allinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Lorry Altwasser . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Ed Alverson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deer Park, TX
Curtis P. Ambler . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tony Ambrosio . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fluor Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Bob Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Sidney Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Helmy S. Andrawis . . . . . . . . . . Parsons Process Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, CA
Peter G. Andrews . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katy, TX
C. M. Angela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Aruba Refining Company, N.V. . . . . . . San Nicolas,
Dean Angerdina . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Kazuo Aoyama . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tonen Technology K.K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Ada Aponte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Company . . . . . Houston, TX
Abdel Moneim Arafa Hassan El Dardiri Alexandria Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . Alexandria, Egypt
David Arceneaux . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA

252 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Rosane Archery . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chalmette, LA
Michael S. Armbrester . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Victor E. Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Johnny Arretteig . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Kevin Arrighi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Absorbants & Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David H. Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Guido W. Aru . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westminster, CO
Mehmet Y. Asim . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jim Asquith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
William Aten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert Atkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Ziyad Azzouz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Salem Ba-Hliwah . . . . . . . . . . . . SaudiAramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
William F. Baade . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Wagner Baba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Galina Babaitseva . . . . . . . . . . . Vitol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Thomas R. Bacon . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Richard Baden . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT-EUROPE, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheshire, England
Thomas Bailey . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Jennifer Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Barbados, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridgeton, Barbados
Mohammed Balamesh . . . . . . . . Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Frank Balestrino . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canton, OH
Jeffrey Balko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Wayne Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
David Balleau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Antonio Ballinas . . . . . . . . . . . . IMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Dennis Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chalmette, LA
Dimitris Bantanidis . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rheinmuenster, Germany
Peter Barba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amerada Hess Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Reading, NJ
Rajnikant Barchha . . . . . . . . . . . NOVA Chemicals (Canada) Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Bob Barclay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety-Kleen Oil Recovery Company . . . . . . . . East Chicago, IN
Alexander Barloewen . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Raymon C. Barlow . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Ricardo Greenhalgh-Barreto . . . . . Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Ted Barrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalysts, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woodlands, TX
Michael Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Praxair, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Ramon, CA
Chris Barsby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Chris Barta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Robert Bartek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Littleton, CO
David B. Bartholic . . . . . . . . . . . BARCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wat Chung, NJ
Jerry Basconi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Andrey Bashinski . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisvilie, KY
M. Glen Bassett . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Edwin Bassler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raytheon Engineers & Constructors B.V. . . . . . Cambridge, MA
Peter Batey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melaka, Malaysia
Pat Baughn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Gary Baumgartner . . . . . . . . . . . TAPCO International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Vito Bavaro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Adel Bawazir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Michael Bayse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serv-Tech, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
William Beaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Philippe Beaubier . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Karen Beck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 253
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Renee Becker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toledo, OH
Todd Becker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toledo, OH
Barbara K. Beckmann . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Curtis Becnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacherie, LA
David E Bello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PDVSA-Corpoven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Travis Beltz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robinson, IL
Taras Bemko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kubota America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Clifton Ben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard W. Bennett . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Roger Benslay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mike Berg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surrey, UK
Guy Bergeron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Michael Berlyant . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linden, NJ
David Berman . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Oscar Bermudez . . . . . . . . . . . . Pemex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico
Patrick Bernhagen . . . . . . . . . . . Foster Wheeler Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Francisco Bertheau . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pueblo, Mexico
Valdis Berzins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Donald Biggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silver Eagle Refining Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evanston, WY
John Bigham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Mike Bilello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Mark S. Binford . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Jim Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem Canada, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakville, Ontario
Rick W. Birnbaum . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danbury, CT
Gary Bishcof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving Oil Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint John, New Brunswick
Robert R. Bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Parimal Kanti Biswas . . . . . . . . . Indian Oil Corporation Limited . . . . . . . . . . . New Deihi, India
Steve Blashka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Filter/Lo-Cat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schaumburg, IL
Richard Bobick . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Carl Bochow, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Eduardo Bolivar . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anthony P. Bolton . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woking, UK
James Boltz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro Star, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anchorage, AK
Kevin Bonde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Asia Pacific Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Jorge Bonilla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Michael Boone . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Tracerco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Michael Bothe . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tru-Tec Division of Koch Engineering . . . . . . LaPorte, TX
Jason Bottjen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chalmette, LA
Roland Bourdeau . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Michael Bourgeois . . . . . . . . . . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braithwaite, LA
James Boverie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Hartford, IL
Edward Bovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Keith Bowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Elaine Bowman . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Nicolas Bracho . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Michael Brahn . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Randy Brantley . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ronald Bredehor . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Larry Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Carolyn Britton . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Bruce Brodie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Albert Broitman . . . . . . . . . . . . AOOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yaroslaul, Russia
Garry Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA

254 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Mike Brose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Eric Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Jeff Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Manfred Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, England
Robert J. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eddystone, PA
Robert S. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
William Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concord, CA
Herbert W. Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA(Retired) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexandria, VA
Gerard Bruha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Claude Brun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pau, France
Kenneth Bruno . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whiting, IN
Ross Brunson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Truckee, CA
James W. Bryant . . . . . . . . . . . . Enterprise Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
M. Charles Bryson . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
David Bucior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Tracerco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James Buckley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reactor Services International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Alvin, TX
Carolynn Buenger . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Charles Buffington . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tim Buhite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO Alaska Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairbanks, AK
Robert H. Bullard . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Sara Bures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Barbara Burger . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
John Burger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Karin Burgio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Jurij Burka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
David Burns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bobbie Butler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Butler USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Frank Buyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Dean J. Bybee . . . . . . . . . . . . . CEntry Constructors & Engineers . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Roberto Caballero . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Glenn E. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Jose L. Calderon . . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Kenneth Calebs . . . . . . . . . . . . . C&l Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Robert Camarillo . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Danielle Camner . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Trade & Development Agency . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
James Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Cancienne . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Carlos Canziani . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria San Lorenzo S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Lorenzo, Argentina
Paul Caplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel & Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Andre Carbonneau . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St-Romuald, Quebec
Edwin A. Carlisle . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
William A. Carlisle . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Bruny Carlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
William Carls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Bertil Carlsson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preem Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gothenburg, Sweden
Elkin Carmona Cuadros . . . . . . . Ecopetrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santander, Colombia
Barbara Carney . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hart Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jim Carney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Technology & Management . . . . . . . . . . Houston,TX
Albertino Carvalho . . . . . . . . . . . Petrobras/Cenpes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
Rick Cary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Tracy Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Paul R. Caskey . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Ricardo O. Castillo . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nelson Castro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 255
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Steve Catchpole . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, England
Rich Cavagnaro . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta, GA
Agostino Cavanna . . . . . . . . . . . Agip Petroli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome, Italy
Paul Cecatto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Christina Cedotal . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Rafael Cervantes . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP/HRI—PTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Andrew Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paddington, Australia
Iwan Chan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thi Chang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
E.E. Chang Sern . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Lark E. Chapin . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Chavez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Girish K Chitnis . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Ken Chlapik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Anita Choy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Husky Oil Operations Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Ed Choy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Husky Oil Operations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Robert D. Christman . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Donald J. Ciancio . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Vicente A. Citarella . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Tom Clancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Buz Clanton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Patrick A. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fountain Valley, CA
Paul Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Jay D. Cleary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Georges Cohen . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rueil-Malmaison, France
Carol Cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Octane Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arlington, VA
John R. Coleman . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering/Tru-Tec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaPorte, TX
George Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Marty Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Travis Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Tom Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Patrick Colombani . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
C. A. Comeaux . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Tom Concienne . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch-Glitsch Field Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pearland, TX
Tony Conetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
John B. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
John D. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Philip Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Robin Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nathan Cooledge . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Richard Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nofsinger, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas City, MO
Tanya Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Alan Copeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
William Cormier . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst Intemational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conshohocken, PA
Joan Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HaldorTopsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mario Coronado . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Albert Le Corre . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . France
Juan Jose Corres . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Giacomo Corvini . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard J. Coser . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnetonka, MN
Spence Cousar . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
John Cowger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Benjamin Cromarty . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, England
Lesley Crosbie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
W. J. Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TEK Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media, PA

256 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

William Crouch . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tim Crutcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Carol Culbreath . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Norco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Norco, LA
Lana Cullon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wynnewood Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Wynnewood, OK
Frank L. Cunningham . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Teresa Cuoto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stephen Cupps . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Jeremy Cyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Michael Dabkowski . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Doris Danelius . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mark Dannemiller . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thierry Darde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pall Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . France
James L. Daughtry . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katy, TX
Steven W. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Tom Davidson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Falls, MT
Edgar D. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
Kent Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert E. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . R. E. Davis Chemical Corporation . . . . . . . . . Oak Brook, IL
Ruth Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Tom W. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
Vickie L. Witty Davis . . . . . . . . . Sunoco MidAmerica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toledo, OH
Robert Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
Jean de Bonneville . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Augie M. De Capite . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Catalysts & Adsorbents, Inc. . . . . . . . Severna Park, MD
Antonio de Cardenas . . . . . . . . . Parsons Energy & Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Emiliano de la Fuente . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange, CA
Carlos De la Vega . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Sandra Lima de Oliveira . . . . . . . Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Jesus Serna de Santiago . . . . . . . . Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Henk de Zwart . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Rotterdam, Netherlands
Joanne Deady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
John W. Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bound Brook, NJ
John Deaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing Corp. . . . . . . . . . Blue Island, IL
William Deering . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Helen Deian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hart Publications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Oscar del Bosque . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Glynn DeLaughter . . . . . . . . . . . Hartford Steam Boiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denham Springs, LA
Steve Deley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toledo, OH
Eddie R. Delgado . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lawrence T. Denk . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Geoff Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . United Kingdom
Heros Dergregorian . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Krotz Springs, LA
George Derifield . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Pankaj H. Desai . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David DeSantis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Ruben DeVelasco . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Guy DeVicaris . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boonton, NJ
Jones F. Devlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Arthur DeZeeuw . . . . . . . . . . . . Otto York Division/Koch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dilip Dharia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David J. DiCamillo . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company, L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Peter Dickey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Raymond Dickey . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mike Dickinson . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 257
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Joseph DiStefano . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Peter Dixon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VECO Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellingham, WA
Joseph Dodds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Placid Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Allen, LA
Robert Dodds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Aruba Refining Company, N.V. . . . . . . San Nicolas, Aruba
David Dollihite . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Carlos Dominguez . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barcelona, Spain
Robert Dommel . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guildford, UK
Michael D. Donahue . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pat Donahue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Hubbard Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Process Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Don Dorr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Ky Doucet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineering Specialties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Covington, LA
Timothy J. Dougan . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Bruce Douglass . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Terry Douglass . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Jerry D. Dover . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
Georgette Drago . . . . . . . . . . . . Maraven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Falcon, Venezuela
Peter E. Drake . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Services Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Corey Dreyfuss . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charles W. Duethman . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Chris Dumas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mike Dunbar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Paul Duncan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Robert O. Dunn . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Allen G. Dusek . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Robert Earhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul Eaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Champion Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard M. Eccles . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton Process Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . East Orleans, MA
Stephen Eckhoff . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
M. Dean Edgar . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sayed A. El Kharachi . . . . . . . . . Alexandria Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . Alexandria, Egypt
John F. Elliott . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Joel Elstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flying J Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Frank Elvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John L. Embry . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co. Ltd. . . . . . Houston, TX
John England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria, Australia
Etop Esen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Martin Esposito . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Jim Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Martin Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tolland, CT
Gary L. Everett . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyondell Petrochemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Frank Eymard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Placid Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Mike Facker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert D. Faford . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
William F. Fahey . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker-Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Hooman Farnejad . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Milton Keynes, England
Mike Farrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Darush Farshid . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Tara Fatima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Frank Fatora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Company . . . . . Houston, TX
Curtis Fawvor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Paul Fearnside . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Arnold S. Feinberg . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ

258 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Thomas R. Felmlee . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Steve Fenderson . . . . . . . . . . . . Goar, Allison & Associations, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Pedro Fenjves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Alexander Fernandez . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kevin Ferrall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Refining & Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
John Ferrante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
John Ferris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakville, Ontario
John D. Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Fischer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Steven M. Fischer . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Paul Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fulshear, TX
Paul Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
Jeffrey Fitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Brad Fleming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RCT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Darrell Fletcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Ray P. Fletcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert R. Fletcher . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Flynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunbury-on-Thames, UK
Richard M. Foley . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
Alison Forbes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kaldair Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Graham J. Forder . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Patricia Forero . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Forester . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Patsy Forester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Paulino Forte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bound Brook, NJ
David Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL—CITGO Refining Co. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jerry D. Frampton . . . . . . . . . . . PetroFac, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
John J. France, III . . . . . . . . . . . Nutter Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Gerald Franco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Stephen P. Frayne . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lewis A. Frederickson . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Barton Fredrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Cyndie Fredrick . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John G. Freeze . . . . . . . . . . . . . John G. Freeze Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seabrook, TX
Georges Fremy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lacq, France
Millard French . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
William French . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preng & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Frenz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . American Refining Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bradford, PA
G. Ray Fritsche . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron General Atomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Diego, CA
Paul D. Fritz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dwight Fruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weskem-Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Darrel Fry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proguard Filtration Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nowata, OK
Robert A. Frye . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vidalia, LA
Michio Fujimoto . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Company, Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Kensuke Fujiwara . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Company, Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Yoshihiko Fujiwara . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Company, Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ron Funk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Catharines, Ontario
Angelo P. Furfaro . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Rebecca Fussell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil & Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Robert Gallogly . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oak Park , IL
Roberto Garcia . . . . . . . . . . . . . PNOC Petrochemical Devel. Corp. . . . . . . . . . Makati City, Philippines
Wolfgang Garcia . . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venzuela
Eddy Garcia-Rameau . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arthur Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grand Junction, CO

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 259
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Rob Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving Oil Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint John, New Brunswick
Alejandro Garduno . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Ashutosh Garg . . . . . . . . . . . . . Furnace Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugarland, TX
Glenn Garrett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Claudio A. Garzon . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Robert Gatte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert Gazak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kvaerner John Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisvilie, KY
Eusebius Gbordzoe . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arthur R. Gentry . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Greg Gentry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Joseph C. Gentry . . . . . . . . . . . GTC Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Luc Geoffroy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levis, Quebec
Safa E. George . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Laura Gerkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Leendert Arie Gerritsen . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Metin Gezer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ahmed Al Ghannam . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia
Jamie Ghazi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C&l Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
B.D. Ghosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faridabad, India
Richard M. Gialella . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Gary Gianzon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
William Gibbons . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Michael C. Gibson . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
John Gieseman . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Rick Gilleland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Brenda A. Gillis . . . . . . . . . . . . M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kevin Gilman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belco Technologies Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Parsippany, NJ
E. Frank Gilson . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Jason Giordano . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James W. Glasford . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John N. Glover . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tony S. Go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Roy Godwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Roger Goenner . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair, WY
Russell W. Goerlich . . . . . . . . . . CRI International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thomas J. Golda . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Charles J. Goldstein . . . . . . . . . . CJG International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Alan Goliaszewski . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Leopoldo Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tula, Mexico
Horacio Gonzalez . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Rene Gonzalez . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Technology & Management . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Goodwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Terry L. Goolsby . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Michael Gorski . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morrison Knudsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Richard L. Gossard . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Shri K. Goyal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Jorge A. Goytisolo, Sr. . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Kenneth Graf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Melissa Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Robert Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MeMux, LA
Edwin L. Granniss . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company, L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Michael Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Peter E. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Mark Gravley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK

260 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

David Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Friendswood, TX
Gary E. Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stuart Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fareham, England
Carson Greer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
William M. Gregory . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Mike Gretschel . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Larry Greytak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Porte, TX
David Grich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Ben Grieb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gayesco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larkspur, CA
Jim Griebel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treated Water Outsourcing/Nalco . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Martin P. Grosboll . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Joseph Gross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Richard Grove . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Edgar Guedez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Glenn Guglietta . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Harold H. Gunardson . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Vincent Gurzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta, GA
Stanley Gustas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Luis Pedro Gutierrez . . . . . . . . . Lagoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Falcon, Venezuela
Lambert Guzman . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Katherine Gyorfi . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakland, CA
Lance Gyorfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Curtis W. Gyte . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
E. Thomas Habib . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia, MD
Henry K. Hachmuth . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Simon Hacker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
George Hadjiloizou . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James Hagen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Joseph Hagmann . . . . . . . . . . . . Placid Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Allen, LA
Suzanne Hahn . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . Anacortes, WA
Stephen Haik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Anthony Haines . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Samir Halawani . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
John T. Haley . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Tom L. Halford . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Calvin J. Hallada . . . . . . . . . . . . Climax Molybdenum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ypsilanti, Ml
Greg Hallauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seattle, WA
Ted S. Hallen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dave Hallgren . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
David J Hambleton . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guildford, England
William Hammarstrom . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Douglass Hammen . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Denise Hammill . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Jean Hanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Antoine Hanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gloria Hanower . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Lee Hanower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Craig M. Hanson . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Daryl Hanson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Doug Harberson . . . . . . . . . . . . Birwelco Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Henley Harewood . . . . . . . . . . . Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pointe-A-Pierre, Trinidad
Jack B. Harrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Andrew Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horsham, PA
Bill Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontier Refining, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheyenne, WY

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 261
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Ernest Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Everette C. Harris . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton,NJ
Charles Harrison . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Brian Hart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspen Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Daniel Hartley . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haverly Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summit, NJ
Edward Hartman . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Craig Harvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thomas W. Hastings . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
Paul Haugseth . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Marcus Hauptmann . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Peter Havlik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excel Paralubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westlake, LA
Gerard B. Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OakbrookTerMce, IL
Randy Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Robert Hayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Harry Headley . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . Houston, TX
William J. Heagy . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . Universal City, CA
Rex Heater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gregory Hebert . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Krotz Springs, LA
William E. Heck . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems CorpoMtion . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
William Heimbaugh . . . . . . . . . . Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Richard Heite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C&l Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Fred Heller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Miles Heller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Roger R. Hemminghaus . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . San Antonio, TX
Jim Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Kevin W. Henke . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Eric Hennings . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eduardo Henriquez . . . . . . . . . . Corpoven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Donna Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findlay, OH
Steve Hensler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Julie Hensley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Juan Hernandez . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips P.R. Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto Rico
Rick Hernandez . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Koenraad Herrebout . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Deer Park, TX
Jacqueline Heskett . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Barbara Heydorn . . . . . . . . . . . . SRI Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Menlo Park, CA
Brian Hickey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Francisco Hidalgo . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleos Mexicanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minatitlan, Mexico
Terrence S. Higgins . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Nancy Hillenbrand . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Les A. Hiller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Hughes Process Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
William J. Hillier . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert Hlozek . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Hockey . . . . . . . . . . . . . PetroFac, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Richard Hoffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
John Hogan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Kenneth D. Hoge . . . . . . . . . . . Nofsinger, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas City, MO
Patrick Hoh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Keith Holly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . Westville, NJ
John Holmstrom . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Patrick Holub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsman Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ted S. Hoover . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Steve Hopkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Wes Horton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch-Glitsch Field Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

262 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Edward R. Hostetter . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Brad Housenga . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Craig Anthony Howard . . . . . . . ENGEN Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durban, South Africa
Jeffrey Howard . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chesapeake Decision Sciences, Inc. . . . . . . . . . New Providence, NJ
Lee Howard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Neil Howard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Amanda Howerton . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chung Hsia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robbinsville, NJ
Michael Hu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Peter Hubbard . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Jerry J. Hufnagle . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide CorpoMtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert Huggins . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP/HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Gary Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Trevor Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
David Hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Randall Hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Adrian P. Humphries . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dmytro Hunderuk . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainer, PA
Peter Hunszinger . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burnaby, British Columbia
David Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James L. Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Michael G. Hunter . . . . . . . . . . The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . Houston, TX
Michael T. Hurley . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
William Hurt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment Co. . . . New Orleans, LA
Donald Huskey . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Venezuela
Don A. Husted . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
John D. Hutchison . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Anthony J. lerubino . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
L. Steve Ingraham . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dennis Irwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Hidechika Ishimaru . . . . . . . . . . Cosmo Oil Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sakaide-Shi, Japan
Iskandar Iskandar . . . . . . . . . . . Pertamina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jakarta
Charlene Isley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch/John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Ken Isom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Gary R. Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ronald G. Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . Mustang Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
D. Ronnie Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . Cross Oil and Refining Company, Inc. . . . . . . Smackover, AR
Watt Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Dave Jacober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Norco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . Norco, LA
Terry L. Jacobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hobbs, NM
Yves Jacquier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte sur Rhone, France
Jay Jaffe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Paul Jahn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charles James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mohammed M. Jan . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Arabian Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Billy Jarratt, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Three Rivers, TX
James Jenkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsman Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul Jerus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Kenneth R. Jinkerson . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Charles D. Jinks . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Linda Jody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Morten Krogh Johansen . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mark W. John . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
William F. Johns . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Bakersfield, CA

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 263
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Brian H. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Des Plaines, IL
Chris C. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
James F. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . ... . . . Ashland, KY
Matthew C. Johnson . . . . . . . . . J.A. Jones Construction . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Charlotte, NC
Robert L. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . ... . . . Russell, KY
Thomas Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . ... . . . St. Paul Park, MN
Tiffin E. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Bill Johnston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Linas Jokubaitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Lakewood, OH
Daniel Jolly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Philadelphia, PA
David D. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
James W. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turner, Mason & Company . . . . . . . ... . . . Dallas, TX
Robert Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Wickliffe, OH
Robert Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. . . . . . . . . ... . . . London, Ontario
William Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Pasadena, TX
Jesper Jorgensen . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety-Kleen Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Breslau, Ontario
Eric Joseck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . ... . . . Rouseville, PA
Tim Joyce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Garyville, LA
Chang-Woo Jung . . . . . . . . . . . Hyundai Oil Refinery Company, Ltd. . ... . . . Seoul, Korea
Edward F. Juno . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennzoil Products Company . . . . . . . ... . . . Shreveport, LA
John Juracek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Baltimore, MD
Bernice Kachur . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Terry Kachur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Kiyoshi Kakehi . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT-PACIFIC, INC. . . . . . . . ... . . . Tokyo, Japan
Rajsekhar Kalapatapu . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . ... . . . New Orleans, LA
Steven A. Kalota . . . . . . . . . . . . The M.W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Dal-Ho Kang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hyundai Oil Refinery Company, Ltd. . ... . . . Seoul, Korea
Nam-Yil Kang . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hanwha Energy Company, Ltd. . . . . . ... . . . Incheon, South Korea
Parimal Kanti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Oil Corporation Limited . . . . . ... . . . New Delhi, India
Francis Kantor . . . . . . . . . . . . . PTI Technologies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Newbury Park, CA
Virendra Kumar Kapoor . . . . . . . Indian Institute of Petroleum . . . . . . . ... . . . Dehradun, India
John Kapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Tulsa, OK
Vladimir Kapustin . . . . . . . . . . . Vitol C.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Moscow, Russia
Louis Karambis . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Mustafa Karime . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
John Kasbaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
John Kasiborski . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Garyville, LA
John Kassarjian . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Jeffrey L. Kautman . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Baytown, TX
Takeshi Kawasaki . . . . . . . . . . . JGC (USA), INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Ginger Keady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Pamela Keefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Leawood, KS
Thomas F. Kellett . . . . . . . . . . . CDTECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Fred Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Denver, CO
Peter E. Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
William Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Moumtain Salvage & Equipment Co. . . . Grand Junction, CO
Michael Kendall . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Mike Kenyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Joe Kerr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Hughes Process Systems . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Randy Kessler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . San Dimas, CA
Kent W. Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Louisville, KY
Ahmed Khogeer . . . . . . . . . . . . Aramco Services Company . . . . . . . . ... . . . Tulsa, OK
Rosy Kickirillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . ... . . . Houston, TX
Dawn Kikolla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crystaphase Products . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Houston, TX

264 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Hak Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Woo Kyung Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . Hanwha Energy Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Incheon, South Korea
Albert Kinal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robbinsville, NJ
Pat Kinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Thomas D. King . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charles Kirby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil & Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Big Spring, TX
M. P. Kirchgessner . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
R. Thomas Kirkey . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corona, CA
Gregory E. Kishiyama . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Robert S. Kissel . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Carey Klain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Karl Kleemeier . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Benjamin Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABB Lummus Global Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Leonard Kleiner . . . . . . . . . . . . Raytheon Engineers & Const. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James Kleiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ardmore, OK
Bruce S. Kleppe . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Howard C. Kliesch . . . . . . . . . . Treiber Controls Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Scott W. Klimek . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Michael Knenlein . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Norm Knief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milwaukee, Wl
Robert Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker-Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wexford, PA
Kurao Kobayashi . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Ward Koester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Gregory Kohl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christy Refractories Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Spring, TX
lloka Koichi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurita Water Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinjuku-ku, Tokyo
Tanaka Koichi . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurita Water Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinjuku-ku, Tokyo
Fritz Kokesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Catalina Eljure’ Kolb . . . . . . . . . ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Norman Kolb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard Kolodziej . . . . . . . . . . . Kvaernor John Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anne Kotar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Dennis Kowalczyk . . . . . . . . . . . Refining Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheswick, PA
Michelle Kozlowski . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Alan Kramer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
David Kramer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Kim Kramer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Rinaldo Kramer . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Keith R Kreider . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tom Krigbaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Gautham Krishnaiah . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Artur W. Krueger . . . . . . . . . . . Spirelf System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard Kucharski . . . . . . . . . . . American Refining Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Bradford, PA
Gary Kuchcinski . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Laura Kuchcinski . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Paul Kuchma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sum Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Chris W. Kuehler . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Man Mohan Kumar . . . . . . . . . . Indian Institute of Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dehradun, India
Vasant Kumar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras Refineries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras, India
Lutz Kunze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALCOA Industrial Chemicals Europe . . . . . . . Frankfurt, Germany
Randy Kuroda . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berkeley, CA
Hiroshi Kurumado . . . . . . . . . . . Hakuto Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Lawrence A. Lacijan . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Julio R. Lago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dana Laird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch-Glitsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pine Bend, MN

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 265
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Balbir Lakhanpal . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worms, Germany
Steven Laley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Devel. Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Art E. Lamm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntington Beach, CA
Alain P. Lamourelle . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Matt Landes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John V. Landry . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Philip A. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Elaine Lange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Tom W. Lannen . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
J. Mckinney Larkins . . . . . . . . . . Sterling International Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Bob Larson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manasquan, NJ
Jimmy Laurito . . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David V. Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Richard Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Laszlo Lazar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Szazhalombatta, Hungary
Binh Le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dana Leach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Falls, MT
Thomas C. LeBlanc . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta, GA
Richard A. Ledden . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Gilbert LeDressay . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers’ Co-op. Refineries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . Regina, SK
Raymond Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parsippany, NY
Stephen Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Gunter G.D. Lel . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Clifton LeMaire . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Liesl Leopard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Bruce Lerner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Warren S. Letzsch . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bill Leung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Lawrence E. Lew . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Roy A. Lewandowski . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Curtis B. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jeff Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Jim Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
John Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
David Libbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Lee Hong Lim . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Asia Pacific PTE LTD . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Karl Lin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The PQ Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eric Lindenfelser . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Michael J. Lindstrom . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . King of Prussia, PA
Todd Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Maximilian Linskeseder . . . . . . . . OMV Aktiengesellschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schwechat, Austria
Glenn C. Liolios . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Jack J. Lipinski . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Regis B. Lippert . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manasquan, NJ
Robin B. Lippert . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manasquan, NJ
Zenon Llanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Choo Seng Lo . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
William Lockett, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . Encon Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Far Hills, NJ
James L. Lockwood . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wesley Loflon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Holly Logan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Gary Lombard . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Ana, CA
Ronald Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Stephen L. Long . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

266 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Linda L. Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Linda D. Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James T. Loughead, Jr. . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Rogelio Lozada . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Rick Lucas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Bernardo Lucero . . . . . . . . . . . . RCT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert A. Ludolph . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Lewis Ludwig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Bill Lundberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Tommy Luong . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Stephen D. Lux . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Laura Lynne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch—Glitsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Terry D. Mackey . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Aristides Macris . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mike Macy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stewart & Bottomley, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Edward Maharajh . . . . . . . . . . . Travis Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Patrick Maher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baytown, TX
Medhat Youssef Mahmoud Moussa . Egyptian General Petroleum Corp . . . . . . . . . . Suez, Egypt
Michael Maholland . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
James Maiden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naples, FL
Don J. Makovec . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Bill Malatak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Ben L. Malek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tariq Malik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Refining & Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
John Manka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Gene Manley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartford, IL
James Mann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
George J. Manthos . . . . . . . . . . . Foster Wheeler USA Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Patrick A. Marfone . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Soren Marklumd . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Luc Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laval, Quebec
Tim W. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David C. Martindale . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Robert Martindale . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Blue Island, IL
Daniel Martinez . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria Petroleo Concon S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . Concon, Chile
Nelson P. Martinez . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Teques, Venezuela
Roger Marzin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Teques, Venezuela
Tom Masak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Markham, Ontario
Vince Massey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Steve Massie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Peter L. Mastores . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Steve S. Mathur . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
J. H. Matkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Yutaka Matsushima . . . . . . . . . . Osaka Sauso Kogyo Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Osaka, Japan
Kris Mattenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bruce B. Matthews . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Al May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
George Anthony May . . . . . . . . . ABB Lummus Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voorberg, The Netherlands
Jeff Mayday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Kenneth P. Mayeaux . . . . . . . . . CRI International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Steve Mayo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Steven Mayo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lisa Mazzocato . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dennis McArthur . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 267
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

David S. McCaffrey, Jr. . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Jim McCloskey . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Cameron McCord . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoul, MS
Steve McCormack . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, England
Donald C. McCulloch . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
J. Gary McDaniel . . . . . . . . . . . Tricat Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Jerry McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Mark McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . M Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Brian McFadden . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kitchener, Ontario
Cheryl McFadden . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kitchener, Ontario
Henry E. McFarlin . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugarland, TX
Andy McGee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ExcelParalubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westlake, LA
Stan McHugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Terence J. McHugh . . . . . . . . . . Porocel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bob McKaig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Dwight L. McKay . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Paul McKay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mike McKee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Craig McLaughlin . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Brenda McLaury . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Joseph B. McLean . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chris McLeod . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Daniel McWilliams . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
David McWilliams . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfax, VA
John T. Meakim . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ahmed Abbas Medany . . . . . . . . Suez Oil Processing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Suez, Egypt
Marcial Medina . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX Refinacion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oaxoca, Mexico
Ron Meeker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Saad Abdel Meguid . . . . . . . . . . Ameriya Petroleum Refining Company . . . . . . . Alexandria, Egypt
Andrew Mehalko, Jr. . . . . . . . . . Chevron Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Harry Meijs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Recovery Europe S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . Luxembourg
Andy Melton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Vincent J. Memmott . . . . . . . . . Flying J Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Georges Mendakis . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
David Mendrek . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Stephen G. Menegaz . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Raghu Menon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Sudhir Menon . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dorf Ketal Chemicals (1) PT Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . Mumbai, India
Bill Mertes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rockford, IL
Elizabeth W. Mettee . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Kurt J. Metzler . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Eugene S. Michelini . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Andrew J. Miciotto . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horsham, PA
Tom A. Millensifer . . . . . . . . . . Powmet, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Littleton, CO
David Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Donald G. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . Solomon Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
James E. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Jeff Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kaldair Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jeffrey S. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serv-Tech, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Paul Minton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Central Milton Keynes, UK
Ronald E. Miranda . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Pedro Miro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roig Cepsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madrid, Spain
Romel Mirville . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linden, NJ
Donna Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

268 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Richard E. Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Daniel Moesser . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billings, MT
Wendy Mofffitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Mahmoud Zaki Mohamed Moussa Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Stephen Mohon . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Ken L. Moke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Don Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Andrew Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Howard F. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
James E. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . Walk, Haydel & Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Richard O. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Robert E. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontier Refining, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheyenne, WY
Elise Mophett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vidalia, LA
David Morash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Friday Harbor, WA
Donald F. Mordhorst . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
David Morelli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Oliverio Moreno Lamonte . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Jon C. Moretta . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M.W. Kellogg Techmology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Barry S. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Compamy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Charles L. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . LaGloria Oil and Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
John A. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Toshiyuki Mori . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chiyoda Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yokohama, Japan
Kevin Morris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chalmette, LA
Lee Morris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Philip Morris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products PLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walton-on-Thames, UK
Robert A. Morris . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ed Morrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP/HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Steven D. Morrison . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert W. Morse . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Daniel Moscaritolo . . . . . . . . . . PTI Technologies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newbury Park, CA
Raymond W. Mott . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
David Mountainland . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Brian M. Moyse . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Mulkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tomas Muller-Korger . . . . . . . . . Lagoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judibana, Venezuela
Donald D. Mulraney . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Syed S. Mumtaz . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Alvaro A. Murcia . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard A. Murdaugh . . . . . . . . . Atlas Processing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Stephen R. Murff . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Jane Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Kevin J. Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Lance Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mushafhud Mursid . . . . . . . . . . Pertamina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balongan
A. K. S. Murthy . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Michael Mutsakis . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Membrane Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Dennis P. Naeger . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Marc Nagele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Robert Nahas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABB Lummus Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bloomfield, NJ
Sam Nahas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raytheon Engineers & Constructors . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ron J. Naiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W.R. Grace Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Nakamura . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrocarbon Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Larry Naranjo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontier Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheyenne, WY
Duane L. Nash . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 269
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Richard M. Nash . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Emile Nassar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Raju Natarajan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydro-Chem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holly Springs, GA
Peggie Neal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crystaphase Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Donald Nedanovich . . . . . . . . . . Walk, Haydel & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Dan Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Douglas Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange, CA
Brian Nessen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Daniel J. Neuman . . . . . . . . . . . Tricat Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Pamela K. Neuman . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Robert Neuman . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Greg Neve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Superior, Wl
Greg Nevermann . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . Houston, TX
Dennis Newell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Milagros de Newski . . . . . . . . . . Intevep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Phillip K. Niccum . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Nicholas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
David S. Nicholson . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheshire, UK
Michael Nicholson . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Andrea Nicoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Anders Nielsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe A/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyngby, Denmark
Lillian J. Nielsen . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chappaqua, NY
Roy Ivar Nielsen . . . . . . . . . . . . Statoil AS, Refining & Marketing . . . . . . . . . . Mongstad, Norway
Mart Nieskens . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood River, IL
Christophe Nieto . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Roy Ivar Nilsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statoil A/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mongstad, Norway
Joe Ninnemann . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Jean-Luc Nocca . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Mark Noppenberger . . . . . . . . . . GE Environmental Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, PA
Aldrich H. Northup . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chris Norwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Holly S. Norwood . . . . . . . . . . . Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . Kenai, AK
John W. Novak, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Allen Works, LA
Kirk R. Novak . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
William J. Novak . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Richard J. Nozemack . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Paul Nuttall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John O’Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, England
Robert K. O’Brien . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pat O’Neil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
William F. O’Reilly . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Russell Ockman . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Kimberly Odell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Yoshio Ohhadhi . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Company Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Robert Ohmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Mamoru Oikawa . . . . . . . . . . . . JGC (USA), Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yokohama, Japan
John A. Olesen, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jerry J. Oliver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charles W. Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Frank M. Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Amy Omang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Charles T. Orlando . . . . . . . . . . Pall Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Allan Orr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Jorge Alberto Guadarrama Ortiz . . Union Carbide Quimicos Y Plasticos . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico

270 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Mo Ortiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Keith Osborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Mohamed Kamal Osman . . . . . . Assiut Oil Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Egypt
Antoniazzi Osvaldo . . . . . . . . . . Refinor S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salta, Argentina
Jody Overshiner . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Soni Oyekan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Soni Oyckan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Mike Pacheco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Brian Painchaud . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Susan Palacio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Coralynn Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . Mustang Engineers & Constructors . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Han Pangestu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Joseph Pannucci . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
John Paraskos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Rafael, CA
Uday Parekh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Byeong Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukong Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
Byeong Y. Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukong, Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
Hoon Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Anthony G. Parker . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunbury-on-Thames, UK
Stuart Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspen Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambridge, MA
Antonio Aguilar Parra . . . . . . . . . PEMEX-IMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City; Mexico
John Parsons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
R. S. Parthasarathi . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Elwyn E. Partin . . . . . . . . . . . . Brown & Root, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lisa Paszkowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Raj Patel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange, CA
Edward Patterson . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Norco Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norco, LA
Gary R. Patton . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Stephen K. Pavel . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Greg Peach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
John Pearce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Michael Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Ramon, CA
Kenneth A. Peccatiello . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Fabian Pedrido . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria San Lorenzo S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Lorenzo, Argentina
Joel Pena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Brian R. Penman . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Napa, CA
Mark E. Pennels . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment . . . . . . Durango, CO
Samuel W. Percy . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chappaqua, NY
Miguel Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cepsa-Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madrid, Spain
Jozsef Perger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Co. . . . . . . . . . Szazhalombatta, Hungary
Jean-Pierre Peries . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Perlowski . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chris Pesek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Raymond W. Peterman, Jr. . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Harry Peters, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . Packinox, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kenneth D. Peters . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
James L. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Ardmore, OK
David Petkus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thomas Petti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Martyn E. Pfile . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesvilie, OK
Sunil J. Phansalkar . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dave Picoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Eric R. Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reisterstown, MD
Gerald K. Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 271
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Ron Pinaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Bryan C. Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Joseph M. Pittman . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Ronald Plesko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Willow Island, WV
Joe Plummer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Podratz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Howard Pollicoff . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thomas Poole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gregory Potashnikov . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Frederick L. Potter . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Technology & Management . . . . . . . . . . Arlington, VA
Charles Powell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Gabriel, LA
Joseph W. Powell . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert T. Powell . . . . . . . . . . . . Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Paul Poythress . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Lawrence Prahin . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
James Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sterling International Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Jerry Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Joanne Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sterling International Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
John E. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Metairie, LA
John F. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton/Corhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Joe Prince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Eileen Prohaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Kevin R. Proops . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
John Provine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norco, LA
Clara Pulido . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Friedrich Puls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Thomas Pusty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Robert P. Quigley . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Michael P. Quinlan . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
George P. Quinn . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Peter C. Quinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Cecelia Radlowski . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Ralph Ragsdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eddy Raj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrocarbon Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Kuppuswami R. Rajagopalan . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia, MD
S. Rajasekaran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras Refineries Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras, India
Hariharan Rajesh . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Varsha Raju . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Michael Ralston . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Ram Ramachandran . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Doug Ramsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Rajamani Rangacharya . . . . . . . . Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. . . . . Mangalore, India
Inder S. Rattan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ontario
Dorian Rauschning . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
John A. Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Walt Readling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chesapeake Decision Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . New Providence, NJ
Amanda Reagor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Dave Reed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Jody Reed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, INC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Scott Reed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Terry A. Reid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jeffrey P. Reilly . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Robert Reitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearbom, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horsham, PA
Mike Renfree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA

272 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

John Repasky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Steve Resnick , . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Friendswood, TX
Kenneth P. Revell . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Francois R. Reverdy, PE . . . . . . . Packinox, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lynda Reymann . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bruce E. Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Keith E. Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Robert W. Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Terry Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matrix Service Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anne K. Rhodes . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Donald C. Rhule . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Michael Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Cheryl Richards . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Alliance Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Steve Rieves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAT-PROS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Joseph A. Rightmyer . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Zbigniew Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . NCUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Devon, Alberta
Rene Rivero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Gregory F. Roach . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Kenneth Roane . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Cooperative Refinery Association. . . . . McPherson, KS
David Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Brian Robertson . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Richard Robinette . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
James Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Jim Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Nancy Rocha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
J. B. Roddey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Joaquin Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Jorge Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX Refinacion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico
Jay Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research and Technology Co. . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Edgardo Rojas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria Petroleo Concon S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . Concon, Chile
David T. Roland . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Carlos Rolandelli . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John A. Roman . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Gregory Romenesko . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Thom Rondinelli . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineering Specialties, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Covington, LA
James C. Ronnander . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Elvia Rosas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pemex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cadereyta, Mexico
Fausto Rosas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pemex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cadereyta, Mexico
Joseph L. Ross, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation . . . . Milton Keynes, England
Michael Ross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degussa Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calvert City, KY
Richard Rossi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
J. P. Rosso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gemini Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Ana, CA
Dane Roth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Eugene Roundtree . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Kurt Roush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Katherine Rowe . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Rex L. Rowell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Michel Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Quebec
Chris Rucker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ergon Refining Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vicksburg, MS
J. K. Rudder, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
Frank Rukovena . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Tom Rushin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron USA Products Company . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Deborah Rusk . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI Intemational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Randy Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAT-PROS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 273
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Patrick Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Rein Saar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Paul S. Sackett . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI Intemational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Reza Sadeghbeigi . . . . . . . . . . . . RMS Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Brett Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Derek Salandy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pointe-A-Pierre, Trinidad
Franklin Salazar . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ocar Salazar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpoven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Robert Salazar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kvaemer John Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dennis Salbilla . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ari Salo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TEK Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media, PA
Curtis Samford . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearbom HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Amin Sameh Samir Fahmy . . . . . Middle East Oil Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexandria, Egypt
David A. Sams . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Charles B. Samuels . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robinson, IL
Carlos Gustavo Sanchez . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tlalmepartia, Mexico
Enrique Camacho Sanchez . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tlalmepartia, Mexico
Don Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Blue Island, IL
Chris R. Santner . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gerald Santos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Jesse Santos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
James M. Sappington . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Frank Sarubbi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hjalmar Sauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wintershall AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lingen, Germany
Pascal Sauvaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
David Savage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Jeff Scanlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweeny, TX
Kollin Schade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Howard Schaeffer III . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Ronald G. Schaumburg . . . . . . . . National Cooperative Refinery Association . . . . McPherson, KS
Glen E. Scheirer . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Ron Schendel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manhattan Beach, CA
R. F. Schimbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI Intemational Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eugene Schmelzer . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Michael Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anthony Schmitz . . . . . . . . . . . . Emtrol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hauppauge, NY
Dennis Schmude . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Donald Schneider . . . . . . . . . . . Stratus Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pete Schoemann . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Lynne E. Schoenbeck . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Rolf Schroeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Anthon H. Schroer . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Craig Schubert . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bound Brook, NJ
Scott Schwandt . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eric A Schwarz . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDTech/ABB Lummus Global . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bruce Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bruce Scott, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Rafael, CA
Randall D. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Rodney Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . Bakersfield, CA
James D. Seamans . . . . . . . . . . . CRI Intemational, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Sears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Zdenek Sedlacek . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Ron S. Sekellick . . . . . . . . . . . . Mott Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmington, CT
Kimio Sekigami . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cosmo Oil Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sakaide-Shi, Japan
Dudley Sellery . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA

274 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Brian Semff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Karl Semper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tricat Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mcalester, OK
Dwayne Senn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
EE Chang Sem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Pankaj P. Shah . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Eli Shaheen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Amad Shaikh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Poomima Sharma . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Joy Sharp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ahmad Shehabaddin . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
C. C. Shen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ed Shepard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kenneth Shemman . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ontario
Pravin Sheth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Y. Shida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Woodrow K. Shiflett . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
H.K. Shin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukong, Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korea
Jalil Shishtari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Larry W. Shoemaker . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Kip Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qestek Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort Collins, CO
Jack A. Shubert . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Michael A. Silverman . . . . . . . . . The M.W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Luis A. Silvestre . . . . . . . . . . . . Refinor S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buenos Aires, Argentina
Frank Simmons . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaGloria Oil and Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Ken Sims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Cooperative Refinery Assn. . . . . . . . . McPherson, KS
Roger M. Singer . . . . . . . . . . . . DuPont/BDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Villanova, PA
Judith Sinnard . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Michael Siravo . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Kevin Sitton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Janusz Siwek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst & Chemical Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eric Sjunnesen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Jon M. Skeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pro-Quip Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Robert Skelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
R.C. Skocpol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts, FCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Comell Slade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mark L. Sleemar . . . . . . . . . . . . Reactor Services Intemational Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Grifffith, IN
H. David Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Co. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Andrew W. Sloley . . . . . . . . . . . Process Consulting Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pamela Smallwood . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David L. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Ramon, CA
Edward F. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
G. Andrew Smith . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missouri City, TX
George A. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research and Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Jonah Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRIADD FCC ADDITIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Lee Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mark J. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Refining & Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Michael T. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Norman F. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stephen M. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Fish Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Theresa M. Snyder . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearbom Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Sergio Sobrinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barcelona, Spain
Stephen M. Sock . . . . . . . . . . . . Foster Wheeler Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fabio Sola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria San Lorenzo S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Lorenzo, Argentina
Nick Sommers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 275
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Thomas Sopko . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Paul Sosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Quimica, S.A. de C.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Steve Souers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. ProductsCompany . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Alfredo Souto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep S.A. (PDVSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Venezuela
James Spalding . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Patricia Sparrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Jeff Spearman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muse, Stancil & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Terry R. Spears . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Jason Specht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Doug Speers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Amold Spiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, KS
Karin Spindler . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Luc Sposito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris, France
Victor Sprenger . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Randall Sprouse . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Richard Stade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charles Stanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAPCO International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charlie Stanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Alliance Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul E. Steele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Albert F. Stegelman . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
Timothy J. Stelly . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Gary A. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John Stephenson . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, KS
Urvan R. Sternfels . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Erik Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Joe Stinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearbom HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Gary M. Stokes . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
James Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LA Dept. of Environmental Quality . . . . . . . . Kenner, LA
David Stonecipher . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P. . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
James Stomm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia
David Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsman Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard D. Street . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company, L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lee T. Stroud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chris Stuecheli . . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bob Stults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pete Stynes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
FelipeJ. Suarez . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nyoman Subakti . . . . . . . . . . . . Pertamina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jakarta, Indonesia
Ron Subris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arthur J. Suchanek . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Menon Sudhir . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dorf Ketal Chemicals India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mumbai, India
Roy Y. Sugawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Steve Summers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bradley Sumrok . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Per Sundin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Patrick Sutterfield . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ardmore, OK
LaNell Svoboda . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Timothy Swaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Alan Sweezey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jeffrey Swierczek . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Paul Szymborski . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton CPPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Kenneth Tacchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker-Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Ramiz Tafilaj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Yoshimitsu Takeshita . . . . . . . . . Mitsubishi Oil Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan

276 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Louis A. Talbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alma, Ml
Esa Tamminen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neste Oy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porvoo, Finland
Kohichi Tanaka . . . . . . . . . . . . KURITA WATER INDUSTRIES, LTD. . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Kouichi Tanaka . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nichimen Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Yukihiro Tanaka . . . . . . . . . . . . Cosmo Oil Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Danh Tang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . Houston, TX
Jacquie Tantet . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Kenneth G. Tasker . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Jim Tayebi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
William S. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . Union Texas Petrochemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hugh Teague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
John Tedesco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearbom HPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Edwin D. Tenney . . . . . . . . . . . Marsulex Environmental Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, PA
Bruce Tevis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Nithianathan Thaver . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Bert Theriault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Philip G. Thiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Golda Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
James C. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jakarta, Indonesia
John F. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . W. R. GMce & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Ken Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Terry Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walnut Creek, CA
Dennis Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . Calumet Lubricants Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, LA
Dorrie Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Timothy Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pamela Tokerud . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Gerald Tollefsen . . . . . . . . . . . . Calumet Lubricants Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, LA
Mario Tommaselli . . . . . . . . . . . Technipetrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome, Italy
Chung Tong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mustang Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard Torchia . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Salvatore Torrisi . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Celso Pajaro Trabazo . . . . . . . . . Corpoven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
John Traeger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
Gregory Tragitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Metairie, LA
Spencer Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geismar, LA
Nhonai Tran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Philippe Travers . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rueil-Malmaison, France
Robert E. Trent . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Cesar Trevino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Elsa Trevino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manasquan, NJ
Michael Treybig . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Carlos Troconis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Robert Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI Intemational, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Noreen Tsang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVA Chemicals (Canada) Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Timothy Tsang . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVA Chemicals (Canada) Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Wayne Tsuji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Terry D. Tucker . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Todd Tuescher . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Rob Tufts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Metairie, LA
Duke Tunnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duke Tunnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Jay Turner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HaldorTopsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lee E. Turpin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Michael Tyler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Metairie, LA
William V. Tyson . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 277
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Emery J. Udvari . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
David Ulmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Joe Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GE Environmental Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, PA
Michael A. Urbancic . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Kathleen Urbansky . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mo Vadekar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Carlos F. Valdes . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX-IMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Julie Valentine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boulder, CO
Francis Valeri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte sur Rhone, France
Rafael Valle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Rob Van der Meij . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul Van Namen . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearbom Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Paul W. Vance . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John E. Vande Ven . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Darlene Vanderzwaag . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakville, Ontario
Tom Varadi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
V. Vasanthkumar . . . . . . . . . . . Madras Refineries Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras, India
Alfiya Vasilyeua . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
David Vasquez . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ken Vaughn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch/John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clinton, LA
Ramiro G. Vazquez . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dean Venardos . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Natesan Venkataramani . . . . . . . . Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. . . . . Mangalore, India
Gundapaneni Venkateswarlu . . . . Hydro-Chem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holly Springs, GA
Thomas A. Verachtert . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Randall M. Victory . . . . . . . . . . PQ Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Albert Vierheilig . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savannah, GA
Robert C. Villio . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Mark Vineyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPRox Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Patti Visin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neste Trifinery Petroleum Services . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Wayne A. Visin . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neste Trifinery Petroleum Services . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
S. Visvaswaran . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras Refineries Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras, India
Paul Vona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wendy Vosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
David R. Wagner . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
GeMId R. Waldron . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Benjamin Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . Westville, NJ
Donald K. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Hugh B. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John E. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thomas Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . Belco Technologies Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Parsippany, NJ
James D. Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
William H. Wallendorf . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Richard E. Walter . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
George Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhone Poulenc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Shoou-i Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Anthony J. Wanta . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duluth, MN
H. C. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
John W. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspen Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John W. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yorba Linda, CA
Philip Wardle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . Fareham, UK
David N. Waterfield . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Intemational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middlesex, UK
Chris Watts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mandeville, LA
Ricky D. Watts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA

278 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Charles C. Wear . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Eric Webster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parsons Energy & Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brentford, UK
Laddie Weems . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Martin Wehner . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta, GA
Mark Weise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
James D. Weith . . . . . . . . . . . . Fluor Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
Bart Welch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
J. Gary Welch . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI Intemational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jan W. Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Dale Wery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Marlo R. Wheeler . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul H. Whelchel . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dennis F. White . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tecora J. White . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Keith C. Whitehouse . . . . . . . . . Lyondell Petrochemical Company . . . . . . . . . . Channelview, TX
James P. Wick . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findlay, OH
Larry E. Wielgot . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Thomas B. Wieliczko . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cherry Hill, NJ
Stephen L. Wieser . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Palatine, IL
Dale Wilborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Jack R. Wilcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refining Process Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheswick, PA
Trisha Wilhelm . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Company . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Greg C. Wilkening . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
David Wilkerson . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Terry Wilkerson . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
David Wilkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Company, Ltd. Houston, TX
James E. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
RuPus Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . Praxair, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stephen Williams . . . . . . . . . . . KOCH/Glitsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Charles Wills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
J. Rick Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jerry Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Keith Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pointe-A-Pierre, Trinidad
Troy Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mark O. Wimberly . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston,TX
Michael Windham . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Lloyd Winger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Joseph C. Wink . . . . . . . . . . . . Wink Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Michael Wink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wink Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Steve Wiseman . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anatol Witoshkin . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Herbert W. Wizig . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Randall Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco-Bechtel Coker Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mark Wolke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston,TX
Gordon Wollam . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Nancy Wollam . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Curtis B. Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Darin Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining & Marketing Co. . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
John R. Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
N. V. Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hess Oil Virgin Island Corporation . . . . . . . . . St. Croix, Virgin Islands
Harold Woodroffe . . . . . . . . . . . Petrotrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pointe-a-Pierre, Trinidad
Charles Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Deborah Woodward . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Paul Worsham . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serv-Tech, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobile, AL

1997 50th Anniversary NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 279
TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Richard E. Wrench . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anthony Yaghmour . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Filter/Lo-Cat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hobbs, New Mexico
Kyouichi Yagi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Company, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Hassan A. Yamany . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Chet Yeo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Garyville, LA
Neil Yeoman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Gary L. Yepsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard CorpoMtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Quay Chee Yong . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Asia Pacific Pte Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Jae Young Yoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukong Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulsan, Korea
Alex Yoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Bret L. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chris Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Maresa Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Scott P. Youngblood . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sam Youssef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Michael Zacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Sioma Zaczepinski . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Michael Zehender . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jim Zeibin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Husky BPU Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lloydminster, Canada
Louie E. Zeillmann . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slidell, LA
Randolph P. Zelonis . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jose Zerpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maraven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cardon, Venezuela
Michael J. Zetlmeisl . . . . . . . . . . Baker Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Mark S. Zyskowski . . . . . . . . . . Baker-Petrolite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO

280 Registration List