TOC/INDEX

1996 NPRA
Question and Answer Session
On Refining and Petrochemical Technology
TOC/INDEX

49th Annual
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

© 1997 National Petroleum Refiners Association

TOC/INDEX

Typesetting/Layout by:
Right Angle Graphics
1223 Noyes Drive
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Printed in U.S.A
TOC/INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Category Page Section Category Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING . . . . . . . . 160

A. Alkylation-Sulfuric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
I. GENERAL PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
A. Treating and Desalting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
B. Lube Oil Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
C. Solvent Deasphalting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
D. Crude Distillation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 B. Alkylation-Hydrofluoric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
E. Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
F. Product Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 C. Reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
G. Computer/Process Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
H. Safety and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 D. Aromatics Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
I. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 E. Polymerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
F. Isomerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
II. HEAVY OIL PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
G. Etherification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Mechanical Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 V. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT . . . 195
Safety and Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A. Sulfur Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Amine Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Sulfur Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Optimization/Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Tail Gas Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Feed and Product Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 B. Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Fractionation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
B. Coking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Hydrocarbon Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Mechanical Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Separators and Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . 212
Residual Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Secondary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
C. Visbreaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Solid and Chemical Waste . . . . . . . . . . . 221
III. HYDROGEN PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
C. Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
A. Hydrogen Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Process Heaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Hydrogen Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Hydrogen Purification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Electrical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
B. Hydrotreating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Reactor Bed Plugging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 VI. PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . 225
Reactor Effluent Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
A. Ethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Catalysts and Catalyst Sulfiding . . . . . . . . . 139
B. Styrene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Reactor Safety and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . 145
General Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Panel Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Participation Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Index to NPRA Q&A Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Registration List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
TOC/INDEX
INTRODUCTION
PAUL D. FRITZ:
Good morning and welcome to the 49th NPRA Ques-
tion and Answer Session on Refining and Petrochemical
Technology. I am Paul Fritz, Vice President of Engineering
Services for Pennzoil Products Company and current
Chairman of the NPRA Manufacturing Committee. The
Manufacturing Committee is proud to sponsor this very
worthwhile event and is grateful for the support provided
by the panelists, the Screening Committee, the vendors
who have sponsored events, and to all of you who will be
participating over the next 2½ days. Based on the size of
the crowd here today, it appears that we are still going
strong after 49 years — We must be doing something
right!
Before turning over the Session to NPRA and the
panelists, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the
state of our industry and the challenges we continue to
face, and to put that into perspective relative to the Q&A.
The discussions you will be having this week are vital to
the continued technology advances our industry will need
to meet the changes which lie ahead.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Twenty-one years ago, I served as a Q&A panelist and
it was interesting to look back at the transcript of that 1975
session. Many of the issues and problems addressed back
then are still with us today: fouling and corrosion; reactor
loading, distribution and pressure drop; presulfiding; met-
als contamination; to name a few. We even discussed
production of 0.05 weight percent distillates, MMT and
catalyst disposal concerns.
W.J. Majers of Sun Oil gave the opening address to the
600 attendees at the 1975 Philadelphia Q&A. He dis-
cussed 4 areas of concern at that time:
• The Cost of Energy — He predicted it would go
higher.
• Crude Oil Supply — He felt we would become more
dependent on others, and the trend would be toward
synthetic feedstocks.
• Environmental Issues — He said the industry had
been working on these for many years, but that times are
changing and the environment would become more im-
portant. (How true!)
• Finally — Political Realities — He warned that we
were not doing enough. We should participate in civic
organizations and discuss our industry with our neighbors.
While we continue to deliberate on these issues, this
years program includes a number of new issues and con-
cepts which I believe are indicative of just how much our
industry has changed over the years. There are new tech-
nologies and topics on the program, such as etherification,
product formulation, and computer process control. New
words and concepts surface throughout the program, such
as RFG and CARB fuels, rigorous non-linear, on-line
optimization, NESHAPS, MACT, MTBE and TAME.
Some of these words were not even invented in 1975, and
unfortunately some were invented by those who regulate
us. We still have a separate environmental section, but
there is far more emphasis in this area. Environment,
health and safety issues are now really part of the entire
program.
There is one somewhat disturbing word found in this
year’s program that is near and dear to all of us. And that
word is “downsizing”. The attendee list for the 1975 Q&A
conference shows representatives from 19 companies no
longer in the refining business. Conversely, our registra-
tion list today shows representation from about 10 com-
panies not in business in 1975. Despite all the innovative
technological advances the U.S. refining and petrochemi-
cal industries have accomplished over the years, and the
high quality products provided to consumers and the
American economy as a result, the industry has been
forced to restructure, consolidate, and downsize to sur-
vive. Compared to 21 years ago, today we produce more
high purity and environmentally friendly products with
less feedstock, less energy and with less impact on the
environment. And we do this while maintaining one of
the safest of all industries.
5
TOC/INDEX
But the rest of the world has evolved as well. The easing
of world trade barriers, globalization of economies, and
advances in communication capabilities have opened our
markets to world-wide competition. Some of our products
have become commodities and are traded on world finan-
cial markets at a moments notice. The hey days of yester-
year are long gone.
Unfortunately, I do not see the situation getting any
easier in the years to come. Congress and EPA have become
more and more intrusive into our business. Regulations
have been increasing at an alarming pace and as they
become more stringent, they tend to have a greater direct
impact on our daily operations and business decisions.
And the changes we have experienced to date may only
be the beginning of an era of constant environmental and
competitive pressures. We have successfully implemented
Phase I of a reformulated gasoline program. Phase II,
which is to be implemented in the year 2000, will be an
order of magnitude more difficult to implement. At the
same time, the auto industry is pushing for additional
nationwide specifications for sulfur and driveability index,
while EPA, through the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group, is seeking to spread reformulated gasolines and
reformulated diesel fuels into as many as 37 states.
Although many of us have just recently completed the
work required under the Refinery MACT I rule for process
vents, Refinery MACT II has loomed on the horizon.
Under MACT II, EPA is looking at FCCU particulate
emissions, sulfur plant carbon disulfide and carbonyl sul-
fide emissions, and reformer chloride emissions. A com-
bustion MACT, addressing process heaters and boilers, is
also under development at the Agency.
Perhaps most alarming is EPA’s ongoing review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and
particulates. Despite questionable science to back up their
actions, EPA is proposing to lower ozone standards and
develop a new standard for particulates of less than 2.5
microns (PM 2.5). The new standards could greatly ex-
pand the number and severity classification of nonattain-
ment areas, requiring further controls on our products and
plants. Under the most stringent PM 2.5 standard, it is
estimated that all but one of the 255 areas now monitored
for PM will be out of attainment. The PM 2.5 standard
will put additional pressures on fuel because combustion
products have been identified as primary contributors to
these emissions.
I did not come here to leave a message of gloom and
doom, but rather to simply remind you that the ingenuity
and technological advancements that have brought this
industry so far in the past, must, and I am sure will,
continue. Just as environmental issues surface throughout
the Q&A program, they are something we simply have to
live with. The way to live with these challenges is to look
for opportunity: Opportunity in business and financial
6 Introduction
areas — restructuring, re-engineering, partnering and
joint venturing — and Opportunity in operations and
technology — reliability, safety, computerization, produc-
tivity , empowerment.
No matter how far or how fast our industry changes
over the next decade, people will continue to be our most
important asset and our best source of opportunity. All of
you in this room are part of this people asset. By coming
here today, you have taken a positive step towards meeting
the challenges ahead. The discussions in this room and in
the halls during breaks will provide valuable insight into
problems and a better understanding of operational, safety
and technological concerns. This meeting also offers a
unique opportunity for vendors to better understand their
customers needs and for the customers to better under-
stand their suppliers capabilities. Partnering, one of those
“words of the 90’s”, offers a valuable way to optimize
people assets.
I would like to conclude my remarks today by high-
lighting two small but important changes to this year’s
program. First, there is a session devoted to safety and
reliability and second, the word reliability occurs three
times. Safety and reliability are key to meeting the chal-
lenges of the future and remaining profitable. They also
represent two areas where people play a vital role. The
Q&A offers an outstanding forum for bringing these issues
to the forefront and developing newer, better, safer and
environmentally friendlier ways of operating our facilities,
hopefully with a positive impact on the bottom line.
This industry is facing enormous challenges and
changes. But we have been there before and have survived.
Let me leave you with a simple example. Our industry was
one of the safest in 1987 when NPRA began publishing
its current version of the Department of Labor’s injury
statistics. Since then, refining recordable cases have de-
clined by over 63 percent and petrochemical plant re-
cordables by over 52 percent. This was accomplished by
management and work force cultural change, ingenuity,
commitment and technology. I am confident that we will
be equally successful in other business areas and can enjoy
49 more years of NPRA Q&A’s.
Last, but not least, I could not sit down without extend-
ing my personal appreciation and that of the NPRA
Manufacturing Committee to this year’s panelists. Having
sat in one of these seats, I can appreciate all of the effort
they have already put in, and will put in over the next
21⁄2 days to make this event a success. I am sure that they
are asking themselves, “Why did I agree to this?”. But I
am also sure that when it is over they will feel as I did, “I
am glad I did”. Thank-you, good luck to our panelists, and
I hope that you have a worthwhile and enjoyable session.
I will now turn the meeting over to Terry Higgins of
the NPRA.
TOC/INDEX

Each registrant at the 1996 NPRA Question and Answer

TERRENCE HIGGINS:
Good Morning. Thank you very much, Paul. We ap-
preciate your comments this morning, and the support
that the NPRA Manufacturing Committee provides this
meeting as well.
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 participation. When
commenting, please state your name and company.
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.
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
transcripts (i.e., 1990-94) are also available in electronic
format 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. Ex-
perts are available to discuss their products and answer
questions not adequately covered during the sessions. The
hospitality rooms offer an excellent opportunity to be-
come better acquainted with those who serve our industry.
I am reminded of a funeral home that had the following
slogan: “Remember, it is better to know us and not need
us, than to need us and not know us.” Get to know your
suppliers before you need them.
Background information on the panel can be found in
your program book and will be available in the back
section of the transcript.
The NPRA as received numerous positive comments
as to the value of these sessions and transcripts. In response
to input from attendees, NPRA has expanded the petro-
chemical session for 1996 and initiated a breakout session.
A Safety and Reliability session will be held concurrent
with an Instrumentation, Product Formulation and Com-
puter/Process Control Session. NPRA has also provided
attendees with the opportunity to submit “relatively long”
or detailed question responses for publication prior to our
session.
NPRA welcomes suggestions or criticisms for improve-
ment of our program. Evaluation sheets are available for
this purpose or attendees can contact NPRA’s Washington
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.

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 7

TOC/INDEX
I. GENERAL PROCESSING
A. Treating and Desalting
Question 1.
What specific techniques are being employed to de-
salt heavy crude oil (less than 20° API)? Review
important process parameters (such as desalter effi-
ciency, removal of filterable solids, etc.) and type of
equipment in service.
LEMMON:
Tosco’s Avon refinery effectively desalts heavy Califor-
nia crudes with an API gravity of 13.4°. Salt removal is
excellent at roughly 95%, yielding a little less than 1
lb/1000 bbl in the desalted oil. BS&W removal is also
good, obtaining 85% removal, yielding less than 0.2 %.
The water effluent, which has been a focal point of our
refinery, is fairly clean at 0.5% oil. The equipment used is
two generously sized Petreco low velocity desalters oper-
ated in a series. The oil residence time is approximately 1
hour in each of the desalter vessels for this 60,000 bbl/d
application. A brine settling tank is also utilized to maxi-
mize oil recovery from the brine effluent.
The operating temperature of the crude is critical and
must be maintained over 315°F. Wash water is added at 6
vol% to 8 vol %, and the wash water source is vacuum
tower ejector condensate combined with stripped foul
water.
The pH of the wash water blend is about 5.6 and that
is also critical with this high naphthenic acid crude. The
pH must be below 6.5 to give acceptable performance.
We run the mix valves in the first stage at 4 psi, and at
7 psi in the second stage. One other thing we do is blend
the crude with some low solids recovered oil (less than
0.5% solids). This improves the API gravity to around
14.8°API.
We use emulsion breaker chemical at 20 ppm to 25
ppm and the desalter runs very well. Over the years the
desalter operation has improved, and I attribute this to
reduced solids in the recovered oil and today’s more effec-
tive desalting chemicals. The last point is that we are
careful not to blend crudes into the California crudes that
could cause asphaltene precipitation.
HUNKUS:
In the 10° to 12° API range, several process techniques
are employed to offset the difficulty of desalting heavy
crude oils. These involve modified process parameters,
8 General Processing
special crude handling, and basic design considerations to
improve results.
Elevated temperatures are very important to reduce the
viscosity of heavy, highly viscous oils. Generally, an upper
limit of approximately 325°F is set due to the reliability
of desalter electrical components. Sulfuric acid addition is
generally used to control effluent water pH, which is
usually held in the 5.5 to 6.5 range. HCl may have
advantages, but it is more hazardous to handle.
You may need to consider elevating the gravity of the
raw crude oil with recycle of atmospheric naphtha, distil-
late or other streams to increase the density difference
between the oil and the water and to further reduce its
viscosity. Low mixing energies are employed to counter-
balance the high viscosity and low gravity of these crude
oils so you can still achieve separation. Keep a log so the
operators know where to “set the knobs” when this type
of crude hits.
Try to maximize settling time in your crude storage
tanks, and drain water as much as possible before charging
to the Crude Unit (or Coker, visbreaker, or heavy oil
process). Check crude compatibilities in the laboratory
and blend crudes by types and ratios that preclude asphal-
tene deposition. Keep records of blend recipes that work
well in your plant for future reference. Accomplish tank
switches over a period of several hours to preclude desalter
upsets and minimize the potential water carryover on
crude units.
For very heavy crudes, larger vessels and higher KVA
rated transformers are used to assist in overcoming the
higher viscosity and lower gravities of these opportunity
feedstocks. Consideration should be made for possible
inclusion of special polymers to augment high viscosity,
low gravity separation and conductivity. Several demulsi-
fyer systems can be included to allow switching to various
systems without the need for recipe chemicals. You should
also allow for large rag layers and a good, well lighted
sampling area. Finally, you generally do not want to run
the heavy crude and water through a booster pump in the
preheat exchange train. You would be better off buying a
high head pump and injecting the crude and water closer
together right before the desalter.
JACKSON:
A number of our refineries in Australasia have residue
crackers (RCUs) and run a very wide range of crudes;
Middle East sour crudes to SE Asian waxy crudes. The
straight-run crudes have a feed specific gravity of between
TOC/INDEX
0.83 and 0.90, an API gravity of 39° to 26°. These sites
also run some imported residues through the units. As the
imports tend to be wet, they are run through the crude
unit (CDU) desalters. With these regimens, they can run
between 0% to 70% condensate with the residue. They
have run specific gravities in excess of 0.93 (API’s less than
20°). The combination of high portions of imported
residues and low portions of condensates is the worst of
all worlds, as the condensates precipitate out asphaltenes,
which act as surface active components and causes prob-
lems at the interface in the desalter. Some refiners are
desalting atmospheric residue alone. BP refineries with
RCUs use multiple stage desalting and no caustic injection
into the hot residue as best practice. The following table
shows a number of crudes that fall into the low gravity
category.
Current best practice is treating 14° to 16° API crudes
with around 85% to 90% salt removal for a single stage
desalter and 97% to 99% for a two stage desalter.
The important parameters that need to be considered
when running heavy crude oil are:
Viscosity — The heavier crudes and residues are
generally mote viscous (although some of the lighter,
waxier crudes can also be a problem from the viscos-
ity point of view), and this becomes a problem with
atomizing them, resulting in poorer mixing. It also
adversely affects the coalescing of the droplets. If the
viscosity can be reduced, then atomizing and mixing
will improve and residence time necessary to sepa-
rate the fluids will be reduced. Viscosity reduction
can be accomplished by increasing the temperature
of the feed to the desalter and the desalter operating
temperature normally up to the limit of the bush-
ings. This is typically a maximum of 300°F, although
some new bushing materials are said to allow you to
operate as high as 320°F to 350°F at 450 psig. The
mixing can also be improved by increasing the pres-
sure drop across the mixing valve. The increased
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
mixing will also mean that the emulsion will be
harder to separate, so desalter design and operation
need to account for this.
Density — The heavier crudes obviously have
higher densities and are closer to the density of water.
This makes the crudes that much harder to separate
from the water. Consequently, more time and/or
dewatering chemicals are required to separate the oil
and water phases. The whole exercise is com-
pounded by the fact that the heavier crudes do not
dewater as well in tankage. So, the longer and better
the dewatering in the tanks, the more efficiently they
can be desalted. The result of water carried forward
is more stable emulsions which will require specific
and more demulsifying chemicals. The additional
chemicals should be added before the crude hits the
desalter. We typically predose some 2 to 3 hours
before the feed tank change. The demulsifying
chemicals basically neutralize the surface active com-
ponents that sit at the surface interface.
Asphaltenes — These materials in the heavier crudes
tend to be surface active and prevent the oil/water
phases from separating efficiently. Again, surface ac-
tive chemicals will help the desalting process.
Solids — The removal of solids while running heav-
ier feedstocks is also more difficult. The solids will
not move as easily from the oil phase into the water
phase. You have to dose with suitable and larger
quantities of the water side polymers. These sit at the
oil/water interface and enable the solids to pass more
easily into the water. The polymers effectively wet
the particulates. The polymers also have the advan-
tage of aiding the de-oiling of the water phase.
Preheat — The preheating of the cold crude up-
stream of the desalters has to be considered. Most
CDU’s have good heat integration that preheats the
cold crude pumparounds, overheads, product run-
downs and sometimes cold residue from the CDU.
The heavier crudes run a higher percentage of
680°F+ (360°C+) material, so the temperature of the
material entering the desalter can drop, resulting in
poor desalting. This needs to be considered and
designed for in the preheat system, while also allow-
ing for fouling of the preheat train. Watch the ve-
locities in the heat exchangers and make sure they
do not drop too low.
Wash Water Rate and Quality — The wash water
rate should be increased to improve the contacting
of the oil and water streams. This should be increased
up to a usual maximum of 7% on crude. The quality
of the wash water is important. Wash water with a
high pH can cause stable emulsions. This is normally
an indication of caustic in the system which can
cause the presence of sodium naphthanates (soaps).
The “soaps” can also be formed with naphthenic
9
TOC/INDEX
acid-containing crudes with acid numbers greater
than 1.0.
Most chemical vendors are capable of running bench
scale desalter simulators. These give an indication of those
crudes that might be susceptible to poorer desalting;
hence, the refinery and the chemical vendor can prepare
an operating protocol for running these troublesome
crudes and select efficient demulsfiers.
As can be seen above, the link the refinery has with its
chemical supplier and the service and support that sup-
plier gives are very important. A good service contract can
make all the difference when running a wide ranging crude
slate. The data base is an invaluable tool to troubleshoot-
ing problems retrospectively and then determining how
to prevent those problems from reoccurring. The analysis
of these data will also indicate whether you have a real
problem with the desalter, or an operational problem: such
as, not dewatering the crude correctly; generic crude type
change; spiking of other oils into the crude feed; etc.
We have found that the historic data have helped us
determine how much predosing of which chemicals we
have to do for specific crude types and for any crude
changes.
An interesting twist is when you have been running a
crude for years and dosing successfully, and a new crude
parcel desalts less efficiently. The chemical addition rates
are the same, the desalter is checked out and appears to be
functioning as expected, and the crude looks the same
from its physical properties. Everything seems as it used
to be, but this material is hard to desalt. We have found
that some of the drilling mud stabilizers used by the
upstream exploration companies carry through in the
crude and have been known to affect the desalting process.
In summary, the following techniques are used when
processing heavy crudes:
• Dewater the crude in tankage as long and as well as
possible. Give it time and attention.
• Predose the oil and water with chemicals well (2 to
3 hours) before the crude hits the desalter.
• Increase the operating temperature of the desalter up
to the temperature limit.
• Increase the pressure drop across the mixing valve to
try and increase atomization of the feed and water
and increase mixing.
• Increase the wash water rate to aid contacting.
• Add wash water into the suction of the feed pumps
upstream of the desalter to aid mixing, as has been
done in some locations.
• Watch the oil/water interface with heavy oils as ’rag’
layers are easily set up. These will have to be blown
down through the tricock system.
FEARNSIDE:
The panel members so far have stated a lot of key items
that are critical to desalting specifically the heavier crudes,
10 General Processing
the more opportunistic crudes as people refer to them. I
would like to add a few things. It is crucial that you
understand the source of your raw crude. By that I mean
getting back to what Mr. Jackson mentioned. Are they
using down hole surfactants to stimulate the wells? We
found out quite often they are and that really can upset a
desalter.
You also have to realize that on a typical heavy crude,
the BS&W shipment specification is somewhere around
3%. Normally in lighter crudes it is 1%. That creates a lot
more solids that you have to dispose of somehow. This
leads to the next question which is based on an economic
decision. Which way do you want to take those solids? Do
you want to take them out with the water and dispose of
them somehow, or recycle them gently back in with the
raw crude? We usually do not advise that for heavy crudes.
Or, do you choose to leave them in the crude oil, assuming
you have high enough velocities through your preheat
exchange, and then have them end up in the coker should
you have that particular unit? That is all based on econom-
ics for each individual refinery.
As for temperature, hotter is usually better in terms of
desalting performance, but I caution everyone that this is
not always the case. If you look at the Stokes Law equation,
the difference in the densities between the oil and the
water at a given temperature is what is really important.
Water densities will change fairly linearly, but not all crude
oils do. Some have quite a curve to them. And what you
are looking for is the temperature where that difference is
the greatest. We have had a number of cases where we have
actually had to lower the desalter temperature from where
they were running, at 300°F to 310°F, down to 280°F to
achieve the best desalting.
On the heavy oils, the other concern as you get hotter
is that the conductivity of the crude oil increases. And
depending on the porphyrin content, the specific part of
the asphaltene, you can very easily get hot enough to
continually trip out your electrical grids.
The demulsifier selection is critical. In testing, you have
to use the particular crude blend that is being processed at
the time as well as the wash water that is available at that
particular desalter. I would also caution everyone that
when you are looking at using solids wetting technology,
specifically polymer type chemistries, not all polymers will
drop enough solids. If that is what you are trying to
accomplish with the particular polymers, you have to be
careful as to what is selected.
Overall, you have to have a very good understanding of
all the intricacies of what is going to affect your desalting
performance. That goes all the way back to tank handling.
And more critically, we are finding that if you get to the
heavier crudes, what you do with the solid treatment is
critical as well as what you do with the small amount of
oil undercarry that seems to be the norm with the heavier
crudes.
TOC/INDEX
BARKER:
Our experience at Parachute was that the pressure drop
across the mixing valve should be monitored and control-
led closely. Too high a pressure makes an emulsion that is
hard to break, particularly if there are any solids present.
It is important to only use enough pressure drop to get
good mixing. Increasing the temperature lowers the vis-
cosity of the oil, and allows the pressure drop across the
mixing valve to be lowered as well. However, that draws
more current across the grid, and requires adjustments to
keep from over amping. To overcome that, we installed a
naphtha recycle (about 1000 bbl/d with the 7500 bbl/d of
shale oil production) to lower the viscosity of the mix
flowing through the mixing valve. All of this improved the
desalter operation to the point that we had some control
over the process.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
Mr. Jackson mentioned that water quality is very im-
portant. Could you throw light on whether it should be
exclusively fresh water or can you recycle some of the
process effluent from vessels? In two stage desalting can a
little bit be partially recycled?
JACKSON:
Taking the last point first, yes, we do recycle water from
the second stage into the first stage desalter at some
locations. But remember, we are not processing the heavi-
est crudes. To answer your question, contaminants like
ammonia in the wash water can cause you real problems.
So if you are carrying ammonia in your desalter, do not
use these recycle streams when you are running these heavy
crudes. Also slops, sour water, caustic or anything like that
put into your crudes at the same time that you are into
these heavy opportunity crudes are going to cause you real
problems. Take these streams out, or at least minimize
their processing, when running difficult crudes.
LEMMON:
As I mentioned before, in our heavy oil desalter we are
actually reusing condensate from our vacuum tower ejec-
tor systems blended with stripped foul water. The stripped
foul water does have a little bit of caustic in it that we add
to help strip ammonia. The trace amount of caustic does
not seem to upset the desalter, and it is good clean water,
low in solids.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
Are there any special requirements for high naphthenic
crudes?
LEMMON:
The pH must be on the acidic side or you will form
naphthionic soaps which will completely upset the desalter.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
WILLIAM HEIMBAUGH (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
One of the things we have found in our experience is
that it is preferable to inject the crude water emulsion just
above the water interface level. This practice provides two
explicit benefits when processing heavy crudes. First, it
maximizes crude oil residence time. Second, it reserves the
high intensity electrical fields for the more difficult to
resolve emulsions. As Mr. Fearnside indicated, Stoke’s Law
dictates the water droplet settling rate inside the desalter.
Typically, most of the water droplets fall out in the lower
intensity electrical field (in a Howe-Baker desalter) estab-
lished between the bottom electrode grid and the water
interface level. However, when processing heavier crudes,
the water droplet settling rate is significantly reduced.
Therefore, in order to remove the highly emulsified water
droplets in heavy crudes, it is imperative that you reserve
the high intensity electrical fields (between the electrode
grids) for this purpose only. This design practice ensures
that the water content in the high intensity electrical fields
is minimized.
With regard to desalter operating temperature, there
are a lot of people who think “the hotter the better”.
However, there are some limitations. Although some of
these have already been mentioned, two deserve mention
here. First, as the operating temperature increases, the
crude conductivity increases. The additional conductance
of the feedstock places increased demand on the transac-
tors and, accordingly, power consumption increases. If the
power consumption becomes excessive, the transactors
may trip off-line due to an overload condition. Second,
there are some equipment limitations with regard to tem-
perature. In most desalter designs, the electrode insulators
and entrance bushings are made from teflon. These com-
ponents typically have a withstand temperature rating of
375°F (190°C). Accordingly, we do not recommend pro-
longed operation above about 305°F to 310°F on heavy
crude slates.
11
TOC/INDEX
ROBERT BRIERLEY (Husky Oil Operations Ltd.):
I have been working 15 years on desalters with
Lloydminster crude (21° API). The crude comes in with
asphaltenes already destabilized, and we definitely have
asphaltenes in our interface. Our interface pad under
normal circumstances would grow and come out the
bottom. We found the polymer addition program was a
benefit to controlling that interface pad.
You have to be careful about the polymer you use. They
can actually cause more asphaltenes to come out the bot-
tom. Our asphaltenes-to-solids (clays) ratio has been as
high as 4 to 1 in the desand sludge. Whereas if you look at
it under normal circumstances in the pad, it can be 1 to 1.
One critical thing is water quality control. We have
actually taken our overhead water out of the desalter wash
water system, because it carried with it clays and that was
actually stabilizing the emulsion in our first stage desalter.
I found working on parallel desalters at a refinery, Husky’s
other plant, that we have 97% salt removal with single stage
desalting. We went to two stage desalting at our BPU unit,
we saw 97% salt removal, no improvement. The reason was
that we had to back off on our mix valves because of the
increased tendency to help stabilize emulsions in the inter-
face. What works best for us so far is fresh stripped sour
water addition to both desalters. If you can afford the
higher water rate, put parallel wash water into number one
and number two desalters at the same time, and your
interface pad will come under control much faster with
lower chemical dosages. We have been averaging 0.11% oil
undercarry with single stage desalting and somewhere
around 1% with two stage desalting. These are two differ-
ent refineries and two different units.
TOM COLLINS (Petrolite Corporation):
I agree with everything that has been said. Just one other
thing to add is that the sediment removal is very important
with desalting heavy crudes. Also, the techniques em-
ployed tend to vary with the design of the desalter. The
Petrolite Bilectric® design allows for more intense mixing
which is a critical factor in desalting heavy crudes. Petrolite
has extensive commercial operating data and pilot plant
research that shows Bilectric® design coupled with a
proper chemical program produces much greater removal
of salt and filterable solids.
Question 2.
What kinds of mechanical desalter internal modifica-
tions are refiners making to better handle these heavy
crudes? What is the state-of-the-art design for heavy
crude desalting?
JACKSON:
As indicated in the first question, we have some expe-
rience with desalting heavy and residual feedstocks in our
Australasian refineries. Most locations have modern two
12 General Processing
stage desalters and one has a three stage desalting system.
The answers to the previous question also indicate the
problems and some solutions to heavy hydrocarbon de-
salting. From a mechanical point of view, the following are
items that should be considered:
• For processing heavy hydrocarbons, a larger treating
area per barrel processed is required. For example, a
desalter designed for 60 KBPSD of 36° API crude
would be able to process 50 KBPSD of 30° API
crude, and 36 KBPSD of 26° API crude and 14
KBPSD of 18° API crude with the same efficiency;
or maintain throughput at lower efficiency.
• The electrode bushing material should be looked at
and replacement considered to allow the desalter to
run hotter. Current best available is around 350°F at
450 psig (177° C at 31 barg).
• A fixed in-line mixer can be installed, but we gener-
ally still use a mixer valve in series.
• Look at debottlenecking the hydraulics to the desal-
ter on both the crude and the water side to enable
higher pressure drop across the mixing valve and
higher wash water rates, if these parameters are low.
• The heat exchanger network should also be reviewed
if this is a bottleneck. The minimum velocity of the
crude in the tubes should be noted and redesign of
the exchangers considered, to prevent fouling of the
preheat heat exchangers during heavy crude cam-
paigns. Inserts can be considered (see later responses).
• Each vendor has his own state-of-the-art design.
Petrolite, for example, has its Bilectric® design
which we have in some of our U.S. and Australasian
refineries.
• A sludge wash-down facility should be included in
the design to allow on-line removal of any sludge
build-up from running heavy crudes.
• The water handling system has to be large enough
to cope with any increase in water disposal due to
increased wash water rates.
• Look at chemical addition facilities and talk with the
suppliers to determine the rates and location for
adding heavy crude desalting chemicals.
• Look at sample points and instruments to ensure
you have sufficient data gathering facilities to enable
a database to be gathered and the future operation
of the desalters on heavy feeds to be improved.
• Most vendors believe that closely spaced grids are
important (6 in. to 12 in.), but the ability to change
the grid spacing has reportedly been shown to not
be an important process variable.
• All desalter vendors supply internals that vary from
the simple single grid supplied from a single trans-
former to a triple transformer system, each trans-
former supplying a separate grid. Again, different
vendors have their own unique designs. Each design
has its strengths and weaknesses. To date BP does
TOC/INDEX
not have an absolute preference for desalter internal
design.
• The inlet distributor design is claimed by some
vendors to have an effect on the efficiency of the
desalting.
I would also look upstream and at other units feeding
the desalters. Other things I would consider to ease the
burden on the desalters and make heavy crude desalting
as easy as possible are:
• The crude/residue tank dewatering facilities and
protocol. If water and particles do not get into the
desalter in the first place they cannot cause prob-
lems.
• The slops and caustic disposal strategies should be
reviewed. Some sites, for example, that run a wide
variety of crude types, do not run caustic or slops to
their desalters when they run heavy crudes, as this
only exacerbates the difficulty of the desalting of
these difficult crudes. They have sufficient storage to
process them when lighter, easier to desalt crudes are
run. This seems to be successful.
• Look at the sour water stripper (SWS) operation and
check to see if high pH water is being fed to the
desalter.
ARNDT:
A big factor is the pH of the water in separating the oil
from the solids. The right pH is crude dependent.
Regarding the mechanical aspect, we favor the low grid
velocities and Bielectric grids for heavy oil desalting. The
distributor can be a problem here because the distributors
on Bielectric designs have very small gaps, about 1⁄4 in. in
our application. If you go 20 years and never clean them,
your desalter will not work very well.
FEARNSIDE:
One thing I would like to add is that with the heavier
crudes you directionally have to handle a lot more solids.
It is very important that your mud washers or mud busting
equipment be up to specification, capable of delivering
enough water at the right velocities through the inlet
header nozzle holes.
GENTRY:
Kellogg recently performed design, engineering pro-
curement and construction for a desalter to process heavy
crude of 11.6° API. It was necessary to dilute the heavy
crude. A number of tests were done to determine the best
diluent, and economic studies were done to support these
tests. In the end, the heavy crude was blended with a
lighter crude for a blended gravity of 14°API prior to
desalting.
Pilot test runs were performed by the desalter vendor
on bench scale equipment to confirm that the following
design desalting objectives will be achieved:
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
BS&W Maximum of 0.8 vol%
Salts Maximum of 15 ppmw or
5 lb/1000 bbl
(80 % salt removal)
Sodium Maximum of 3 ppmw
Pilot studies showed that these desalting expectations
will be achieved with a single stage desalter and that a grid
rate of approximately 20 bbl/d/sq ft would be acceptable.
A larger (by a generous margin) desalter vessel was de-
signed and installed. The desalter vessel will provide a
design margin as well as added flexibility for lower API
gravity operation.
The design desalting temperature for this crude blend
was 300°F, wash water injection rate was 10 vol%. Wash
water will have less than 100 ppm ammonia, low hardness
and a pH of 6 to 8. Provisions for oil-soluble emulsifier
injections were made at the suction of the charge pump.
A water soluble wetting agent is injected upstream of the
mixing valve.
The vendor’s double ported, quick opening type mix-
ing valve was provided with the design. A capacitance
probe type interface level transmitter was provided for
interface level control service. At the client’s request,
AGAR probes were installed as backups.
This unit has recently been started up and operated on
crude blends that are somewhat lighter than the design.
Unfortunately, there has not been a good test of the heavy
blend operation as yet. We would hope to have more
feedback within the next 2 to 3 months.
WILLIAM HEIMBAUGH (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.)
A couple of mechanical modifications come into play
on these heavy crudes. One of them has already been
mentioned, i.e., mud wash system for enhanced solids
removal. I will caution you if you have that kind of a
system, you need to have a water effluent header to go
along with it. The second modification is what we call a
cuff header for extraction of rag layers. One of the panelists
mentioned rag layers being a problem. The header allows
you to extract the cuff layer at that same elevation rather
than having your operators lower the water level causing
a temporary upset condition.
With regard to electrode design for heavy crude desalt-
ing, Howe-Baker recommends our state-of-the-art
EDGE (Enhanced Deep-Grid Electrode) technology.
ANDY GOOLSBEE (Petrolite Corporation - Petreco Division):
The Petrolite Bilectric® Desalter design employs dual
distribution of the water/oil emulsion directly into two
separate high voltage fields which allows for a very quick
and complete resolution of the emulsion and water wet-
table impurities. The industry has proven this design, in
numerous revamps and side by side studies, to be the
state-of-the-art design for heavy crude desalting. Follow-
ing are some case studies.
13
TOC/INDEX

14 General Processing
TOC/INDEX
Question 3.
What have refiners done to lower the benzene content
of the desalter effluent water to help meet the benzene
NESHAP requirement?
HUNKUS:
Fortunately, we have not had to take further action since
our testing demonstrated levels well within compliance.
However, we did spend a lot of time reviewing all options
for our plant. After our review, the option we decided on
for our Mid-South facility was an effluent water stream
stripper. All the effluent water passes through this very
straight forward stripper and the overhead is totally con-
densed. The water is reinjected into the desalter on level
control and all that accumulates can be pumped back into
the crude on interface control or by the operators.
This unit generally uses low pressure steam which may
be more available or even in excess. As you know, the big
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
problems with operating these units are fouling with
particulates, carbonate scale, and oil. And the biggest
challenge is keeping the feed effluent exchanges operating.
In most refineries, it will foul. It is just a question of how
long it will go without fouling.
Generally, there will be two banks of feed effluent
exchangers operating in parallel. This allows one bank to
be taken off-line and cleaned without shutting down the
unit. It usually is advisable to have a backup column as
well, although we know of several plants that do not have
one and operate successfully. It is also a good idea to have
strainers between the hot feed and column because your
packing or trays will tend to foul as well. You condition
the hot feed scale as it forms chemically, so that it forms
more of a particulate, rather than a hard scale. This makes
the strainers easier to keep clean.
You can combat these problems by using several differ-
ent chemistries, depending on the type of problem that
15
TOC/INDEX
your refinery may be more prone to have with the stripper.
If the problem is mainly scale, use an organic phosphate.
That minimizes the growth of calcium carbonate crystal.
This is a component of many products, like the Nalco
7358, which will allow you to run hot temperatures
without forming excessive calcium carbonate in your ex-
changers.
Some scale still forms, but the chemistry makes it a
form of mush of crystals instead of a well structured crystal
brick. The mush can be flushed out. If the water is
extremely prone to scale, you may need to use both
phosphonate and polyacrolate.
For the oil and grease, use a dispersant. We also use this
at our cooling towers to disperse hydrocarbons that may
have leaked in the water after exchangers blocked in. It
works by having a di-polar arrangement, with one end
hydrophilic and the other hydrophilic “dispersing” the oil
into the water so that it can move on through. This can
also help prevent bacterial problems (bacterial slime is a
complex hydrocarbon).
There is a good article in the November 9, 1993, Oil
and Gas Journal that really goes into this in greater detail.
Nalco has our water treatment program and Betz has our
process treatment program. All of us work together as
partners to get the job done. Effluent water is a key area
of cross-company cooperation which we insist on.
KIMBRELL:
We used two different strategies at our two refineries.
The first refinery installed a steam stripper on the desalter
effluent water. And as Mr. Hunkus indicated, we have two
towers. One operates, the other one is in standby. We also
experienced severe fouling. We tried a number of the same
kind of chemicals that Mr. Hunkus mentioned, and we
found that pH control of the feed is probably the most
effective treatment.
Prior to feeding the tower, the desalter water is routed
through a gravity oil water separator and then a liquid
hydrocyclone to remove oil contamination. Benzene levels
out of the bottom of the stripper are less than 0.1 ppm
routinely.
Our other facility discharges the desalter wash water
directly to the oily sewer which is sealed. That sealed sewer
goes to an enhanced biological treatment which oxidizes
the benzene.
LEMMON:
Air strippers are used at one Tosco location to remove
most of the benzene from the desalter’s brine. It should be
noted that the NESHAP regulations define the point of
waste generation before the stripper; therefore, that strip-
per operation does not reduce the refinery’s calculated
NESHAP emission totals. It does reduce the benzene
content of the brine effluent. We use a gravity separator in
front of the stripper, and we experience the same fouling
16 General Processing
problems as mentioned by the other panelists, even with
the low operating temperature of the air stripper.
The vent gas from the stripper is incinerated in the
crude unit’s furnace. This presented some design issues
with regard to shutdown systems. The air strippers have
to be taken off-line roughly every 6 months and cleaned.
At another location, a desalter brine recycle project has
been employed to reduce wash water makeup rates to less
than 0.75 vol%. This brine recycle project has actually
improved desalter operation, resulting in a 10% reduction
in crude unit overhead chlorides concentrations. Because
the recycled brine flow allows wash water rates to be
increased to the optimum 5 vol% of crude, dehydration
actually improved and desalter upsets were reduced. Ben-
zene NESHAP’s emissions were reduced by 50%.
FEARNSIDE:
We have been working with a number of refiners on
this and have demonstrated a consistent 50% reduction
in benzene content in the effluent water. We achieve this
through diligent control of the desalter temperature, mix
valve delta P, wash water flow rates, demulsifier selections
and an on-line benzene monitor. I refer everyone to a 1995
NPRA paper, number AM-95-63, entitled “Meeting Ben-
zene NESHAP Regulations Through New Desalting Ap-
plications”. It takes you through the step-by-step approach
that we took to achieve the benzene reduction.
WILLIAM F. FAHEY (Petrolite Corporation):
I agree with the previous statements on the effect of
brine recycle on benzene in the effluent water. Brine
recycle will allow the decrease in volume of effluent water
but the effluent water may contain a higher concentration
of oil and grease. The brine recycle will also slightly
increase the salt in the desalted crude. An example is a
refiner who had been using 5% fresh wash water in the
desalter and changed to a 2.2% brine recycle and a 2.5%
fresh water. With the brine recycle the oil and grease in the
effluent water increased slightly from 135 to just less than
150 ppm, which was the specification. The total volume
of O&G significantly decreased, and the total quantity of
benzene was significantly less.
STEVE PASPEK (BP Oil Company):
Regarding recycling brine, especially when you talk
about mud washing and recycling, is anybody concerned
about bringing solids back in the front end of a desalter
and whether that tends to make more stable emulsions in
the desalter?
FEARNSIDE:
That all depends on what your solids loading is. In this
case, I suggest that you look at keeping the solids in the
oil, processing them through so they come out in the fuel
oil or out to the coker.
TOC/INDEX
MARK S. BINFORD (BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group):
One of the things that was not noted on benzene
NESHAP reduction was desalter temperature. In the case
of Mr. Lemmon at Tosco and many of the other heavy
crude oil refiners, lowering desalter temperature is not an
option. Desalter temperature must be kept high to reduce
crude viscosity and speed emulsion resolution. But on
some of the lighter crudes, lowering desalter temperature
can actually reduce the solubility of the benzene in the
brine. If you can achieve that without increasing total oil
and grease in your desalt effluent, optimization of desalter
temperature along with chemical optimization and many
of the mechanical variables that were already noted can
also reduce benzene content.
Question 4.
Please comment on current practices in tank field
operation for receipt and preparation of refinery feed-
stocks including:
a) Crudes - whether to decant water (settling times),
or keep mixed and desalt.
b) FCC Feedstocks - BS&W limits; tank heating; de-
salting; Na content.
SMITH:
For part (a) of the question, refineries in Saudi Arabia
receive crude oil which has undergone primary desalting
to less than 10 lb/1000 bbl. Beyond this, there is a variety
of practices including (a) further desalting followed by
tank settling and decanting; (b) settling and decanting
followed by desalting; and (c) settling with no desalting
and keeping crude mixed without desalting.
Most refineries in Saudi Arabia employ tank settling
followed by water decant with settling times ranging from
6 to 48 hours. The Ras Tanura refinery has not settled or
decanted crudes in their charge tanks for approximately
10 years. Refinery crude storage tanks are on running
gauge with mixers running. Supply to the running gauge
tanks is via pipelines. This reduces tankage requirements
and eliminates water slugs to crude units associated with
tank switching.
A final desalting and flash drum in the crude unit helps
eliminate any destructive water excursions to an atmos-
pheric column. After desalting the crude, the atmospheric
column contains less than 1 lb/1000 bbl of salt and
generally a 0.1% to 0.2% of BS&W.
For part (b) of the question, the FCC feedstock to our
joint venture partner SAMREF is a straight-run feed with
a 690°F to 1090°F D1160 distillation. Even though the
feed tanks are not heated, they are insulated to maintain
approximately 350°F for this 140°F pour point material.
The high storage temperature precludes water in the
feedstock. While the feedstock is not desalted, the crude
from which the feedstock is derived is desalted to approxi-
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
mately 1 lb/1,000 bbl. The FCC feed sodium ranges from
0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm.
KIMBRELL:
Our preferred method is to decant water from the crude
oil after it has settled in tankage for 24 hours. That is not
always possible. We have had situations where we have had
only 4 hours to decant water.
The concern we have there is poor salt removal and
poor water separation due to undersized desalter water
piping and limited water residence time. If fresh water
addition rate is reduced due to increased quantities of
water in the crude, poor salter removal will result.
We typically do not desalt gas oils as they come in. We
really have not had a problem.
BARKER:
For San Joaquin Valley heavy crude, water is not de-
canted from the tanks because it is too difficult to obtain
an accurate water cut. The settling time between the
pipeline receipt and unit feed is not adequate to settle the
water from the crude. We do not use mixers on the tanks,
nor do we desalt SJV heavy. Water in the crude is produced
off the overhead of the crude section primary crude tower.
For our other crude, Alaskan Cook Inlet, we do not
decant water since we keep the tanks mixed. During the
rainy season, we sometimes draw off additional water
because we get water accumulation in the bottom. The
crude unit does have a desalter which helps to remove all
the water from the crude.
At one refinery where FCC feedstocks are produced
and shipped, the BS&W of the FCC feedstocks is not
monitored, nor do we use heated tanks. Statistical Process
Control is used to control rundown temperatures to keep
stored gas oil warm enough for shipping. We have found
this to be a very reliable method of controlling tempera-
ture.
DAVIS:
A majority of the CENEX’s crude is tested for quality
before receipt to the tank farm. This will be addressed in
a later question. Crude must have less than 1.5 wt%
BS&W, as well as meet other criteria. Because of this and
the low residence time in the crude tanks, we do not
normally drain water from these tanks. Crude is separated
by type during delivery to the tank farm and blended for
charge to the crude unit based on our monthly economic
plan.
Gas oil is run down hot, approximately 160°, and has
a residence time in the intermediate storage tanks of 4 to
5 days, so no heat is required. Our storage tanks do contain
steam coils though in the event that they are required. All
FCC feedstock originates from within the refinery and is
hydrotreated before being charged to the FCCU.
17
TOC/INDEX
FEARNSIDE:
This question all boils down to the individual refiner’s
tankage and what the system looks like, i.e., do you have
enough residence time to allow 24 to 96 hour settling time
to drop your water? If you do, we recommend you go
ahead and take advantage of that. If you do not, we
recommend you turn your mixers on, keep them going
and keep the crude in the tanks blended to as homogenous
a mixture as you can because that helps facilitate desalter
operations.
You also have to look at what happens when you switch
tanks. Do you get a desalter upset? If you do, you have to
figure out why. Usually, it is because some water has
dropped into a line that you have not drained and you get
a slug of water in the desalter. Or, we also find quite often
with the heavier crudes that the crude oil has stratified in
the tank itself. So you are not getting a consistent feed and
it is hard to adjust the various desalter parameters to
compensate fast enough to get good performance.
For a number of refiners that do not have desalters on
their particular streams coming in, be it purchased FCC
feed or in certain cases crude units that do not have
desalters, what we have done is recommended and imple-
mented what we call a tankage dehydration program.
Measured amounts of washed water are injected into the
crude oil or FCC gas oil, and then the tanks are used as
sort of a poor man’s desalter. This has worked very nicely,
typically achieving a greater than 50% reduction in salt
content.
GENTRY:
We are aware of one refiner who was able to decant most
water from medium and lighter crudes by establishing a
minimum settling time of 12 hours (preferred was 24
hours) in crude tankage. This same refiner, however, when
handling heavier, more viscous crudes (22° to 24°API) was
unable to get clean separation of water in the crude
tankage and had to rely on separation in the desalter.
We are also aware of a refiner who charged low sulfur
wide resid (LSWR) as secondary feed to his FCCU and
had periodic sodium contamination problems due to salt
water contamination of cargoes. That is in the 12 ppm to
15 ppm Na range. The LSWR was allowed to settle 24 to
48 hours, during which time it was found that a high
concentration of Na contaminated LSWR accumulated in
the bottom 2 ft to 4 ft of the storage tank. Pumping this
high concentration bottoms to crude allowed the remain-
der of LSWR to be successfully run as incremental feed in
the FCCU at a 3 ppm Na level. Desalting would be a more
effective processing step, however, it was unavailable to
this particular refiner.
TOM COLLINS (Petrolite Corporation):
We have seen studies that show sodium levels as low as
2 ppm can result in easy justification of a desalter.
18 General Processing
Question 5.
Is the use of automatic water draw-off valves at crude
and product tanks an accepted practice in the panel-
ist’s refineries? What are their experiences on these
units?
BARKER:
We have not tried the automatic water draw valves at
the refinery on either crude tanks or product tanks. We
have committed to manual water draws in an overall “Best
Management Practices Plan” filed with the California state
water regulatory agency. This was established as the most
practical method of minimizing oil to storm water or to
process drains.
In addition, as part of our program to meet benzene
NESHAP control requirements, we have committed to
analyzing tank water draws for benzene. This also requires
manual water draws for our system.
JACKSON:
Most of our refineries use automatic dewatering devices
on crude, slops and/or product tanks. With only a few
exceptions, these devices and controls work well with low
maintenance, i.e., probe cleaning, ranging the probes, etc.
We predominantly use two types of devices: most com-
mon are Agar probes and to a lesser extent densitometers.
One refinery has Agar probes on crude, slops and
gasoline product tanks. Another drains to a break tank via
on/off control by Agar probes on the crude tanks and
densitometers on gasoline, diesel, jet and kerosene tanks.
The Agar probes we use are in some cases tank mounted
and in some cases pipeline mounted. The probes mounted
on tanks are in some cases single probes and in others there
are two probes. The single probe in the water layer opens
the water dump valve. When the oil/water emulsion layer
is “seen” by the probe the valve closes. With two probes,
the water dump valve opens when the high and low probes
“see” water; the control system holds when the high probe
“sees” oil and the low “sees” water and closes when they
both “see” oil. The main benefit of the two probe system
is that the top probe is used as primary control and the
lower probe as a safety backup. It is very common within
BP to have Agar probes in lines from tanks.
The common tank probes are Agar ID-201 probes and
come in 4 ft standard length (range l ft to 7 ft). The
common line probes we use are Agar OW-102 probes.
We have one location at which we have installed Agar
ID probes in a pipe line, and we have had problems with
that service. The fluid is laminar in the pipeline, and we
believe that this is the wrong probe for this service and
plan to change this out with an Agar OW probe.
The densitometers are Schlumberger instruments and
are Type 7826 Insertion Liquid Density Transducer de-
vices. They are simple devices developed for measuring
liquid densities in pipelines where the flow rate results in
TOC/INDEX
velocities of less than 10 fps (3 m/s) and for static tanks.
The devices are currently not used as density measuring
devices, only as water/oil present devices, so the operator
sees an “OIL” or a “WATER” flag on the board. The
refinery in question is in the process of giving the operator
the density output. The densitometer operates on a vibrat-
ing “tuning fork” principle. The tuning fork is excited and
vibrates. As the density of the liquid changes the vibrating
mass changes, which in turn changes the resonance fre-
quency. Consequently, the tuning fork has to be calibrated
using air and water checks.
In summary, we use these devices extensively, but, like
all instruments, look after them, calibrate them and main-
tain them and they work well. If you install them and
forget them, they will give you problems.
KIMBRELL:
Water drawing of crude tanks has not been automated
at any of our facilities. Our Washington refinery has Agar
OW101 probes in line and is using them quite successfully.
The probes are checked to make sure they work each time
they are used. If the probes are working, the water draw is
initiated and the probes are used to turn the water draw
off.
SMITH:
One of our large crude oil tank farms employs auto-
matic draw off valves utilizing conductivity to initiate
closure for light and extra light crudes. Several precau-
tions, however, have been taken to avoid potential prob-
lems from such a system.
First, the tanks are gauged so that the height of the water
interface is known. Second, the water is drained to a closed
system which is routinely checked for oil which might
occur from a malfunctioning sensor or stuck valve.
Based on the interface levels, operators use their expe-
rience to estimate the time needed for tank dewatering.
Therefore, when the automatic drain valve is opened from
the control room, a maximum time for the drain valve to
be open is set so that it overrides the conductivity sensor.
Obviously, if the valve times out before the conductivity
sensor closes the valve, the final drainage would be done
manually.
This method for tank dewatering has proven successful
in more than 30 tanks ranging from 150,000 bbl to
850,000 bbl working capacity. Even with multiple tanks
draining simultaneously, excellent results have been
achieved. The system, however, is limited to light crudes
because the heavier oils coat the sensors and cause mal-
functions. The other refineries manually drain their tanks.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
I would like to add something regarding the tank
preparation. There can be some sludge formation at the
bottom and there is a chance of water forming pockets. In
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
those tanks draining will not be possible and the water will
be allowed to go to the desalter.
JACKSON:
You are absolutely right. You can get water pocketing.
You cannot simply install these probes around your refin-
ery tanks and associated piping without careful regard to
the design of the tanks and piping systems. Therefore, the
location of where you put these probes and what types of
probes are used is paramount.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
There are reports that desalters go off-line many times
due to problems with either bushing quality or heavy water
inflow, causing short circuiting. Can the panel throw light
on that?
JACKSON:
From the modern desalters that we have, both with the
bushing qualities and the way we run them, we have not
had continuous and serious tripping problems. If the
bushings are of poor quality, or damaged, this will cause
shorting problems.
Question 6.
How are high pour point products and crude handled
in loading/receiving lines? Are pour point depressants
effective? What are the techniques used to optimize
the utilization of pour point depressants injected into
the crude?
FEARNSIDE:
Yes, the pour point depressants are effective, but not in
all cases. You have to test each individual crude oil to
determine its cost-effective treat rate. For crude oils, typi-
cal pour point reductions of 20°F to 50°F are possible. For
the injection of the pour point depressants, they must be
injected when the crude oils are at a hotter temperature
than the desired pour point temperature in order for the
chemistries to be effective.
Question 7.
Within any of the sweetening processes, what prob-
lems will ammonia create when the feed contains
trace levels of H2S?
JOHNSON:
We have seen no indication of any problems with
ammonia and H2S during more than 5 years of Caustic
Free Merox treating. The reaction products of ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide, ammonium sulfide and ammonium
hydrosulfide, are readily soluble in water and do not affect
the treated hydrocarbon stream. These compounds would
be oxidized to ammonium thiosulfate by the treating
process and leave in the aqueous phase in this form.
19
TOC/INDEX
SMITH:
I refer the questioner to the “U.S. Bureau of Mines
Bulletin 406, page 56, 1937", which shows the precipita-
tion of the ammonia bisulfide as a function of the disso-
ciation of constant (Kp) and temperature.
It has long been recognized that in the presence of H2S,
ammonia will react to form ammonia bisulfide which will
precipitate at the right reactant concentrations and tem-
peratures.
In our experience, the ammonia bisulfide is only a
problem if trace amounts of reactants result in a Kp where
the solid ammonia bisulfide would be expected, as indi-
cated on the referenced bulletin. Precipitation is impacted
by both the reacting concentration and temperature;
hence, the ammonia bisulfide produced at higher tem-
perature can cause problems if a stream cools to a point
where precipitation results. Precipitation of ammonia
bisulfide can lead to equipment fouling and serious under
deposit corrosion.
If trace amounts of reactants result in the precipitation,
it is expected that the resultant problems could be handled
by small water wash or temperature adjustment.
Question 8.
Is there a defined correlation between Cu strip corro-
sion and NH3 and CO2 content of finished gasoline?
JACKSON:
The Copper Strip Corrosion Test is ASTM D130 or in
Europe EN ISO 2160. The test is principally to detect the
presence of sulfur compounds in products; in this case
gasoline. The principle of the test is to take a 3 in. long,
1
⁄2 in. wide and 1/16 in. to 1⁄8 in. thick piece of polished
pure copper strip and place it in a measured sample of the
liquid (gasoline, Avgas, diesel, etc.) and heat it to 100°F
(40°C) for 3 hours. The corroded strip is then compared
to a standard set of corrosion classifications varying be-
tween 1 for a slight tarnish (light to dark orange) to 4 for
corrosion (black).
We have spoken about and researched this with our
laboratory staff at sites, our control laboratory heads, our
fuels research experts, and our metallurgists, and all say
that there has been no correlation found as this is a
corrosion test predominantly looking for sulfur corrosion.
The presence of NH3 in the product gasoline will affect
the results. We have looked for NH3 in gasoline samples
using Head Space GC with a specific nitrogen detector
and found trace quantities less than 5 ppm from all
samples. This is a very labor intensive method of looking
for NH3. It was even worse to try to find CO2 and less was
detected than for NH3.
I would like to talk with the author of this question, as
I believe he has other contamination issues that need to be
addressed that are leading to spurious copper strip results.
20 General Processing
JOHNSON:
The copper strip corrosion test is specific for the detec-
tion of H2S and elemental sulfur. To the best of our
knowledge, there is no correlation between copper strip
corrosion and either ammonia or CO2 content of the
finished gasoline.
HUNKUS:
I have to agree with my distinguished colleague here.
We have no defined correlation between ammonia, carbon
dioxide and copper strip corrosion. But we have had
mystery copper strip problems. These have occurred in our
LPG tanks and our diesel tanks, as well as gasoline tanks.
The LPG tanks were traced back to trace amounts of acid
and/or moisture freeing H2S from scale on the bullets.
In some cases, the bullets cross contaminated each other
through common vent equalization piping, and we had
then blended H2S in the gasoline which we then had to
reprocess. This type of problem is hard to spot as the
rundown streams all look okay. The effect usually only
happens during unusual operations or change in climate,
or putting new treaters on-line at the alkylation unit, and
then it only lasts for a few days. So, this may be part of the
correlation the question is looking for.
GENTRY:
We agree with the other panelists about the copper strip
corrosion test. We were also speculating as to some of the
mystery tests that refiners might have experienced. One
example that came up was formation of elemental sulfur
in the overhead system of an FCC main fractionator,
where H2S, ammonia and trace oxygen are present to-
gether. Normally, the overhead wash water has a basic pH,
and elemental sulfur is not produced in that system.
However, elemental sulfur will be formed when the wash
water pH becomes acidic. Should free sulfur be produced,
it will pass through all treating processes to product tank-
age. This will result in failure of the copper strip tests in
the finished gasoline blends.
BINH LE (Merichem Company):
We have done a number of studies evaluating different
solvents, including ammonia, as a treating solvent for
either sulfur reduction or sulfur conversion. One of the
findings with ammonia is that it reacts with H2S in
gasoline feeds to form ammonium sulfide which is very
sensitive to the copper strip test. Analysis of the gasoline
product shows that a trace level of ammonium sulfide, less
than 1 ppm, can cause the product to fail the copper strip
test. Several additional water wash steps help to improve
the copper strip number of the product, but still never
meets the 1A or 1B rating that typically is seen in the
caustic treating process. Ammonia or CO2 by itself in the
gasoline has no effect on the copper strip number of the
gasoline product.
TOC/INDEX
B. Lube Oil Manufacturing
Question 9.
What is the correlation between iso-dewaxing catalyst
deactivation and impurities, such as Ni, V, nitrogen
compounds, and sulfur compounds on the catalyst?
DiCAMILLO:
I will go through the impurities in the order in which
they are listed. First off, we would not expect metals to be
present in this material, so we would not anticipate a
problem. If there were any metals in the feed, they should
have been removed during the previous hydrotreating
step.
In terms of nitrogen compounds, both ammonia and
basic nitrogen are poisons for the catalyst. The catalyst is
reversibly poisoned by ammonia. If you clean the system
up, you can gain activity back. Basic nitrogen compounds
will absorb on the catalyst, and they need to be removed
by regeneration of the catalyst to restore it to its original
activity. Sulfur compounds are not as bad for the catalyst
performance. If sulfur is present in the feed, it will even-
tually sulfide the catalyst. Some of that is reversible and
some of it is not, depending on the degree of poisoning.
Criterion and Lyondell jointly license an isodewaxing
process that includes sulfur and nitrogen tolerant catalyst.
ARNDT:
The contaminants we are talking about will affect
isodewaxing catalyst similar to the way they would affect
a second stage nobel metal catalyst. Nickel and vanadium
are irreversible poisons. Sulfur and nitrogen are reversible
poisons, leading to higher operating temperatures. But as
you scrip them out, the catalyst temperatures can come
down again.
Question 10.
Has anyone had haze problems with hydrocracked
lube base oil, and what have been the corrective
measures to solve them?
FEARNSIDE:
We have helped a few people out on the haze problem
specifically by using a special type of wax crystal modifier.
It does not work in all cases. It performs in about 50% to
60% of the cases. But again, economic conditions are a
case-by-case decision.
ARNDT:
The only haze problems we have experienced with our
hydrocracked lubes have occurred when we did not dewax
correctly. The Richmond unit was originally set up so that
the heavy neutral was dewaxed in a solvent dewaxer. We
had quite a lot of haze problems because of small rears in
the filter. We have since reconfigured the facilities, and
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
now isodewax all three neutral oils. We have not had any
haze problems since.
DiCAMILLO:
I would like to differentiate here to haze due to wax
materials and a polymeric type haze. We have talked about
waxes already. Polymeric type haze will develop with time
and can be solved by hydrotreating the lube base oil after
it has gone through the hydrocracking step.
Question 11.
How does the water used as anti-solvent in an NMP
extraction column (at the top, bottom and along with
the so/vent at entry point) affect the extraction effi-
ciency operation? Some units are reportedly operat-
ing with neat NMP. Please comment on comparative
performance.
(No comments or questions.)
C. Solvent Deasphalting
Question 12.
What are refiners experiences in processing SDA bot-
toms? If fed to delayed cokers, how does the addition
of this material impact yields and operation?
GENTRY:
Kellogg owns and licenses the ROSE process. ROSE is
an acronym for Resid Oil Supercritical Extraction. The
majority of our ROSE licensees blend asphaltene as a
heavy fuel oil component or as paving asphalt, asphalt
cement or cutback asphalt. Alternate fuel uses are also
currently being explored. There are several companies
researching the use of asphaltene water emulsions as fuels.
This technology appears very promising.
In addition to these options, ROSE asphaltenes can also
be fed to downstream conversion units such as gasifiers,
delayed cokers and visbreakers. We have one European
21
TOC/INDEX
licensee that is installing a gasifier feeding asphaltene from
a ROSE unit. In this particular application, the addition
of a ROSE unit enabled a reduction in the overall project
cost of more than $200 million due to the reduction in
size of the gasifier and power island.
Several of our ROSE licensees and other clients feed
SDA bottoms to delayed cokers. The addition of a ROSE
unit upstream of a delayed coker is often very attractive,
especially in a scenario where a refiner is looking to
debottleneck an existing coker.
The design and operation of a delayed coker processing
a high percentage of SDA asphaltenes does deserve special
attention including:
1. a properly designed and operated double fired
heater to minimize peak heat fluxes and provide
acceptable heater run lengths, and
2. provisions for on-line steam spalling to extend
heater runs.
As with other heavy feedstocks, consideration must also
be given to the production of shot coke. Automated
unheading devices now make it possible to safely decoke
drums containing shot coke.
Kellogg owns and operates both ROSE and delayed
coker pilot plants at our Kellogg Technology Develop-
ment Center in Houston. Recent pilot plant testing indi-
cates that delayed coker yields from ROSE asphaltene feed
are very similar to yields produced from a virgin vacuum
residue having the same feed properties. As an example,
for two different ROSE asphaltene feeds having Conrad-
son carbon contents of 21.5% and 37.8 wt%, coke yields
from delayed coker pilot plant runs were roughly 29% and
45%, respectively. These yields were obtained operating at
low coke drum pressure and low recycle.
BARKER:
The alsphatic/aromatic extract from our Duo-Sol unit
has comprised about 10% to 20% of our fresh delayed
coker feed for over 50 years. We believe it improves the
quality of our anode grade coke.
While we assume the asphaltenes in the extract produce
shot coke, this particular extract apparently contains suf-
ficient aromatics to contribute a needle coke component
to our overall good quality sponge coke. The extract is also
quite low in sulfur, which helps us in producing lower
sulfur coke.
BALDASSARI:
Some of Lummus Global’s clients have blended solvent
deasphalter bottoms at concentrations of about 30% in
the vacuum resid feed to coking units. Our experience has
been that the solvent deasphalter bottoms cause acceler-
ated fouling in the preheat train and accelerated coking of
the feed furnace. It has been our experience that coke yields
will increase about 10% as a result of processing a blend
containing up to 30% SDA bottoms. In addition, the
22 General Processing
specific gravities of the coker distillates will be somewhat
higher.
JOHNSON:
Recently, UOP and Foster Wheeler have signed a co-
operation agreement in delayed coking and some other
heavy oil processing. My response was developed in con-
junction with Foster Wheeler.
To the best of our knowledge, there are only 1 or 2
refineries in the United States currently processing 100%
solvent deasphalter bottoms in a coker. Although there are
a number of refineries that have expressed interest in
coking solvent deasphalter bottoms in the future, these
particular cokers were not originally designed to process
SDA bottoms.
Several in-house research programs have been done by
Foster Wheeler using neat solvent deasphalter bottoms as
feed to a coker. The work has shown that the coke yield of
SDA bottoms using low pressure once through operation
is almost equal to its Conradson carbon residue. Also,
liquid yields are slightly lower and gas yields are slightly
higher than predicted by typical vacuum residue feeds.
The combination of SDA and delayed coking processes,
defined by Foster Wheeler’s ASCOT process, fully inte-
grates these two processes for maximum energy utiliza-
tion, minimum coke production and maximum liquid
production.
HASSAN MAGHAZEL (Saudi Aramco):
At the Riyadh Refinery, we have a solvent deasphalting
unit utilizing vacuum resid as a feed and normal butane
as solvent. The pitch from the deasphalting unit is mixed
with the vacuum resid to produce asphalt. Recently we
conducted a test run by lowering the primary settling
temperature by 8°C or 9°C (from between 121°C and
122°C to between 112°C to 114°C). We have noticed a
significant Demetalized Oil (DMO) yield improvement
from 50% to 62% with marginal variation in the quality.
Our DMO is processed to the Hydrocracker, and we have
not noticed any change in the operation such as reactor
bed temperature, H2 purity, etc.
Question 13.
What types of level indication instruments are being
successfully used for the liquid-liquid interfaces in
main treaters/extractors, in resin settlers and/or in
mixer-settlers?
BARKER:
We have two types of transmitters. The original design
uses DP type transmitters which look at the pressure in
the sight glass, and, taking into account the difference in
the specific gravity between the raffinate and extract,
convert the signal into an interface level indication. In
theory, there should also be a visual level in the sight glass,
TOC/INDEX
but we rarely see it. In this system, a glycol seal is used
between the transmitter and the bottom liquid (extract)
in the extractor vessel.
Our second level indicator is a float type level indicator
which, in theory, floats at the interface of both the extract
and raffinate. This works during stable operation, but
when the treaters are upset and the two phases go miscible,
this system does not work.
We have seen other successful facilities with sight glasses
similar to those just described. Diaphragms are used in
front of the pressure transmitters to eliminate the use of
glycol. In addition, the temperature of the sight glass is
kept very close to that of the treaters via adjustable tem-
perature electric tracing. This allows the sight glasses to
operate as “mini” treaters under the same process condi-
tions as the treater itself. This system resulted in very clear
levels in the sight glasses and reliable levels sent back to
the control room.
DAVIS:
CENEX has a Foster Wheeler design propane deasphal-
ter with a rotating disk contractor for the main extractor.
We still use the original pneumatic torque tube type
displacer for the interface controller indicator. The pitch
and DAO strippers were converted to remote seal-style
electronic transmitters, and they have worked very well.
GENTRY:
The most common level devices used by our ROSE
licensees for interface control are internal displacers and/or
sealed DP cells. Some units have had poor performance
with displacers as they are difficult to maintain and are not
well suited for wide ranges of feed and product gravities.
The preferred arrangement is to have a sealed DP cell with
a backup. With proper calibration, good success has been
reported for this arrangement.
JOHNSON:
UOP specifies the differential pressure transmitter with
a remote diaphragm seal. These are readily available from
many suppliers for temperature ranges up to 600°F and
for 600 psi flange ratings. The capillary tubes are filled
with the silicone oil material. The remote seal, capillary
tubes and transmitter are all electrically heat traced to
150°F to minimize errors due to different ambient tem-
perature conditions.
SMITH:
For all these services in the Kingdom, the most success-
ful level instruments are float/displacer type devices with
external magnetic pickup. These devices have proven serv-
ice histories exceeding 15 years at one location. Other
refineries that use conventional pneumatic DP transmit-
ters with diaphragm seals fittings to measure level have not
been as successful. Problems result from the steam fitting
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
tracing requirement for this application resulting in unre-
liable reading during the winters and nights. These DP
devices require extensive maintenance.
HASSAN MAGHAZEL (Saudi Aramco):
Our normal butane solvent deasphalting unit (UOP
DEMEX) consists of a primary and secondary settler
configuration. We have a DP type level transmitter in the
primary settler to control the level between the DMO
(demetalized oil) and the asphalt phase. We always main-
tain good tracing steam in the fittings to ensure reliable
level indication. The level indication became unreliable
and case tracing steam in the fitting is not working well.
D. Crude Distillation
Mechanical
Question 14.
Would the panel please discuss the following items as
they relate to crude preheat exchanger train fouling:
a) new innovative methods to prevent fouling;
b) use of spring-like coils to reduce fouling;
c) use of special design features to reduce fouling; and
d) processing of heavier crudes?
SMITH:
Our 300,000 bbl/d crude distillation plant at Ras
Tanura does not use or require special cleaning devices.
The focus on this Chevron designed plant was on ex-
changer trains less susceptible to fouling through special
design features.
The main features of our design are as follows: the crude
preheat consists of two systems, primary and secondary,
separated by a flash drum. Both systems have parallel heat
exchanger trains.
1. The process water is injected at 2 vol% of crude
upstream of the primary preheat exchangers to
prevent salt deposition and to aid in desalting.
Desalting occurs after the primary preheat.
2. Sufficient pressures are used in both systems to
suppress hydrocarbon vaporization. For the pri-
mary train, pressure letdown occurs just prior to
the flash drum. The flash drum bottoms are repres-
surized to a level adequate to suppress vaporization
until reaching the feed furnace.
3. High crude velocities, 10 fps to 12 fps, keep par-
ticulate contaminants suspended in the crude.
4. We also use caustic which is injected in the secon-
dary exchanger just prior to the furnaces. The
caustic is premixed with crude to help mixing and
prevent furnace tube cracking.
This design has proven successful for 10 years during
which crudes ranging from approximately 24°API to
23
TOC/INDEX
36° API have been charged. Additionally, the unit has
operated between 50% and 120% design rates. Over this
operating range, there has been little loss in heat exchange
performance after reaching initial steady-state condition
following start-up. However, the exchangers in the heat
recovery trains have bypasses which permit the exchangers
to be removed from service and cleaned with minimum
effects on rates. Plant inspection and turnarounds are at 5
year intervals.
HUNKUS:
We are also looking at designing a split exchange train
system that will allow cleaning on-line, either mechanical
or process facilitated, as a core part of our future East
Crude Unit expansion.
Currently, most refiners control fouling by pulling and
hydroblasting bundles. Many independents used to take
annual turnarounds to pull and clean exchanger bundles,
but this adds a lot of cost. There are also mounting
environmental, safety, and mechanical concerns with pull-
ing bundles. We have set a goal not to take a shutdown
just to pull bundles, and not to pull bundles even when
we are down, ifpossible. We cleaned our entire East Crude
Unit without pulling bundles during our 1995 turn-
around, and we have also applied this strategy on some
areas of the FCCU and other units.
The most important areas to focus on to ensure mini-
mum fouling problems are desalter operation, exchanger
velocities, and piping design. Good, effective design and
operation of the preheat train is very important. Ensure
velocities are maintained to minimize deposition and
avoid partial flow through any part of a parallel bank of
exchangers. Maintain proper wash water to minimize
inorganic deposition in the cold train.
You should think about avoiding caustic injection, and
you need to really understand any “gimmick” technology
to make sure that you get the real benefit of it. Often times
this technology is applied with a partial understanding and
it results in losing the potential benefit you could gain.
24 General Processing
Make sure you run enough makeup water to desalters. We
run all our stripped sour water through our desalter
makeup drum to help conserve total water use.
The biggest culprit will be the level of asphaltenes and
the mixing of incompatible crude oils. As temperature
increases, asphaltene solubility decreases, and so does heat
transfer, if you do not control the situation.
JACKSON:
You are about to witness the first panel punch-up
between Mr. Hunkus and me. Preventing fouling in crude
preheat exchangers can be separated into 3 categories:
Design Criteria
Operational
New Technologies
Design Criteria
For new preheat systems it is necessary to look at both
the hydraulic and thermal aspects of the system. Very often,
the designers only consider the fouled exchanger’s thermal
aspects and ignore the fouled exchanger’s hydraulic condi-
tions. As the exchanger fouls the heat transfer falls away,
but the pressure drop across the heat exchanger rapidly
increases, and the system limits from a hydraulicviewpoint
long before it does from a heat transfer viewpoint. The
fouling thickness has a huge effect on the systems opera-
tion. If this is taken into account it will not stop the fouling,
but it will ensure that all the fouling criteria designed into
the system are used. One of our refineries has a pressure
drop across the system of 520 psig to 375 psig (36 to 26
barg) in the clean condition and down to 230 psig (16 barg)
in the fouled state. This is double the original pressure drop.
These systems become hydraulically limiting and require
cleaning once every 6 months. When calculated around the
group, the thickness of the fouling varies between 1/64 in.
to 5/64 in. (½ mm to 2 mm).
The size of the tubes used in heat exchangers should be
at least 1 in. and for severe fouling systems, 1¼ in. Some
design standards have been applied blindly and a number
of exchangers at refineries have been installed with ¾ in.
tubes. When the fouling layer develops the flow area is
rapidly reduced. Obviously the larger diameter tubes are
a trade off against thermal efficiency; less compact heat
exchangers, maybe more shells in series, etc.
There are general rules, such as the fouling stream
should be on the tube side. If routed on the shell side there
are a number of dead areas that foul, and you cannot clean
the shell side properly with the bundle in place. The crude
is the most fouling material in the crude preheat train and
should be routed through the tubes.
You should minimize the number of passes through the
tubes; 2 is preferable and 4 a maximum. The more passes,
the more partion plates there are to foul up. The fouling
stacks against the lower tubes in the channel and builds,
blocking the tubes. To be able to minimize the number of
TOC/INDEX
passes, it might be better to not insist on a standard length
tube. In terms of design, a longer, thinner exchanger with
larger tube diameters would be better in terms of minimiz-
ing passes.
One of our competitors relayed a story to us about one
of their refineries that installed “U” tube exchangers in the
preheat exchangers. This saved a little on capital expendi-
tures, but was a maintenance nightmare. They could not
clean them. Use floating head bundles instead.
A couple of our refineries have assumed the fouling will
be with them for a long time and have set up an annual
contract with a contractor who takes out 1 preheat ex-
changer per week for cleaning. That refinery’s recommen-
dation is to design a preheat system such that you can take
out one exchanger at a time without affecting the through-
put and CDU operation.
Velocity is critical. From a review of all BP refinery
preheat exchangers, the older designs tended to experience
less fouling than the newer designs. The newer designs
suffer from very high heat fluxes on the shell and tube
sides. Consequently, the crude suffers from coking at the
tube wall. The refineries we have that have tube side
velocities of 10 fps to 13 fps (3 to 4 m/s) suffer the most
from fouling. The exchangers that have velocities as low
as 6 fps (2 m/s) AND have high shell side velocities also
suffer from fouling. We would design the tube side to 5
fps to 6 fps and have a lower shell side velocity. If you go
too low in tube side velocity, say 2 fps to 3 fps (less than 1
m/s), you suffer from fouling also.
This latter velocity constraint is important and should
be considered when designing the control systems associ-
ated with the crude preheat train. As a general rule, do not
bypass any crude around a preheat exchanger, otherwise
fouling will result. Bypass the more stable separated fluids.
A classic example we have suffered is an oversized clean
exchanger. When the clean exchanger “had to be” by-
passed, which accelerated the fouling, and the full flow
rate was rerouted to the exchanger, the full duty could not
be recovered.
Operational
From an operational point of view, a number of aspects
should be considered when minimizing fouling:
Desalter operation can make a big difference to the
exchangers downstream of the desalters.
Injection of spent caustic into the crude line also
results in an increase in fouling.
Running of condensates with residue results in the
precipitation of asphaltenes that lay down on the
preheat exchangers.
Poor tank farm management results in accelerated
fouling of the exchangers.
Running the flash zone at elevated temperatures can
result in fouling of the preheat exchangers. One of
our refineries ran their flash zone at 715°F to 720°F
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
(380°C) and had high fouling from coking of the
crude in the preheat exchangers. They reduced this
to around 690°F to 700°F (365°C to 370°C) and
the preheat exchanger’s fouling rate has been sub-
stantially reduced.
New Technologies
New innovations in preheat exchanger designs are
available:
Tube Inserts in crude preheat exchanger tubes are
proven to reduce the fouling tendency of new and
revamped exchangers. Two inserts exist and work in
different ways to minimize different types of fouling:
Spirelf supplies a loose spring tube insert that
works by vibrating as the liquid flows through the
tube. It removes any boundary fouling and en-
sures turbulent flow through the tube. We have
these in over half of our preheat exchangers.
Where they have been retrofitted within our re-
fineries, they have shown a substantial reduction
in the fouling of the said exchangers. We have
done trials against antifoulant additives, and the
exchangers with springs have been seen to remain
“clean” for longer than those with no springs but
with antifoulant. They typically increase the clean
exchanger pressure drop some 2 psi to 3 psi (0.15
to 0.20 bar) per pass, BUT maintain the ex-
changer cleaner for longer. We use them at 6 of
our refineries extensively, with the earliest instal-
lation being in 1985.
The following pictures show:
the operating principle of the loose spring
insert;
the springs being installed/pulled; and
the spring fastening to the tube sheet.
Hitran supplies a tight loop wire insert that
induces high turbulence in the tubes and en-
sures that the crude does not overheat and coke
25
TOC/INDEX
at the tube wall. These have been used in a
number of crude preheat exchangers and even
one slurry system for another refinery major.
We have over 10 services with Hitran inserts
in various services in the BP group.
The following pictures show the Hitran tube:
operating principle; and
the inserts being installed.
A new tube design has been available in Sweden since
1984 and is now offered by Brownfin Tube Exchang-
ers: the Twisted Tube. Once a system has been de-
signed with crude on the shell side, it is difficult to
redesign the exchanger and piping such that the
crude is in the shell side without throwing away the
existing exchanger. These twisted tubes ensure that
there are no dead areas on the outside of the tube by
ensuring turbulent shell side flow. Turbulent flow
inside is also maintained. These tubes completely
eliminate baffles and support themselves at the high
points. The maximum size to date has been 11 m in
length by 1½ m in diameter (3000 tubes). The
findings have resulted in a 40% increase in duty for
26 General Processing
the same pressure drop. The increase in turbulence
on the shell and tube sides makes this exchanger
viable for crude preheat duty. BP is very interested
in this exchanger for this service. One revamp was
on a rich/lean amine exchanger with great success,
and it is believed these will also work on crude
preheat exchangers.
The following pictures show the twisted tubes:
self supporting principle;
partially constructed bundle; and
fully constructed and bound bundle being
installed.
Another new design, this time out of the Eastern
Bloc, is a helical baffle designed exchanger that acts
like an in-line mixer, by ensuring no dead areas,
again, on the shell side of a preheat exchanger. The
combination ofhelical baffles and tube inserts is very
attractive. The Slovnaft refinery has 38 helical ex-
changers in service since 1989 with great success
claimed by the refinery. BP has an on-line test rig set
up on one of our refineries on a crude preheat
exchanger (crude/bottoms pumparound) looking at
TOC/INDEX

FEARNSIDE:
I just want to touch briefly on something that Mr.
Hunkus mentioned, i.e., you have to know the crude
blend compatibility as it relates to asphaltene stability.
Also, if you are injecting caustic, please realize the combi-
nation of sodium and temperature can destabilize asphal-
tenes and cause accelerated fouling.
We have successfully used our new sodium tolerant
antifoulants very successfully to mitigate preheat fouling
where caustic is used.

JONATHAN T. CHRISTENSEN (Sinclair Oil Corporation):

Mr. Jackson, we were considering these Hitran inserts,
and we were just a little worried that the inserts might get
stuck due to fouling in the tubes. Has that ever happened?
Or does the turbulence keep fouling from occurring so
effectively that they don’t get stuck?

JACKSON:
The latter. If large pieces of debris are present, clearly
that will cause a problem. But for normal crudes it has not
been a problem.

JAN W. WELLS (Phillips Petroleum Company):

Mr. Jackson, could these inserts possibly be used to help
control bottom pump around fouling on the main column
of FCCUs?

JACKSON:
Yes, Mr. Wells. Talk directly with the supplier. They are
nervous of slurry service, but one oil major has a Hitran
exchanger in this service.

J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):

With water injection upstream of the exchanger, can
this still be used?

JACKSON:
I cannot see why water injection upstream of an ex-
changer with inserts would be a problem.

C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):

this design. Again, we believe it has great promise.
This is currently being offered by Lummus Crest and
fabricated by Motherwell Bridge in Europe.
The following pictures show the helical baffled
exchanger:
principle of operation;
new exchanger baffle arrangement;
Slovnaft refinery bundle being pulled; and
Slovnaft refinery bundle after cleaning.
Installing inserts will be of great help to refiners because
many times it is not possible to isolate the exchangers for
cleaning, and the real answer to the problem is to minimize
fouling.
JACKSON:
I agree with that. Not being able to clean a fouled
exchanger on the run is an issue. If you have a problem as
soon as you come down, then install isolation valves and
a bypass so that you can take the offending exchanger out
for cleaning. One of our refineries had exactly that prob-
lem. Now what they have bypasses around all their ex-
changers, and they have a contract with an outside

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 27

TOC/INDEX
company for cleaning the exchangers. Our experts believe
they should install inserts in an attempt to reduce the
fouling problem. They are currently dealing with the effect
rather than resolving the cause.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
We are operating our refineries’ crude units at maxi-
mum possible throughput. The furnace is limiting many
times; hence, maximizing crude preheat to the furnace is
very important. Any isolation of the heat exchanger for
cleaning will reduce the preheat, thus affecting the
throughput. Are there any methods for on-line cleaning
of exchangers to overcome this situation?
JACKSON:
On-line cleaning can take the form of adding antifou-
lants to the crude or running gas oils through it for a short
period of time, assuming the isolation and piping permit,
and depending on the fouling. It will have a limited effect.
I would make plans to modify the exchanger at the first
opportunity.
RONALD MARRELLI (Phillips Petroleum):
Mr. Jackson, with these inserts, when the exchangers
do foul, how are you able to clean them?
28 General Processing
JACKSON:
With the spring insert exchangers, we have cleaned
them with the springs in situ and they clean fine.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
Most of our fouling occurs after the desalter. We have
two sections there and the last two exchangers are really
the ones which foul up on both sides, i.e., the tube side
and the shell side. Those are very, very difficult to clean. I
would think the addition of these twisted helical tubes,
will work very well in those two areas.
JACKSON:
I think you are correct and I would suggest you talk to
the supplier, because I think they can do you a favor. I
would also suggest you look at your desalter operation if
the fouling is all downstream of the desalter. Similarly, I
would look at any campaigns where you spike spent
caustic, slop streams, etc. into your crude feed. All these
things could be causing your fouling.
Question 15.
What experience does the panel have in controlling
ammonium salts and other neutralizer salts in terms
of underdeposit corrosion in crude overhead systems?
TOC/INDEX
BARKER:
Our lube crude has a significant chloride content. Since
the initial hydrochloric acid condensation point is local-
ized to the overhead condensers, they were alloyed. This
allows us to inject only low rates of ammonia and amine
inhibitor to protect the equipment that is further down-
stream in the non-alloyed areas. We do not add enough
ammonia or neutralizer amines to have the ammonium
salt deposition and underdeposit corrosion that this ques-
tion is concerned with.
In a different crude unit, the current practice to prevent
salt deposition is using wash water, since these salts are
water soluble. We inject proprietary neutralization chemi-
cals prior to the first-stage exchangers and wash water just
downstream of these exchangers. The first-stage overhead
condensers (crude vs. overhead) plug periodically, with
resulting underdeposit corrosion. Iron sulfide, the least
soluble salt particularly at higher pH, is prevalent in our
deposit samples. The analysis also suggests the presence of
ammonium chloride and amine chloride salts.
We are considering two options currently. The first is
to move the water wash upstream of the first stage ex-
changers which is a viable option, but the overall condens-
ing capacity would be reduced and a crude preheat penalty
is paid. The second option is to operate “hot and dry” in
the first stage exchangers, and force the dew point to the
inlets of the second stage exchangers where a water wash
is located. The neutralizer would not be added until the
second stage, thus removing one source of deposition in
the first stage exchangers. The main disadvantage to the
second option is operating with the traditional corrosion
protection in the first stage exchangers.
FEARNSIDE:
Controlling underdeposit corrosion from ammonium
salts and other amine salts depends on a thorough under-
standing of the vapor/liquid or vapor/solid equilibrium
curves associated with each salt along with the interactions
involved. We have expended a great deal of effort to
understand and develop the various PATHFINDER
amine salt equilibrium curves that are not in the public
domain. Once the equilibrium curve data is known, it is
a relatively easy calculation to determine if the amine or
amine blend being used has enough “acid handling capac-
ity” to prevent premature salt sublimation or deposition.
I would caution everyone that chlorides are not the only
problem acids.
We are finding that the heavier crudes have substantially
more undesalterable acidic species that quite frequently are
exceeding the “acid handling capacities” of the traditional
neutralizing amines, the most common side effects being
increased corrosion and pressure drop across the overhead
exchangers. In a number of refineries this has even caused
the crude charge to be backed out of the front end.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Quenching overhead water washes can and is being
used very successfully to mitigate any overhead salting
concerns. However, you need to correctly size the process
equipment to handle the large amounts of water necessary
and at the same time ensure that the overhead naphtha
reflux is not excessively wet.
We have, within the last 2 years, run into situations
where the salting and fouling is now occurring internal to
the top section of the crude tower. These cases were a direct
result of large overhead water washes generating a wet
reflux. This wet reflux was carrying large amounts of salt
back to the crude tower causing the internal corrosion and
fouling. This is definitely a case where more water wash is
not necessarily better.
ARNDT:
Now we are going to have our little argument here. At
Chevron, we think the best system is the simplest, and the
simplest is to recirculate a lot of water and from the reflux
drum, injecting it in the column vapor outlet line. Injec-
tion is with spray nozzles. Ammonia is injected to control
system pH. We do not recommend using any filmers or
neutralizing amines. The key is pH control. A first-class
on-line pH analyzer is crucial. If you get that right, you
are home free.
HUNKUS:
The salts which cause the biggest problems seem to be
the neutralizer salts. Methods exist to calculate the point
at which these salts form in a crude overhead. Ammonia
is not as bad, and we control our sour water stripper to slip
just the proper amount of ammonia into our desalters to
reduce neutralizer costs. Ammonia is just a poor dew point
neutralizer. We have used a program that incorporates
three elements of control and are quite satisfied with our
results, but we do not process a significant amount of
aggressive crudes like West Texas, or worse.
Aside from changing neutralizers, the best control
method is to use a good water wash design. Required flow
rates can be calculated and should ensure plenty of free
water is present at the dew point. Water wash used to
protect tube and shell exchangers should be injected as far
upstream as possible through a spray nozzle. Injecting
closer to the exchanger may wash salts away, but you risk
erosion of the exchanger tubes at a rate higher than the
salts corrosion would cause if you have poor atomization.
Best practice always includes the use of injection quills or
nozzles for any system like this to ensure effective mixing
and protect the process piping at the point of injection.
KOOIMAN:
Well, the only thing I can add is with regard to the
whole system. I suggest going back to the desalter where
a small change in efficiency can have a big change in
chlorides. There have been a couple of instances where we
29
TOC/INDEX
have been able to, with the proper caustic injection,
cutback considerably on the amount of chloride going
overhead and therefore cutback on the amount of salt that
shows up in the overhead system.
LEMMON:
We have a crude unit with a carbon steel overhead
system that has been a problem for us. We have worked
with the new blended amines, and we have found that they
have done an excellent job of controlling fouling but have
not been completely successful in controlling the corro-
sion. At this steam stripped heavy crude unit, the overhead
operates at 310°F and has two overhead condensers in
series. The condenser’s metallurgy is carbon steel. Chlo-
rides run at 50 ppm to 70 ppm. We do not continuously
water wash the overhead.
Past practice was to use ammonia injection, some con-
ventional neutralizer, and a filmer. This gave acceptable
condenser life of 18 months but gave unacceptable pres-
sure drop from fouling. Currently we inject the new
blended neutralizers and a filmer in front of the first
condenser. At the outlet of the first condenser the process
is below the water dew point, so we inject ammonia to
reduce neutralization costs. Using the blended neutralizer,
we control the first condenser outlet pH at 4.0, and with
the trim feed of ammonia the accumulator runs at 5.8 pH.
Corrosion probes indicate an average corrosion rate of
8 mils per year. Fouling is under control, but we are still
fighting some localized corrosion at the inlet of the second
condenser. The overhead corrosion mechanisms are very
sensitive to operating pressure causing the corrosion fail-
ure points to move around. Because the reduction of
fouling changed the system pressure profile, we are now
in the second iteration of neutralizer blending studies.
PAUL EATON (Champion Technologies, Inc.):
Our approach has been to simply provide a better
filming amine and use less neutralizing amine. The neu-
tralizing amines cause the salt formation in many cases.
We have developed a product that works at low pH. It is
a good filmer. We need less neutralizing amine.
MICHAEL J. ZETLMEISL (Petrolite Corporation):
As has been pointed out, deposition of ammonium
chloride and other neutralizer salts ahead of the aqueous
dew points is a well known cause of corrosion failures in
crude unit overheads, especially where carbon steel metal-
lurgy is in place.
The problem is a dilemma. If too little neutralizer is
used, dew point pH drops to a point where chemical
inhibitors provide inadequate protection. On the other
hand, if too much is used, salts form ahead of the dew
point and pick up sufficient moisture to make a corrosive
electrolyte which can cause under deposit corrosion.
30 General Processing
The answer to the problem is to design a neutralizer
program which will give an adequate boost of dew point
pH without making salt, and the only way to be certain
that both ends of this dilemma are reconciled is by mod-
eling the system exactly, using rigorous thermodynamic
equations and data. Shell Oil Company has developed
such a model which makes dew point and salty position
predictions from first principles.
Petrolite is the partner with Shell in implementing this
modeling tool throughout the industry using fundamental
data for all the commonly used neutralizer intermediates.
And this gives access to mixtures of these amines and
optimization of programs with respect to dew point, pH
and salt deposition.
We are in the process of implementing this technology
throughout the industry and are very excited and encour-
aged by what we have seen so far.
SALAH H. DARDEER (Saudi Aramco):
In this regard, let me share a Riyadh Refinery experi-
ence. We have experienced fouling and underdeposit cor-
rosion in one of the preheat exchangers downstream of the
desalters. We have noticed that increased ammonia con-
centration in the desalter water wash contributed under-
deposit corrosion due to oil water emulsion get stabilized
in the desalter. So we have decided to reroute crude after
desalting back to tank for better settling. In addition, we
have improved wash water quality with regard to NH3
concentration.
By doing so we have totally eliminated the corrosion
and fouling problems in the preheat exchangers.
This operation has impacted marginal loss in the crude
preheat. However, a significant extra revenue was achieved
by eliminating frequent shutdown of the plant for main-
tenance and cleaning of this exchanger.
The fouling and plugging were also observed in the
crude unit overhead air cooler system. We started injecting
water into each individual bank but that was not a better
solution due to improper distribution of water injection.
We changed to continuous water washing in the overhead
system main header. The problem has reduced overhead
corrosion rate drastically. The filming amine injection rate
was also increased to avoid losing the film because of
continuous water washing.
MARK BINFORD (BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group):
Mr. Arndt, of the seven North American Chevron
refineries, how many of those refineries have actually
adopted Chevron’s best practice of ammonia water wash
and no filmer? What are the metallurgies in those systems
where this approach has been successful? What have been
the results on that so far? Have you looked at the detailed
economics of using this high amount of water wash rela-
tive to cooling in the overhead system and any resultant
higher energy cost?
TOC/INDEX
ARNDT:
Not all of our crude units have reached Nirvana yet.
Our Salt Lake unit and our two El Segundo units are
running successfully without filmers/amines. Richmond
is about ready to pull their chemicals, as soon as they install
a good pH analyzer. Like all of our best practices, it takes
a while to implement. We are confident that the other
units will fall in line in the near future.
We have seen no increase in unit energy costs. Power to
recirculate water is really small. Any slight loss in duty in
the overhead exchanger is easily recovered further up-
stream. The overhead exchanger should not be the pinch-
point in your crude preheat exchange train.
Question 16.
Several refiners have noted problems with contami-
nated crude deliveries. Evidences of light material,
slurry, caustic emulsions, organic chlorides and other
materials have been found. What analytical tech-
niques and control methods are being used to expose
this problem?
HUNKUS:
The Refiners Crude Oil Quality (RCOQ) group was
formed in early 1994 to deal with the issue of crude oil
contamination with non-virgin crude materials. The
group encompasses most refiners in the United States
processing domestic crude oil. The RCOQ has 23 active
participants, and a distribution list of over 60 companies.
Member companies have formed crude oil quality
monitoring programs for a number of pipelines, including
the Shell operated Capline and the Texaco operated Basin.
Other monitoring programs have been implemented by
several pipeline companies, including Amoco, ARCO,
Conoco, MAPCO and Texaco.
These programs monitor crude oil quality, generally
along the following lines:
• 1 quart to 1 gallon samples of crude oil are retained
from the composite of randomly selected or in some
cases incoming batches to the common stream.
• Statistically significant but randomly generated re-
tained samples are tested, after the fact, for a wide
variety of characteristics, including gravity (ASTM
D287), sulfur (ASTM D4294), RVP (ASTM
D323), light ends (Gas Chronograph), SimDist
(ASTM D-2887 high temperature modified or
1400°F high temperature), metals (ICP), Concar-
bon (MCRT-ASTM D-4530), organic chlorides
(ASTM D-4929), and BS&W (ASTM D-
4006/473).
Other methods have been used to deal with special
problems like sudden stability problems in light distillates
and unusual, tight range color problems, primarily in jet
fuel.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Deviations from common stream characteristics, as
determined by the operating carrier, are communicated to
the delivering entity and corrective action is enforced.
Program participants have experienced a reduction of
parent contaminated batches, as well as involvement in
incoming crude oil quality being much more consistent as
a result of monitoring and implied ability to disconnect,
refuse to receive, or return off-spec delivery.
These programs attempt to do on the domestic side
what has always been done on the foreign side of the crude
oil business, i.e., ensure that received crude oil quality is
no less than the promised purchased crude oil quality.
MAPCO’s Jim Healy is the first facilitating coordinator of
this quality group, and we welcome your involvement.
For your future information, the NPRA Manufactur-
ing Committee’s ad hoc subcommittee on Crude Oil
Quality is looking into affiliating with the Refiner’s Crude
Oil Quality group, and there may also be a paper presented
on crude oil quality at the next NPRA Annual Meeting.
SMITH:
Only our joint venture partner, SAMREF, tracks light
ends in crude. The light ends adversely affect their gas
plant operation, and consequently they find it helpful to
know the source of the problem when upsets occur, either
in the feed or in the process. The crude analysis for light
ends is routinely performed monthly for a base line or
whenever gas plant upsets occur. The analysis is performed
using a simulated distillation on an HP 750 SimDis
device. For Arabian Light crude, approximately 80% re-
covery of crude is achieved. We have no experience in
tracking for any other crude contamination.
DAVIS:
A large portion of the crude supply for CENEX, and
three other Montana refineries, is tested at a common
transfer point by an independent laboratory funded by
those refineries. The laboratory tests both grab and com-
posite samples for organic chlorides, BS&W, salinity, API,
and vapor pressure. The laboratory analysis has found
crude batches with high organic chlorides early enough
that action could be taken to reduce the risks and prepare
for the off specification deliveries.
JACKSON:
The bulk of our refineries measure simple properties on
crude imports; these are density and BS&W. Some refin-
eries are also now monitoring distillation via Simdis. Our
refineries report that they consider the simple tests suffi-
cient and fit for purpose. Most sites test for sodium
upstream and downstream of the desalters, but not on
crude imports.
One of our refineries is moving to fully analyze im-
ported residues at source to build up a database for trying
to identify the material being delivered and its consistency,
31
TOC/INDEX
and setting of the FCCU conditions prior to landing the
residue, i.e., E-cat activity, etc. Typical analysis will be
made plus metals, viscosity and distillation. The light
ends, slurry, etc., will also be picked up by this analysis.
Question 17.
As high naphthenic acid crudes become more of the
crude diet for many refiners, refiners are making
preparations for running these opportunity crudes.
Please comment on operational, mechanical, and
chemical methods used to mitigate or prevent acid
attack.
FEARNSIDE:
The most important topic, when discussing mitigation
of naphthenic acid attack, is to have all of the correct
monitoring procedures in place; not just one or two, but
all of them. These monitoring procedures are: corrosion
coupons or electrical resistant probes, crude oil analysis for
naphthenic acid content, total acid number, naphthenic
acid characterization, and Fe/Ni ratios of the crude oils
and product streams involved.
With all of the monitoring in place, blending or dilut-
ing of the opportunity crude is what we recommend first.
Upgrading of the metallurgy to 316L, 317 or 317L, if this
is possible, is recommended second. And third is the use
of a proven naphthenic acid inhibitor, such as our Scor-
pion chemistries. All three recommendations must be
evaluated on their own cost/benefit scenario, and whether
the monies must come out of the operating or capital
budgets.
BARKER:
At one of our refineries which processes a variety of
crudes, we have a formal naphthenic acid corrosion moni-
toring and prevention program. This program allows us
to take advantage of several crudes varying in acid number
from 0.32 mg KOH/g to 2.60 mg KOH/g. Our program
consists of three elements: operational, inspection, and
metallurgical upgrades.
The first is categorized as Operational and Analytical.
We quantify the crude feed and product acid numbers for
our specific unit and compare these to the crude assay
values to establish baseline operations. We have found that
the most acidic products are those heavier than diesel, but
lighter than the vacuum resid bottoms. The baseline allows
us to evaluate candidate crudes on a comparative basis and
to anticipate problems.
When the new opportunity crudes are available, we
review potential changes in naphthenic acid corrosion
rates. If problems are anticipated, we modify our crude
mix to mitigate them. We have experienced no significant
corrosion problems operating up to an average acid num-
ber of 1.5 mg KOH/g. We note, and this is important, that
if predictive acid numbers are generated, we recommend
32 General Processing
periodic sampling to ensure the predictive model basis is
accurate.
At this refinery, we do not add any neutralization
chemicals to either the crude feed or specific product
streams to abate corrosion problems.
The second element of the program involves inspec-
tion. We have identified potential corrosion zones analyti-
cally, and have begun monitoring these areas quarterly for
excessive corrosion. The monitoring frequency has been
adjusted based on other operational factors that can affect
corrosion rates. These factors include temperature (gener-
ally 450°F to 750°F), high velocity/turbulent zones, two
phase flow regimes, and hydrogen sulfide concentrations.
The last element addresses metallurgical upgrades. Af-
ter identifying potential problem areas with regular moni-
toring and inspection, we have upgraded atmospheric and
vacuum tower internals and some product draws and
circulating reflux piping. These upgrades were to various
species of stainless steel.
To date, operating under this program, no appreciable
naphthenic acid corrosion problems have been identified.
At one of our other coking units, alloying has been the
primary means of dealing with naphthenic acids. Our
experience has been that the particular naphthenic acids
fractionate primarily into the gas oil range products with
only small amounts going overhead. These naphthenic
acids do not concentrate as local at an initial point of
condensation, probably because there is a blend of several
types of naphthenic acids each with slightly different
boiling/condensation temperatures. We have alloyed
those areas identified as having experienced high corrosion
rates. This is in leu of high chemical dosages and costs
which also have the risk of salt deposits and under deposit
corrosion. Unalloyed areas are routinely monitored for
corrosion rates to determine if problems are developing in
less prone areas.
LEMMON:
Naphthenic acids tend to concentrate in certain side
cuts, typically diesel through vacuum gas oils. The acidity
of the lower boiling naphthenic acids is highest, while the
concentration of naphthenic acids tends to be greater in
the higher boiling fractions, therefore, a corrosion inten-
sity peak in the atmospheric gas oil range can be observed.
A high TAN number in a diesel range side cut is a strong
indicator of potential corrosion trouble.
Naphthenic acid corrosion is accelerated by higher
temperatures, high velocity, and discontinuities in metal
surfaces, such as high affected zones of welds. Therefore,
different limits on naphthenic acid concentration must be
specified for each system to avoid accelerated corrosion.
When crude blending is used as a control, accurate pre-
diction of the naphthenic acid concentration is important,
and should be supplemented with laboratory data to
monitor side cut TAN. Corrosion coupons and probes are
TOC/INDEX
also recommended. Metallurgy upgrade appears inevitable
to mitigate acid attack, particularly in areas of high veloc-
ity and/or phase change.
Our California refinery processes crudes high on
naphthenic acids and has selectively upgraded metallurgy.
The decision to upgrade was based on the highly localized
nature of naphthenic acid corrosion which makes reliable
inspection and preventive maintenance ineffective. They
now use 316L in most applications, and where conditions
warrant have upgraded further to Superaustinetic stainless
alloy AL6XN.
Chemical treatment using phosphorous-based filmers
is often recommended in lower velocity areas, although
the effects on downstream units should be considered.
FEARNSIDE:
I have an additional comment that I want to caution
people on and that is just relying on the TAN number
itself. We have a lot of experience where people have seen
quite aggressive corrosion with TAN numbers at 0.5 and
other people that have seen no corrosion at all with TAN
numbers in excess of 2.5. So again, rely on all your
monitoring techniques to get the true picture.
PAUL EATON (Champion Technologies, Inc.):
We have had some recent experience with a Gulf Coast
refiner who charged a high naphthenic acid resulting in a
total acid number TAN of about 2 in the HVGO pum-
paround. The equipment and metallurgy were not de-
signed for this kind of service, so we expected a high
corrosion rate. The corrosion rate was mitigated by dilut-
ing the problem crude to 25% and adding 50 ppm of a
corrosion inhibitor. The resulting corrosion rates, as meas-
ured by ultrasonics and ER corrosion probes, are less than
2 mils per year and were no more severe than a normal
run. Therefore, we conclude that these opportunity crudes
can be used along with a good corrosion abatement pro-
gram.
MICHAEL J. ZETLMEISL (Petrolite Corporation):
As has already been indicated, an inhibitor program can
be especially helpful when it is not practical to change all
the metallurgy from carbon steel to 316L or 317 stainless,
or when it is not practical to blend down to a so-called safe
TAN. I agree with Mr. Fearnside’s statement that there
may not be any such thing as a safe TAN.
We have also succeeded in using proprietary patented
inhibitors to protect both atmospheric and vacuum tower
circuits, as well as tower internals and side cuts, such as
HVGO, when processing these opportunity crudes.
J. L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
I think the basic problem with naphthenic acid crudes,
with which we have a fairly good experience, is corrosion
products at specific temperatures, 250°C and beyond.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
That is the real problem and the only solution that we have
found is upgrading the metallurgy to 316L. That protects
the whole range of equipment. There is no specific refer-
ence of corrosion. Maybe we have known it all along as an
erosion problem from velocities at those temperatures.
Question 18.
What processes are available to remove acid com-
pounds from high acid kerosene/diesels? What levels
of reduction have been realized?
SMITH:
Kerosene and diesel derived from Arabian Light crudes
are low acid. The kerosene is generally Merox and/or clay
treated. Both Merox and clay treating reduce the acid in
kerosene. Furthermore, upstream of each Merox unit, a
caustic wash system is employed to remove H2S and any
acid compounds. Clay treating removes surfactant or polar
compounds, which include organic acids. Checks of our
kerosene show that the total acid number is reduced by
85% by these treatments.
BARKER:
We agree with Mr. Smith. We have used a caustic wash
upstream of the final product treatment facility to reduce
the acid number of the kerosene cut for jet fuel.
HERBERT WIZIG (Merichem Company):
Merichem has a unit operating in Venezuela designed
to process up to 30,000 bbl/d of kerosene producing Jet
A-1 fuel with Napfining and Aquafining technologies
utilizing the Fiber Film Contactor followed by salt
drying and clay filtering. The unit has been on stream since
1988. Specific details are as follows: inlet acid number is
0.35 mg KOH/g; outlet acid number is well below 0.015
mg KOH/g. Fresh 5 baumé caustic is used with caustic
spending of 50%. ( of Merichem Company;  of
Merichem Company)
TOM COLLINS (Petrolite Corporation):
A proven process for naphthenic acid removal from
kerosene or diesel is caustic wash utilizing the Petreco
Metercell precipitator. Past performance has shown acid
numbers in the 2 mg KOH/g to 3 mg KOH/g range being
reduced as low as 0.01 with aqueous carryover of less than
10 ppm. Laboratory pilot plant work can be performed to
show exact results.
HUNKUS:
Between our two refineries, we make well over 40,000
bbl/d of jet fuel, and we have UOP treaters running side
by side with Merichem. Our performance experience with
UOP has been very good. Caustic use is very low, with
very high percentage spent (80%+). The unit consistently
runs well over design capacity, employs a conventional salt
33
TOC/INDEX
dryer and sand filter, and never creates a problem. We
routinely treat down to less than 0.01 outlet acid number.
After a year of troubled start-up and operation, our
Merichem treater with Napfining and Aquafining tech-
nologies has never been able to consistently make its
design goals of 20,000 bbl/d with a 0.30 inlet acid number
and 0.015 outlet acid number, even at half the design inlet
acid number, increased makeup baumé, more than twice
normal caustic circulation, and modified distributors. Our
experiences with Merichem and the Merichem treater
have both left us unsatisfied.
Question 19.
What unanticipated corrosion have you encountered
on crude unit grid or structured packing where tradi-
tional knowledge on that material would suggest none
would take place?
LEMMON:
Tosco has experienced some unexpected corrosion of
structured packing. At one refinery, we saw napthenic acid
attack of stainless steel packing that we had not antici-
pated. We believe the cause was coking of the packing,
which increased the velocities in certain sections and
accelerated the corrosion. The same refinery experienced
unexpected severe damage of Monel packing in the top
section of an FCC fractionator. We believe the packing
was destroyed by a hot sulfur and ammonia attack mecha-
nism that occurred during an upset when we operated the
top of the tower at 400°F. I understand that nickel-based
alloys are very susceptible to hot ammonia and H2S attack.
Another refinery experienced corrosion in the packing of
their crude unit. It appears to be ammonium chloride
deposition causing under deposit corrosion. The corrosion
was unexpected because the operating temperatures would
preclude the presence of free water. The corrosion was
probably a hygroscopic effect of the salt deposit.
SMITH:
Based on the Arabian Light and Heavy crudes, in-King-
dom refineries generally employ 410 stainless steel in
crude unit grids and packing and have not experienced
any unanticipated corrosion. We suggest that if a refinery
has unexplained corrosion, then a naphthenic acid should
be investigated for all the reasons that were discussed a
minute ago. As an example of the variety of numbers that
you can get up and down the side cuts, for Arabian Heavy
crude, the 700° to 800° TBP fraction contains 1960 ppmw
of naphthenic acids while the 800° to 900° TBP cut
contains 3900 ppmw of naphthenic acids.
ARNDT:
We recently suffered some severe corrosion of structure
packing in the top section of our vacuum column. We
found shards of packing in the top section recirculation
34 General Processing
pump. The packing originally was 8 mil 410 stainless steel.
The shards were about 4 mil and riddled with pin holes.
We are sure it is naphthenic corrosion. The odd part is that
this packing section operates below 400°F, and the maxi-
mum neutralization number that we ran in that part of
the column was 0.5. Most of the time it was significantly
below the 0.5. As a temporary stopgap, we are injecting
phosphate to try to make it to our scheduled turnaround.
At the shutdown, we are going to upgrade the metallurgy.
The downstream isocracker catalyst life will be cut short
due to phosphate poisoning, which we have taken into
account in our decision making.
FEARNSIDE:
The only unanticipated corrosion that we have seen
involves the same mechanism in the crude units and the
vacuum tower units where refiners have removed tradi-
tional carbon steel trays and installed 410 stainless steel
packing. Unexpected naphthenic acid corrosion is what
resulted. With the sulfur levels that were involved, the
carbon steel trays were able to develop a pretty stable iron
sulfide passivating layer internally. When the metallurgy
was changed over to 410, that was no longer able to take
place, resulting in the higher corrosion rates.
Process
Question 20.
What operating and/or laboratory data have proven
effective in monitoring fractionation performance?
Typically, we have used the gap/overlap of the light
stream 95% distillation and heavy stream 5% distil-
lation to monitor fractionation efficiency.
SMITH:
Our refineries use gap/overlap in combination with
yield patterns and operating data to monitor fractionation
efficiency. To control the rundown stream cut points, our
Ras Tanura refinery uses a 95% distillation point for
naphtha and the 85% and 90% distillation point for
heavier products. These targets are controlled by multi-
variable control (MVC) software. The software allows
control of the production by holding the stream compo-
sition and operating equipment extremely close to its
constraining limits.
With regard to fractionator efficiency, MVC will at-
tempt to maximize the crude unit product value. To that
end, the fractionation efficiency will be optimized to the
full extent possible as constrained by energy and physical
plant limitations. In some cases, maximum fractionation
efficiency may result in energy costs that are not fully
compensated by increased product value. In such cases,
efficiency will be intentionally reduced.
TOC/INDEX

ARNDT: Products:
I encourage the engineers in our units to track TBP cut Gasoline: RON, MON, ASTM distillation, SG
points. To do this well, you should use ASTM D-2887 Naphtha: PIONA, ASTM distillation, SG
distillations for column products. Then the product rates Kerosene: PIONA, ASTM distillation, Freeze/Flash
and their distillations are entered in our internally devel- Point
oped software which plots the whole product curve with Gas Oil: Cloud Point, ASTM distillation, SG
the individual product cut points. For example, if we are All at 1 site in Europe with a U.S. project now
monitoring an Isocracker fractionator where we are run- underway.
ning for a constant jet flash, we watch the cut point FCC feedstock and Cracked Products:
between the naphtha and the jet. If the cut point increases Feedstock: SG, sulfur, ASTM distillation, Viscosity,
at constant flash point, we know performance has deterio- Refractive index, MeABP, Aniline Point, UOPK,
rated. Then we check to see if column operation has nitrogen, Concarbon
slipped or if we have internal damage. Gasoline: RON, MON, ASTM distillation
Cycle Oils: Flash Point, Viscosity, SG, Aromatics,
J. L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.): ASTM distillation
For distillation, I think the best tool is the gap overlap. All at 1 site in Europe and a similar is planned for a
We have also relied on other properties, but still the best second European site.
tool is distillation cut points. We now understand that Although NIR technology is quite common in blend-
Chevron is also insisting on TBP cuts. For operators so far ing applications, we believe that our use of it in Crude
it has not been really that acceptable. We use the typical Distillation and FCC process applications is unique.
ASTM 95% cut point.
The crude unit NIR is coupled to advanced control and
is an integral part of the distillation optimizer. The provi-
FRANK ALLEN (Conoco Inc.):
sion of real-time true boiling point data allows optimum
Like Mr. Arndt, we have found value in going to a operation even during periods of crude switching or prob-
simulated distillation, particularly on the light ends. The
lems caused by tank layering.
similarity is we had some diesel going in with our naphtha
On the FCCU, the analyzer provides on-line, real-time
stream that the D-86 did not pick up. But the Simdis
characterization of the feed and products. At present, it
showed it very clearly. So we have value for that.
provides a reliable indication to the operating staff of the
changing feed quality to the unit. The technique is also
E. Instrumentation useful as a laboratory application, as it significantly re-
duces the workload of feed characterization, once the
spectra have been generated.
Question 21.
We have found, within BP, that having a local expert in
NIR (Near Infrared) technology is rapidly advancing.
spectra determination for new outlying materials is the
What new applications is this technology used for?
best for maintaining maximum on stream time of the NIR
What is the maintenance history of these devices?
systems. In fact, we recommend that each site identifies a
single NIR champion who has the responsibility and
JACKSON:
authority to manage all NIR activities.
NIR is now a well tried and trusted technology for
inferring product, and more recently feedstock, proper-
ties. It makes it a perfect tool for on-line product blending
and advanced control applications.
Within BP we have a number of applications:
Gasoline blending (RON, MON, RVP, distillation,
% benzene, % MTBE) at 3 refineries in Europe.
Gasoline blending (RON, MON, PONA and oxy-
genates) at 2 sites in the U.S.
Gas Oil blending (Cloud and flash point, CI, CN,
CFPP) at 1 site in Europe.
Reformate stream:
Feed: PIONA; and Product: RON and MON at 1
site in the U.S. and 1 in Europe.
CDU feedstock and product:
Crude Oil Feed: TBP and density

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 35

TOC/INDEX
Once the population for the refineries’ feedstock or
products being analyzed has been generated by conven-
tional techniques, the population is densified. This is a
proprietary BP technique of generating better quality data
from fewer spectra analyses, allowing faster acceptance of
new systems for control purposes.
Traditionally, the modeling of spectra to stream proper-
ties of interest has been achieved mainly via regressional
techniques, such as PLS and MLR. These techniques are
robust in many cases, but can require significant mainte-
nance in the treatment of outliers, with model re-regression
necessary. To alleviate this problem, BP has now developed
Topological modeling techniques for NIR which are self-
learning and greatly reduce the complexity and resources
required for outlier treatment. This significantly enhances
on-line availability of the NIR application.
One critical area of focus has to be the stream handling
and conditioning system; the fluid is drawn in a fast loop
sampler, filtered, cooled and analyzed. With “dirty” fluids,
such as FCC feed and CDU feed, the cleaning of the
sampling cell is also paramount. This is done by flushing
with one of a number of possible cleaning fluids.
It is now typical to use multiple sample lines and one
analyzer: multiplexing. For instance, on the FCC applica-
tion we have one analyzer measuring feedstock, gasoline
and cycle oil products. This multiplexing system has been
very reliable to date. Like all instruments, if they are given
attention they work well, if they are installed and ignored
they will become unreliable. Each of our sites has instru-
ment technicians who specialize in analyzers and NIR
systems.
In summary, NIR can now be applied across almost all
refining processes, and we believe it is well proven in
certain applications. BP is at the leading edge of NIR
advancement. It is certainly the way forward for on-line
advanced control.
JOHNSON:
The primary applications to date have been for gasoline
blending and naphtha reforming. Other applications of
interest being implemented are gasoline components
(FCC naphtha, alkylate, straight-run naphtha).
The maintenance of NIR based analyzers consists of
two parts; the hardware and the chemometrics. The hard-
ware maintenance is minimal; change the light bulb source
every few months, clean and reference the optical probes
interfacing the process stream. Depending on the cleanli-
ness of the process stream, cleaning of the optical probes
may be as infrequent as once every few months. On the
other hand, a dirty stream leads to higher frequencies, for
example, once per week.
Depending on the amount of process changes captured
by the model, the chemometrics maintenance may be as
infrequent as model adjustments twice per year or as
frequent as every few weeks. Process changes captured by
36 General Processing
the model consist of reactor changes (catalyst severity, for
instance), or, in the case of the gasoline blender, the
number of components used in the recipe, the type of
product slate, and changes in quality required to meet
seasonal changes. For systems so equipped, the model
triggers an alarm when a sample falls outside the range of
the model. The range is defined by the samples used in
creating the model. As the model “learns” more about the
process, less maintenance is required.
I might note that UOP has recently acquired a new
division, Guided Wave, which is our supplier of NIR
technology.
DAVIS:
I am sorry to say that CENEX is far behind BP in terms
of NIR. We have a single NIR in our laboratory that we
use for gasoline blending. All I can add is that the database
is only as good as making sure that you take care of all the
variables that are out there for building into the database.
DiCAMILLO:
Criterion has looked at NIR, and we first used it in the
laboratory for screening product samples and for some of
the analysis mentioned previously. We also use it for
aromatics breakdown. We had looked into putting it
on-line for our diesel process. At that time, the sensitivity
was not good enough for sulfur or nitrogen, so we did not
implement it at that time.
LEMMON:
There are 3 NIR analyzers in use at Tosco. These are
for:
• On-line diesel blending;
• On-line gasoline blending; and
• Laboratory testing of gasoline check samples and to
build a database for the on-line gasoline blending
analyzer.
The diesel NIR analyzes and controls for cetane num-
ber, total aromatics, and polynuclear aromatics. The diesel
NIR has required little maintenance. The only in-house
maintenance is to change sample inlet filters frequently.
Vendor maintenance is provided every 6 months; critical
parts are checked and replaced if required.
The gasoline NIR is still in start-up phase. It will
analyze and control research and motor octane. It also
analyzes the following properties:
• Total aromatics
• Total olefins
• Oxygenates
• Benzene
• RVP
These analyses may be used in a dual analyzer control
strategy since there are primary analyzers for each of these
properties. To date, gasoline NIR performance is very
good and is giving excellent correlation on four test areas,
TOC/INDEX
and model development is proceeding on the lower prior-
ity tests as time permits.
It is too soon to discuss the gasoline analyzer mainte-
nance history; it is still essentially in start-up. It is expected
to evolve into the same type of activity as for the diesel
NIR. Sample cell fouling by sample contaminants has
required us to shut down the analyzer to clean the sample
cell more frequently than expected, so sample condition-
ing systems are being upgraded.
Question 22.
How are refiners supporting the needs of specialized
instrumentation, such as continuous emission moni-
tors (CEM), process gas chromotographs, NIR, etc.?
What is the preventative maintenance practice? How
is instrument reliability being tracked?
DAVIS:
CENEX is training our existing technicians in the
maintenance of our specialized instrumentation, and, so
far, this program has worked very well. Our PM program
consists of staying on top of the analyzers and being there
when something goes wrong. The technicians do not have
a daily routine for monitoring analyzers, but a stand alone
computer does monitor CEM drift and calibration data
to look for problems.
JACKSON:
All of our refineries are realizing the importance of
on-line analysis within the refinery environment, espe-
cially with advanced and multivariable control systems.
On-line analyzers in control are estimated to contribute
20% to 40% of the overall economic benefit of advanced
control and on-line optimization. The analyzer systems are
complicated and unique and require a complete under-
standing and familiarity so that in the event of any failure
they can be rapidly repaired and recommissioned, thereby
minimizing instrument downtime and maximizing bene-
fit. Maintenance practices and organization vary from site
to site and at present it is difficult to assess effectiveness,
but it has been recognized that this is a challenging area
requiring a common approach throughout BP. BP would
recommend that sites adopt a Quality Team Approach in
conjunction with centralized dedicated analyzer mainte-
nance groups for on-line analysis. The Quality Team
requires a champion in the form of the main performance
requirement driver of the analyzers which should be the
operations/production departments. Items such as Con-
tinuous Emission Monitoring and NIR systems may re-
quire special consideration because of legislative
constraints or higher than normal impact on operations.
In these instances a higher level of champion may be
needed, but still operating within the concept of the
Quality Team Approach. This champion of NIR, for
instance, would have the responsibility and authority to
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
manage all NIR activities and the necessary skills required
for a site to implement and maintain the technology.
Preventative maintenance is addressed by routine
maintenance procedures, such as cleaning, replacement,
etc., of components based on history/experience, but a
high proportion is still breakdown maintenance. Resour-
cing is a critical issue in achieving correct levels of main-
tenance and, unless correctly resourced, maintenance can
quickly deteriorate into fire fighting mode. Resourcing for
maintenance should address not only preventative main-
tenance, but also aim toward predictive maintenance with
additional allowance for addressing areas of improvement
to increase analyzer availability, and therefore improve
benefits. Training is also an important aspect of effective
analyzer maintenance.
Every site within BP has a database system that records
maintenance activities, costs, etc., associated with an in-
strument. So a record of the time and money spent
maintaining an instrument is tracked. The time every
analyzer and critical instrument is available is also tracked
by the instrument group. These are recorded and reported
by the refineries, and the Group experts monitor, assess
the technology and findings, and recommend technolo-
gies that are best practice or fit for purpose.
HUNKUS:
We have struggled with this in the past because we had
limited support and technical staff, and have been limited
on our instrument support while upgrading the reliability
of our emission monitors, their maintenance programs,
and the better documentation and verification of our
Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) calibrations. As
part of our organizational change efforts, we have become
more involved in employee empowerment and have sup-
ported some of our instrument technicians in redefining
themselves into people who specialize on traditional refin-
ery equipment, and on the more advanced or specialized
equipment for a primary focus. We allow them input in
setting up their budgets and training schedules, and also
to help establish the requirements to meet them. Appar-
ently, we have been somewhat successful, since we have
been visited by representatives of outside EPA regions,
who tell us that we are an example of how a program
should be set up.
I just wanted to emphasize that if you get the people
who are actually responsible for doing the work involved
in defining these requirements, I think you can really take
a big step forward. I feel our people have helped us be
better.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
There seems to be an evolutionary process. We are
preferentially on the inferential mode of controls rather
than on-line analyzers. On-line analyzers somehow have
not really worked well. Have refineries here totally
37
TOC/INDEX
switched over to on-line analyzer systems, or is the com-
bination still working?
JACKSON:
On-line analyzers are important. However, if you put
them in and you do not look after them or maintain them,
they will not work. If you are going to be serious about
them, put them in and give them the time and the effort
they need. The sample conditioning system is crucial to
the success of the analyzers. Some of them are so special-
ized that they require specialized skills that you have to be
prepared to supply.
HUNKUS:
Many analyzers are installed as an afterthought. If you
are really serious about making them work, you need to
design them into the process from the beginning so that
they are in the right place and can get good quality
sampling. It is the sampling system that most often fails
and gives you bad on-line performance.
DAN MARAK (Chevron USA Products Company):
Have any refiners made the analyzers reliable enough
that they sell to fueling terminals based on analyzer results
versus traditional laboratory results?
JACKSON:
Upstream of the fuels product BP has their own internal
catalytic cracking model which has an unfortunate acro-
nym; it is called a Process Monitoring Spreadsheet or
PMS. We pull in daily data and regress that data which
includes data from on-line analyzers. The on-line analyzers
are on regular testing frequencies and in some locations
are tested against laboratory tests.
DAN MARAK (Chevron USA Products Company):
So you are still verifying the results with your laboratory
before you actually sell? You are not actually selling based
on analyzer release? It is still off laboratory release?
JACKSON:
We have in-line blending using NIR technology. The
reliability of the analyzers is rigorously tested against labo-
ratory tests and once confident we periodically check
against laboratory samples. BUT all gasoline that leaves
the gate is laboratory tested.
DAVIS:
Typically, the on-line analyzers that we install are there
for laboratory data backup. Regarding real-time analysis
of product streams, it is not until after several years of
service that we actually trust the on-line analyzer and start
to drop the laboratory data.
38 General Processing
HUNKUS:
We do all of our gasoline and fuels blending in-line. We
have NIR on both blending systems, and we rely on the
automated equipment both for octane and vapor pressure.
We periodically check the blenders with our laboratory
data to ensure quality.
LEE TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
On Mr. Jackson’s comments about keeping analyzers
maintained, it is also very important to make sure that the
analyzers are correctly specified and are properly installed.
It is a matter of both the mechanical installation and
installing the analyzer for the objective that is to be
achieved. No maintenance program can correct an initial
design error.
A second point that I want to make is that we have
installed a number of blending systems where analyzers
are being used for analysis of products for final distribu-
tion. Final distribution may be pipe line, holding tanks,
barges, etc.
LEMMON:
Each Tosco refinery has a dedicated group of analyzer
mechanics (technicians) who are responsible for maintain-
ing all of the process analyzers and continuous emissions
monitor (CEM) systems. For new and/or complicated
analyzers, the instrument manufacturer is often con-
tracted to supply maintenance for the first year of opera-
tion. During this first year, our mechanics work with the
manufacturer’s service representative to learn how to
maintain the system. After the first year, this contract is
typically eliminated or cut back in scope. When possible,
our mechanics are sent to formal training at the vendors’
facilities and attend informal in-house review of problem
areas and troubleshooting methods.
Preventative Maintenance Practice. CEM systems are
typically maintained in accordance with the requirements
of the regulating governmental agency. Process analyzers
are cal checked and maintained at a fixed frequency which
is set based upon historical performance. At one facility,
an expanded preventive maintenance is still being
studied. Currently it is focused on assuring effective
sample conditioning to avoid analyzer upsets from con-
taminants.
Instrument reliability is tracked informally. Other
than CEM performance , we are not currently tracking
analyzer availability. One site is looking at tracking in-
strument availability using the units’ DCS system. The
same refinery has recently introduced Statistical Quality
Control methods to manually track performance of
several analyzers, but it is too early to evaluate their
effectiveness. Another refinery is investigating a network-
based program for scheduling and tracking analyzer
maintenance.
TOC/INDEX
Question 23.
As the instrument, computer equipment, and auto-
mation systems continue to evolve, what evolution
has occurred in the panelists’ organizations in terms
of people to support and maintain these systems?
Comment on the staffing levels, reporting relations,
and qualifications of the instrument, electrical, ana-
lyzer, computer equipment, control systems, and re-
lated software support personnel.
DAVIS:
CENEX has instituted a technician certification and
training program developed by ISA to improve and ex-
pand the qualifications and knowledge of our technical
craft department. This has allowed CENEX to maintain
existing staff levels despite an increased workload and
more complex instruments.
CENEX also negotiated a clause in our union contract
to hire a portion of our electrical technicians from outside
the plant. Previously, all instrument technical positions
were filled from within the plant’s existing workforce by
seniority. The new system allows for existing technical
trained personnel to be hired off the street.
HUNKUS:
As I mentioned earlier, we have gone through a lot of
evolution in our instrument or control systems group, as
they now call themselves. We have gone from just “instru-
ment men” to instrument mechanics and instrument
technicians. We have DCS technicians and we have spe-
cialized instrument support people who are more on the
conceptual side, programming and troubleshooting so-
phisticated installations. Some of our instrument mechan-
ics are our best “high-tech” people. We have also gone to
a modification of our traditional work focus where we all
work together, and try to call out certain people who have
certain skills if it is a critical job. We have some people who
are primarily generalists, and some who are a little more
focused, for instance on our bottom loading automation.
There has also been a recognition that we sometimes
need outside resources in some situations. There is more
flexibility and teamwork that have gone into getting the
job done, as we all work together to compete in the present
low margin environment. We depend on the good will,
ability and creativity of all of our people to give us the edge.
LEMMON:
As advanced automation equipment continues to be
installed, our staffing levels have usually lagged behind
the workload. We continue to add staffing, for example
one refinery added an analyzer engineer in 1995 (total:
1), and an analyzer mechanic in 1996 (total: 5) and also
appointed an analyzer mechanic supervisor (a part time
assignment). Another site is using a concept called
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
“EQuivalent Analyzers per Mechanic” (EQAM) to evalu-
ate their current staffing as compared to historical levels.
On the other side of the coin is the fact that weak
refining margins have added pressure to lower staffing
levels, even in the face of more and more complex equip-
ment. Lower staffing levels lead us to have engineering
houses do more of the work, leaving refinery personnel
lacking in the knowledge to support that equipment.
Thankfully, much of the electronic and programmable
equipment in refinery service today has a longer mean-
time between failure history and is, therefore, more reli-
able and requires less maintenance.
As the complexity of automation equipment has in-
creased, our refineries have been forced to break down
traditional work divisions between engineering, opera-
tions, and maintenance. This has occurred not just to
“improve communications”, but to achieve real-time de-
cisions based on a multifaceted review of problems. Re-
porting relationships are becoming blurred because of the
matrixed working relationships of individuals from differ-
ent functional departments.
Qualifications: Over the years as the complexity of
instrumentation has evolved, so has the talent on hand to
maintain it. Regarding the mechanics/technicians, we em-
ploy a highly experienced and better educated group of
people to work on the equipment, people better able to
handle today’s higher technology. We are continually
evaluating the skills that we feel will be required by the
analyzer mechanic “of the future”, to allow us to assemble
a training plan to keep our people up to speed. Our DCS
systems are typically maintained by a combination of
highly trained technicians and instrument engineers.
Regarding engineering personnel, we have been keep-
ing up with equipment that is heavily electronic and
programmable by attending manufacturers’ schools.
F. Product Formulation
Question 24.
Many refineries are reducing crude/product invento-
ries and moving to more in-line finished product
blending. What are the practices in custody transfer
metering for products and crude? What are the special
considerations in using meters at jetties and piers?
DAVIS:
CENEX receives crude from three pipelines, one of
which is owned and operated by CENEX. All three pipe-
lines have custody transfer meters at the boundary of the
CENEX tank farm. These custody transfer meters are
proven on a routine basis and are reconciled against tank
farm gauges on a weekly basis. All light oil product leaving
the CENEX refinery is transported by the CENEX owned
and operated product line. The product pipeline custody
39
TOC/INDEX
transfer meters at the refinery are proven on a routine basis
and reconciled against terminal deliveries and tank gauges.
Since CENEX is land locked, I cannot personally talk
about jetties.
SMITH:
For our refinery, crude charge is delivered by pipeline
to running tank gauges. After the running tank gauge, the
crude is royalty metered by turbine meters and then
charged to crude unit primary crude charge pumps. Four
different crude types can be diverted to the refinery from
terminal export if desired.
The arrangement allows us to minimize crude storage
at our refinery tank farm. Only 1 to 2 days of crude
inventory is required. If the preferred pipeline is unable to
deliver the required crude feed due to mechanical or crude
quality problems, we can easily switch to another crude
pipeline or crude type. At other refineries and terminals,
custody of the transfer of crude and finished product is
mainly by tank gauges, except at those locations that do
not have adequate tankage to allow accurate tank gaging.
At these facilities, custody transfer meters with in-line
calibration (prover tubes) are utilized.
HUNKUS:
In the past 4 years while expanding our base level of
operation, we have had to rely more upon our meters and
less on tank gaging for custody transfers. We use pulse
ballistic provers at our rack and dock as well as our crude
and products pipelines. We have also found that it pays to
have an outside contractor prove our meters on a formal
schedule every quarter. We have found they can do this
with little disruption and consistently come back with
results that generate less product loss. This also allows our
instrument team to stay focused on more critical environ-
mental and operations issues where we have less comfort
with outside resources.
This program has also identified meters which tend to
need attention most often. We have used this as a basis to
prioritize meter replacement or retirement. We also try to
backup our meters with dead tank gauges wherever possi-
ble to verify the above program.
JULIE VALENTINE (Micro Motion, Inc.):
One of the newer technologies now being used for
custody transfer metering is the Coriolis meter. Some of
the major advantages are independence from changing
fluid properties, simultaneous density measurement, and
a non-intrusive design which does not have any moving
parts. The calibration factor, therefore, does not change
with time and will result in low maintenance.
One of the particular advantages in using Coriolis
meters for jetty loading stems from the fact that the
meters are also bi-directional. It is possible to measure
flow in both directions from the meter without requiring
40 General Processing
additional piping and valving. The meter also requires no
upstream or downstream piping or flow conditioning.
This has resulted in significant savings in particular cases,
especially where there is limited space on the jetty.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
On crude custody transfer, how do you account for the
BS&W?
DAVIS:
At CENEX we are monitoring the crude upstream for
BS&W content. I suppose that does not help at all with
the tank gaging, since in some cases it probably stays
behind the tank.
HUNKUS:
We take all of our crude deliveries off the Capline
system, and we receive domestic barge and foreign cargoes.
Generally on the domestic crude, we sample in our tank
in St. James, and then we have a composite sampler as a
batch is received and that sample is analyzed. We also have
gravitometers along the pipeline that sample. So, we know
roughly how the results should come out. On tankers, we
verify before we offload what the content is and agree to
the price adjustments before we accept the cargo. We then
verify it up the pipeline and in our tank at our Collierville
tank farm and then when it hits our refinery tankage. So
we get at least three shots at it.
Question 25.
RFG blend waivers have been successfully attained
by several refiners. Please comment on the steps
necessary to attain this status and to maintain reli-
ability, consistency, and accuracy.
DiCAMILLO:
There is perhaps some confusion on this question and
I will explain why. It mentions waivers. There are actually
two things, a waiver or an exemption. A waiver implies
that a producer cannot meet the RFG target and wants
relief. That could be accompanied by fines or penalties that
the refiner must pay.
An exemption, which is what I interpret this question
to refer to, implies that the producer is exemplary and can
be relied on to meet or exceed RFG specifications, so he
can be expected to self-monitor himself. There is a com-
plex set of EPA regulations that you have to follow, and I
will try to summarize here the steps you have to go
through.
In order to obtain an exemption, the refiner must have
computer controlled in-line blending equipment. The
refiner has to file a petition that explains how his blending
procedures will work. This is a fairly lengthy document.
It could be 100 pages or more. So it is not something you
do in a day. It will take several months to prepare. The
TOC/INDEX
refiner has to maintain self audits on the system. Typically,
that is done maybe 2 to 4 times a year. Finally, the refiner
must submit to an annual independent audit of its docu-
mentation, and the auditors certify their report and send
it directly to the EPA.
DAVIS:
I can really add nothing further to what Mr. DiCamillo
said, other than I also understand you need 6 months of
actual operating data with your existing criteria before you
can submit anything.
HUNKUS:
We are a conventional gasoline refiner, and therefore
our blending operation is excluded from the need to
obtain a waiver. However, we worked extensively with a
consultant to prepare our baseline database submission
and status evaluation. I recommend that you form a joint
team with a good outside resource and work to define all
your options, both present and future.
To maintain reliability of our blender, we have put in
place a redundant COMOC system marketed by Core
Laboratories to control octane and optimize blending. We
use a Moore Controller Software package customized for
our facility, including PLCs, displays, and 351 SCLs. In
addition, we use on-stream RVP analyzers to control and
optimize the use of butane and blendstock. Most impor-
tantly, we have our in-house expert blending system that
is tailored to our facility.
We also have created a special position responsible for
monitoring all blends, and coming up with our daily,
monthly, and yearly reports on required parameters, i.e.,
olefins, etc. We use WK Work and WK Blend, as well as
our own custom program, to monitor our compliance
efforts and have brought in an outside contractor to “test
audit” our records.
Question 26.
What is the latest on the experimental water/naphtha
fuel A-21 that has been in the press? How does it
compare to conventional foe/s? What impact is ex-
pected on the refining industry?
JOHNSON:
The experimental water/naphtha blend A-21 is repre-
sented as approximately 80% gasoline or naphtha to 20%
water. The water was added for NO, emissions. UOP
worked with an automotive research facility which used a
6% water addition to gasoline for engine testing. The
water was metered into the engine at the fuel injectors.
The emissions and torque improved. There are two limit-
ing factors for the use of water in gasoline.
1. Cold weather would require alcohol for protection
against freezing. The alcohol will contribute to
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
hydrocarbon vapor release and the emissions from
the engine compartment.
2. The water must be distilled water. Hard water will
contain calcium, magnesium and sodium ions. As
the water evaporates in the engine, the salts will
deposit and lead to engine failure. Distilled water
will work, but the volume distribution of distilled
water in large volumes to a service station would
be very difficult.
DiCAMILLO:
I have a little different definition of A-21 fuel. If
anybody is computer literate, there is a lot of information
about A-21 on the Internet. That is where most of this
information came from. The definition I have is: A-21 fuel
is a blend of anywhere from 30% to 44% water with the
balance naphtha. Its inventor lives in Reno, Nevada. Right
now it is being developed and marketed by a company
called Advance Fuels, which is a joint venture between the
inventor and Caterpillar Incorporated.
To summarize the articles I got from my Internet
expert, the A-21 fuel is certified as an alternate fuel in
Nevada and has been declared a primary fuel by the DOE.
Earlier articles back in 1995 made a lot of positive claims
for it; however, since then the company has not substan-
tiated those claims with technical data.
There is an enlightening layman oriented article in
October 1996’s Car and Driver magazine. It explains a
little bit about A-21. Basically, it has not worked very well
in gasoline engines; they have had some success in diesel
engines, however.
One problem that might be obvious is that water does
not burn and has very little BTU content. So in order to
get a diesel engine to run properly, you essentially have to
double the amount of fuel that you inject into the cylin-
ders. So the net result is really no savings in fuel usage.
Right now I guess the technical evaluation seems to be that
A-21 is not something that is viable.
41
TOC/INDEX

Question 27. cost option, but by itself may not provide sufficient
FCC heavy naphtha is difficult to blend into gasoline. sulfur reduction for most refiners.
This will be particularly true if T90 and sulfur limita- 3. Undercutting the FCC gasoline addresses both
tions are further tightened. What are the processing problems. Sulfur distribution in FCC gasoline is
options for this material? non-uniform. Approximately 60% of the sulfur is
concentrated in the highest boiling 15% of a typi-
BALDASSARI: cal C5-450°F gasoline. Cutting this 15% will re-
One option to treat FCC heavy naphtha is to desul- duce sulfur in the remaining gasoline significantly.
furize it, dearomatize it, improve the smoke point and then The heavy gasoline will be downgraded to light
blend it into jet fuel. Lummus Global and Criterion cycle oil.
license the SynSat Process for upgrading petroleum distil- 4. Hydrotreating the FCC naphtha directly. The
lates from FCC gasoline through vacuum gas oils. capital requirement is much lower than for an FCC
We have licensed two such units in which we have feed hydrotreater. Octane loss, however, varies be-
treated FCC heavy naphtha. One we treated in a blend tween 2 to 12 numbers depending on the feed.
with hydrocracker distillates over noble metal catalyst Mobil Technology Company has developed the
reducing its aromatic content to less than 10 vol% and OCTGAIN® process which combines the low
increasing its smoke point above 20 mm. In another case, capital cost of gasoline HDS without the high debit
we blended it with the diesel and kerosene fractions from associated with the value of the lost octane.
a first stage hydrotreater, again treating it over a sulfur and
nitrogen tolerant, noble metal catalyst to improve its JACKSON:
smoke point to 23. One of these units is currently in The processing options used within BP are:
operation, while for the other one the Basic Engineering • As cutter stock in fuel oil blending (downgrading to
Design has been completed. FO value);
• Hydrotreating with LCO for diesel blending;
KOOIMAN: • Hydrotreating with LCO then recovering for gaso-
I have information on a nontraditional method. One line blending—small octane loss. (RON unhydro-
emerging option is biocatalytic desulfurization (BDS) treated and hydrotreated are 93 and 90 respectively
which is an enzyme-based system for sulfur removal. This –– refer to the Heavy Oil Processing session, ques-
process is in development for diesel and gasoline streams. tion 20); and
BDS uses an oxidative pathway, avoiding the use of hy- • Heating and marine oil blending.
drogen and the saturation of olefins, leading to lower For general blending disposal routes, the heavier the cut
operating costs. Desulfurization is done at mild tempera- the better, to assist with blending flash point limitations.
tures and pressures leading to significantly lower capital Taking each option and looking at the limitations:
costs than hydroprocessing. This process will be commer-
cialized first for diesel, then with a gasoline system to Jet Fuel
follow due in 1998 to 1999. More information is available Primary Limitation – Thermal stability and gums
from Energy Biosystems. Solution – Hydrotreat the Heavy
Catalytic Cracked Naphtha.
DiCAMILLO: Secondary Limitation – Aromatics, naphthalenes,
If you still want to use some of this naphtha in the smoke point and flash point.
gasoline, there are ways to process it to take out the sulfur Solution – Careful blending using straight-
and leave most of the olefin and octane content behind. run kerosene properties.
As Mr. Baldassari mentioned, Criterion and Lummus Diesel/ Heating Oil/Marine Gas Oil
license a process that can do this. Problems – Storage stability, sulfur, flash
point and cetane number.
GENTRY:
Solution – Careful blending or preferably
I have a similar answer regarding various methods to hydrotreating.
treat the naphtha to be used in the gasoline. Problem – Cetane number.
1. You can hydrotreat the FCC feed. The FCC gaso- Solution – Use of additives
line sulfur is reduced substantially and there is no Segregation of Diesel from
loss in octane. HGO.
2. You can use sulfur reducing FCC catalysts and
additives. The major catalyst vendors have intro- HFO Cutter
duced catalysts and additives which claim to reduce Problems – Flash point.
gasoline sulfur by 15% to 20%. This can be the low Solution – Careful blending.

42 General Processing
TOC/INDEX
A further use for a portion of the HCCN is as recycle
to the reactor riser, either as a cutter and diluent in heavy
residue feeds, simple recycle to a higher position in the
riser, or tied into the IFP/Stone and Webster Engineering
Company MTC (mixed temperature control system), the
object being to increase the catalyst-to-oil ratio. HCCN
acts as a heat sink with a small coke penalty, and upgrades
some of the HCCN into lighter material.
JOHNSON:
Pilot plant studies have indicated that the FCC naph-
tha is crackable, with the heaviest portion being the most
convertible. With sufficient severity, that is reactor tem-
perature, catalyst-to-oil ratio, residence time, and catalyst
activity, 50% to 75% of a typical heavy, 350°F FCC
naphtha can be converted to other products. These prod-
ucts are predominantly paraffinic LPG, aromatic high-oc-
tane light naphtha, and some heavy condensed products.
The mid-range FCC naphtha can also be converted to
these products, but to a lesser degree. In current UOP
FCC designs with elevated feed nozzles, the lower section
of the riser is used for catalyst acceleration without feed
present and is an ideal zone for the high severity required
for such naphtha cracking. Several commercial units have
already utilized this scheme to increase the yield of LPG.
RALPH T. THOMPSON (Chevron):
One of Chevron’s refineries includes heavy FCC gaso-
line along with a portion of the light FCC gasoline in the
feed to an FCC gasoline hydrotreater. The heavy FCC
gasoline makes up about 20% of the hydrotreater feed, or
about 3% to 4% of the total gasoline pool. The heavy FCC
gasoline is typically 31° to 34° API and is drawn to an
ASTM 90% point of 385°F to 400°F. The hydrotreater
eliminates sulfur and olefins but does not substantially
reduce aromatics. The amount of heavy FCC gasoline
which can be blended into the gasoline pool is limited by
the pool 90% point, particularly for California (CARB)
gasoline.
LEMMON:
At one location, we are hydrocracking the material to
lighter range materials or blending to diesel as specifica-
tions allow. Another location successfully uses this “me-
dium flash” low viscosity fraction as a cutter stock for fuel
oils.
Question 28.
What is the panel’s experience of blending heavy FCC
gasoline into jet fuel? In particular, what portion of
unhydrotreated heavy FCC gasoline can be blended,
and how is the color instability of the blended jet fuel
controlled?
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
JACKSON:
As indicated in the last question, some of the heavy
FCC gasoline (HCCG) can be blended into the jet pool,
with careful blending and hydrotreating. The previous
question also indicates the problems associated with
blending HCCG into jet. Clearly the HCCG should be
hydrotreated to make the blending portions worthwhile.
The hydrotreatment effectively reduces the sulfur, nitro-
gen and olefinicity of the HCCG. The typical cut used is
around 340°F to 520°F (170°C to 270°C).
A number of refiners have been blending hydrotreated
HCCG (or catalytic cracked kerosene as it is sometimes
called) into the jet pool. The severity of the hydrotreat-
ment allows between 5% and 10% of the hydrotreated
HCCG to be blended into straight-run and hydrocracked
blendstocks to meet the Jet A-1 specifications. We have
never been able to or be happy about blending untreated
HCCG into jet. We have found less than 1% unhydro-
treated material in the jet blend will result in the batch
failing on the color stability test.
JOHNSON:
The heavy FCC gasoline proposed for blending into
turbine fuel must be stable. This would require at least an
approved anti-oxidant such as UOP number 344, which
is a hindered phenol, for stability. The aromatic content
in the heavy FCC gasoline will limit the percent to be
blended under the standard specification for aviation tur-
bine fuel.
DiCAMILLO:
I agree that in order to maintain color stability you
would only want to blend hydrotreated heavy cracked
gasoline.
ARNDT:
In one of our refineries, we are able to blend about 10%
unhydrotreated heavy catalytic cracked gasoline into the
jet pool in certain scenarios. We have been doing this for
years. The limiting specifications are color and naphtha-
lene content. We can blend in the heavy catalytic cracked
gasoline only when we are processing crudes which pro-
duce low naphthalene straight-run jet. The heavy catalytic
cracked gasoline is first sweetened in a liquid-liquid
Merox. Anti-oxident is injected in the rundown line to
tankage.
HUNKUS:
We have used a catalyst system additive approach that
has shifted or removed sulfur from the tail end of the heavy
FCC naphtha. I believe there also is a Mobil patent that
could use a form of ZSM-5, something like an old catalyst
polymerization unit, and just a spot of hydrogen to blanch
the sulfur and leave the octane in FCC gasoline.
43
TOC/INDEX
RENE GONZALEZ (Fuel Technology & Management Magazine):
The November issue of Fuel Technology will cover this
issue. I believe someone from Grace Davison discussed the
recycle issue back in the 1995 NPRA Q&A.
We are looking at this issue of the heavy fraction of the
FCC naphtha because of the potential for sulfur specifi-
cations. We thought it would be important to discuss this
in more detail.
RALPH T. THOMPSON (Chevron):
One of Chevron’s refineries regularly blends up to 15%
unhydrotreated heavy FCC gasoline into the jet fuel they
make when running low sulfur crude through the refinery.
The heavy FCC gasoline is typically 31° to 32° API and 96
to 99 F-1 clear octane number, depending on FCC feed
type and severity. They control the FCC heavy gasoline to
an ASTM 90% point of 410°F to 420°F. The FCC heavy
gasoline is treated through a Minalk unit, coalescer, salt
drier, and clay treater ahead of jet blending. Occasionally
the FCC heavy gasoline color deteriorates, and when that
happens, the amount sent to jet blends is stopped or cut
back. Normally the jet fuel produced by this refinery is
consumed in less than a week’s time. The refinery has stored
jet fuel containing FCC heavy gasoline for up to 2 weeks
and has not observed a deterioration of finished jet color.
Other than color, the quantity of FCC heavy gasoline
blended into jet fuel is typically limited by naphthalene
content. As long as naphthalenes meet the specification,
aromatics and smoke point are also satisfactory.
G. Computer/Process Control
Question 29.
What dynamic or steady-state process models and
simulation packages are available and used by refin-
ers? Please comment on their use by operating per-
sonnel, technical, and planning staff. Is their major
use for routine current operations, training, or high
profile revamp studies? With downsizing of staffs, is
simulation use decreasing or increasing?
BALDASSARI:
There are a multitude of simulation products available
on the market which perform both steady-state and dy-
namic simulations. Some of the steady-state simulation
packages that most of you are probably aware of for engi-
neering design and process studies include Pro II, HISYM
and NOVA. Dynamic simulation models have been used
extensively for operator training and to a lesser extent for
control system studies. ABB Lummus Global’s affiliate
ABB Simcon develops dynamic simulation models for
training and engineering purposes. It is an easily configured
system using blocks or modules for programming. The
model can be extended to incorporate steady-state models
44 General Processing
such as HISYM or NOVA and to incorporate process
licensor’s confidential data.
We believe training on the dynamic simulator is useful
when downsizing, since operators must be trained to
handle larger portions of the plant and need to be cross
trained to handle different portions of the plant. We have
seen an increase in the use of simulation models, for
conducting process studies, control studies, operator
training, testing of operating procedures, testing of various
DCS configurations and testing of advanced process con-
trol (APC) systems, including multivariable controllers.
HUNKUS:
There are many vendors who supply various kinds of
optimization software based models, historical data, or
learned expert decision matrixes. These basic areas of
computer process controls can be organized into several
methods. I have a number of specific examples and texts
on how these different types of controllers work.
Constraint controllers are control variables that are not
controlled easily with direct acting variables. An example
might be a fractionation tower reflux ratio which is con-
trolled at limit through heat input. Controls generally
have a lot of reset which moves the process in very small
increments toward the constraint. Many safeguards are
taken to ensure that the parameters are meaningful before
any control action is taken. These controls also have some
kind of feed forward input.
Inferred controllers are based on traditional engineer-
ing principles. An example would be a product’s end point
which might be controlled by a combination of tempera-
ture, pressure, tower reflux flow, etc. They may even have
laboratory results partially weighted into the equations.
Multivariable controllers are more complex and require
a more elaborate structure. An example would be the
conversion section of the FCCU. These systems may
involve nontraditional or arbitrary control elements.
Smart controllers are also called “expert” systems. They
may move process variables in small increments until a
certain threshold is reached, then the controller action will
change as a result of the feedback. An example might be a
fractionator differential pressure (in combination with
other variables) controlling flooding in a fractionator.
Neural networks are based on on-line statistical mod-
els, as opposed to those based on engineering principles or
predetermined empirical correlations. These are similar to
those used for “programmed trading” on Wall Street, or
the system I use to figure which meetings I can miss
without anyone noticing.
Operations simulators have been used very successfully
on many projects, including Operator and Engineer train-
ing and the development of best team dynamics. Perhaps
the best use of these has been on grassroots projects, like
our new Saturated Gas Plant and the training we did on
its DCS Information system. Simulators can be quite
TOC/INDEX
complex and expensive, like advanced computer controls,
and they take a large commitment to technical support.
In addition, Operations must be committed to using the
simulator beyond the original training or old habits will
reduce the ultimate potential.
The uses and realism of planning simulators is increas-
ing. There is an increase in areas such as on-line profitabil-
ity and predictive maintenance based on Operator
training and PSM/OPA 90 training and response devel-
opment, and increased cross-functional awareness train-
ing among all refinery personnel.
In summary, I feel that while there may be some decline
on simulators for traditional uses, the nontraditional uses
are more than offsetting this trend. We find new uses on
an ongoing basis. Simulation and process models are not
utilized here as much as in the past by Process Engineers,
but new uses continue to evolve. Mostly, we use them for
revamp and optimization studies, training and compli-
ance. We do not have the personnel to run them for daily
operations optimization or training that is not part of a
formal program.
Last year I had the opportunity to attend the NPRA
Computer Conference with our Operations Manager and
our Controls Systems Manager. This conference is a great
place to learn about the software, programs, systems and
trends in applications. I am recommending you attend,
rather than trying to describe it here.
JOHNSON:
There are several commercial simulation packages
available, each having its own merits. UOP’s experience
indicates that most refiners’ operating, technical and plan-
ning staffs do not use the same process model for training,
engineering and planning tasks. We envision, in the near
future, that one model which accurately reflects the proc-
ess operations will be used for the initial design engineer-
ing, training, revamp engineering, planning and on-line
optimization of the units. We have observed an increase
in the use of simulators over the past several years, but
associate this with the increasing speed and decreasing
costs of the computers rather than the downsizing of staffs.
One thing I would also like to mention is that we are
now installing a model/simulator that will actually opti-
mize the naphtha processing section of a refinery. It will
evaluate the full boiling range naphtha, splitting it be-
tween the catalytic reformer and an Isomerization unit,
and optimizing the performance of that operation.
JOHN W. WARD (Aspen Technology):
Aspen Technology offers both steady-state and dy-
namic simulation packages for the refining industry. The
steady-state simulator, ASPEN PLUS, is used to model a
wide variety of petroleum processes with its PETROFAC
model for complex fractionators like crude columns and
FCC main fractionators. The RATEFRAC column
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
model, which is based on a non-equilibrium stage ap-
proach, has been widely used to simulate vacuum towers,
amine treatment systems, and MTBE towers to degrees of
accuracy not possible with the standard equilibrium stage
approach. ASPEN PLUS utilizes a library of almost 200
crude assays for easier data entry of common crudes. An
interface to the Phillips crude assay library is also available.
The same interface for the sequential modular ASPEN
PLUS is used for RT-OPT equation based steady-state
modeling technology. RT-OPT is an on-line modeling
technology designed to rapidly solve a plant model and
implement economically optimum set point targets to a
control system in real time. ADVENT is Aspen Technol-
ogy’s steady-state process integration and synthesis pro-
gram. ADVENT utilizes pinch technology to achieve cost
savings by reducing energy and equipment requirements
for both retrofit and grassroots units.
ASPEN PLUS has been widely used by technical staff
for the purpose of troubleshooting, debottlenecking, capi-
tal project analysis, and monitoring day-to-day opera-
tions. Although operating staff is the least frequent user of
simulation technology, ASPEN PLUS has been success-
fully used by operating personnel where a simplified user
interface was developed to give limited access to variables
that could be manipulated. This has been a valuable tool
for operators to see the results of decisions they may make
before they actually make them.
Aspen Technology’s dynamic simulation package
called SPEEDUP is utilized to enhance operability by
studying operability issues at the design stage, by estab-
lishing strategies for smooth start-up and shutdown, and
by facilitating development of operating procedures for
transition to new process operating conditions.
SPEEDUP assists in the design of safer processes through
relief analysis, process stability analysis, and reactor mod-
eling. SPEEDUP is used to improve process control by
testing possible control configurations, troubleshooting
and fine-tuning existing schemes, and helping to devise
advanced control strategies.
Due to downsizing we are seeing less focus on model
building by refinery technical service and operations en-
gineers. The model building focus has shifted to contrac-
tors and experts in corporate engineering and R&D. There
is a major frustration within companies that see simulation
as a valuable activity, but do not know how to free up time
for plant engineers to become productive users of the tools
while still performing their other duties. Aspen Technol-
ogy is addressing this issue by assisting clients in the design
and implementation of modeling programs. Training, on-
site expertise, and project selection methodologies are
designed to maximize the benefits gained from the mod-
eling technologies while minimizing the required client
resources.
45
TOC/INDEX
BOB POWELL (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions offers a suite of both
steady-state and dynamic process models. The steady-state
models are known collectively as our Profimatics Sim
series. These software packages have been licensed for use
in over 300 commercial units. The majority are for
FCCU’s, reformers and hydrocrackers.
Based on what our buyers tell us, the main uses of the
models are for planning, to develop LP yield vectors or to
evaluate feedstocks. Secondly, they are used for process
studies to study the effect of changing operating parame-
ters such as recycle rates, severity, etc. We have also in-
stalled about 40 of these models in on-line applications.
Based on our sales levels, it is clear to us that the use of
process simulation is increasing. The year 1996 will be our
best year ever. Much of the growth in this area is in the
on-line optimization area, and we expect growth in this
area to accelerate.
Our dynamic models are the SACDA line of operator
training simulators. These have been successfully used by
operating companies for a number of years. Here the
emphasis is on simulating the “feel” and response of the
real process unit, to give the operator hands-on experience
in controlling a unit in start-up, shutdown, abnormal
situation, or in normal operation.
Question 30.
What has been the experience in data reconcili-
ation/yield accounting in the plants to help analyze
plant data? Has this lead to better unit performance?
HUNKUS:
Data Reconciliation and Yield Accounting are powerful
tools to help analyze refinery data. Using these tools, LP
models and plant simulators can be kept current, contrib-
uting to a better optimization effort for the facility. Im-
provement opportunities are more apparent through
scrutinization of accurate and reliable yield data, especially
when working in teams. Chemical and catalyst usages and
improvements from changes can be monitored from yield
data. Refinery and market trends can be developed and
focused from the information. Notice I said information
and not data. A proper yield system is an excellent tool for
developing project post audits, as well as identifying new
opportunities and creating alignment among several
groups.
Used properly, performance can be enhanced signifi-
cantly. We are in the early stages of getting a good, usable
system at our Mid-South facility. We believe it is more
difficult to motivate and focus a large, diverse team with-
out feedback, information and benchmarking. This ties to
the concept of best practices. We believe we have seen
significant improvements in unit performance and fully
expect to see more as we get better and better information
for our systems. I believe our performance has improved
46 General Processing
over the last 3 years since we started our benchmarking
program, in part because of the “line-of-sight” to our goals
that good information and charts create. Our General
Manager, Support Services and Comptroller, Emmett Re-
gan, is presenting a paper on yield at this years NPRA
Computer Conference in November (NPRA paper #CC-
96-133).
JOHNSON:
UOP has used data reconciliation as an integral element
for our on-line optimization. The reconciliation is essen-
tial to ensure good agreement between the actual process
and the model which is used to analyze and optimize the
process. We have observed better unit performance with
the use of these tools and have shown increases in operat-
ing revenue when these tools are applied. UOP also rec-
ommends that data reconciliation be applied for off-line
process modeling and evaluations.
BALDASSARI:
We are aware of about 100 refineries around the world
that have bought data reconciliation software packages.
They require the availability of reliable process history data
and sufficient redundancy of measurements to obtain
useful results. As a consequence, it becomes a people
intensive type of activity.
Yield accounting packages, which sometimes are incor-
porated in data reconciliation packages, we found signifi-
cantly improve refinery accounting and overall refinery
operations, planning and optimization. Contrary to some
vendor claims, although it is nice to have reconciled data,
we feel that you can get about 80% of the benefit with
about 20% of the effort with stand alone yield accounting
packages.
DAVIS:
The CENEX planning and economic department uses
daily accounting yield sheets to reconcile to the monthly
plant modeling program. With corrections to the plan-
ning and economic model from test run data to keep the
model in tune with current catalytic performance, daily
yields match the model to within 1 vol% to 2 vol%.
This data can be used to spot inaccurate meters and
tank gauges to avoid blending problems, as well as give
operations personnel within the refinery guidance to unit
problems such as exchanger leaks.
JOHN W. WARD (Aspen Technology):
Data reconciliation, in and of itself, does not improve
plant performance, increase profits, or optimize opera-
tions. It does, however, provide valuable information for
engineers and managers that will ultimately affect the
performance of the plant. The primary uses for reconciled
data are as follows:
TOC/INDEX
1. Identify instrument problems. Gross errors de-
tected and the difference between the measured
and reconciled values can be used to flag instru-
ment errors and prioritize maintenance.
2. Provide input to calibrate other plant models such
as planning, scheduling, and on-line and off-line
optimization. Plant models based on physical prin-
ciples enforce heat and material balances, so com-
parison with actual plant data must be based on
reconciled results.
3. Flag material balance errors before sending plant
data to other corporate systems. This has become
a critical application as more and more companies
connect plant control systems with enterprise re-
source planning (ERP) systems like SAP Plant data
is inherently error prone and, therefore, not suit-
able for feeding directly into corporate accounting
systems. However, it is important to note that
accountants do not want reconciled data as their
input. Data reconciliation statistically distributes
any material balance error amongst all checks writ-
ten. Instead, systems such as SAP need “resolved”
measurements, the best measurement available for
each transaction, so that adjustments can be made
at the end of the accounting period.
One common misconception is that reconciled data
assist in discovering and controlling plant losses. This is
actually not true. Since any loss is distributed across the
entire plant by the reconciliation algorithm, it is difficult
to determine where the loss actually occurred.
Question 31.
What developments and changes are refineries initiat-
ing in their communication systems (radios and cellu-
lar phones) and how will they integrate with future
portable electronic field data acquisition systems?
HUNKUS:
More and more refiners are going to mobile phones as
a means of communication. Mobile phones are less expen-
sive than radios and provide a greater range, with the
added benefit of satisfying emergency communication
needs. Another area where communications are fast im-
proving is E-mail. We are presently switching to Lotus
Notes in order to improve ties to daily industry publica-
tions and integrate many parts of our evolving data/infor-
mation system. The use of hand-held computers in the
field for data gathering is also growing. PCs have been
installed in control rooms so shift employees have access
to E-mail, training materials, operating manuals, HA-
ZOPS, PSM systems, and other information sources.
Some refineries and other large complex based manu-
facturers are installing plantwide video networks where
employees can have access to information, training and
safety films, presentations and important announcements
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
on the job without having to leave their work areas. This
practice helps bridge the off shift problem since more
employees can be reached this way, although it is not as
personal, and effort must be made to still maintain “face”
time. We presently restrict our video use to training and
company information.
We have about 100 radios total, with 3 “repeater”
channels and about 8 local channels, including the 3
channels for remote alarm activation and a man down
feature. We have looked into an ultra high frequency trunk
system which is basically a dedicated mobile phone system
with custom alarms, broadcast groups and overrides for a
cost of about $300,000 to about $500,000. We also scan
in our PM and vibration results from all around the plant
and hope to have our leak detection and repair program
results for flanges, valves and seals scanned into our system
in the near future.
JACKSON:
The panel wanted me to comment on my experience
with virtual teams within BP. I am the FCC Refinery
Support Manager for BP Oil worldwide. I am also the
Business Change Manager for a networking project con-
necting all the FCC engineers in the BP system. We are
spending around $1 million this year on implementing
this technology to enable the FCC engineers on the net-
work to share and peer assist each other.
The virtual team (VT) hardware consists of a top of the
range PC, a video camera mounted on the PC, a scanner
on my desk, and shareware software. We link to each other
via ISDN lines and video conference, and share data,
drawings, pictures, etc. We can be working on our pro-
prietary FCC spreadsheet together; the same spreadsheet.
If I change something, my colleague at the other end sees
every move. It is great for training, coaching, and team
troubleshooting. I have also purchased a camcorder and
digital camera for each site, so we can review live plant
operation or shutdown footage.
47
TOC/INDEX
We have also built and are still building, a Lotus Notes
database of all our knowledge and best practices to share
and use on the network. The intention is that we learn
things once.
Question 32.
The trend toward centralized control locations contin-
ues. New control systems combine process control
and desk top information capabilities. In view of this
trend, what is your company’s current thinking on the
future:
a) What refining functions will computers handle
automatically?
b) What refining functions will continue to be people
intensive?
c) What is the future organizational structure for re-
fining staff?
d) What is the future role, and required qualifica-
tions, for process operators?
BALDASSARI:
a) This question is broken down into several subsec-
tions. In today’s refinery, computers handle the following
on a routine basis: advance process controls, real time
closed-loop process unit optimization, blending control
and on-line optimization, oil movements and storage
automation, integrated refinery information systems
(plant data bases, LP modeling, planning and scheduling),
intelligent process modeling and laboratory information
management systems.
b) We foresee that there will still be a number of people
intensive refining functions. These will be functions in
which computing technology requires double checking to
avoid either unsafe operations or significant economic
losses. This will include: control room operators; field
process operators; oil movement and storage individuals;
shipping, planning and scheduling people; and people
involved with data reconciliation, accounting and envi-
ronment engineering.
c) We forsee the future structure for the refining staff
to be very flat, with fewer people having more responsi-
bility. In addition, support operations such as engineering,
maintenance and information systems will be outsourced.
d) As for qualifications for process operators, we think
that control room operators will probably require some
type of degree, so that they can better understand the
highly interactive processes and the economic impact of
their control actions on optimum process plant operation.
In addition, the operators will probably have to be com-
puter literate so that they can take advantage of all the
computer assisted tools they will have at their disposal.
DAVIS:
This is a crystal ball question that I posed to my boss
and these are his responses.
48 General Processing
1. Faster and more powerful computers will continue
to lead us towards correlations which become the
basis for controlled responses to process deviations.
We foresee continual interest in taking advantage
of this capability.
2. Designing systems to gather and interpret informa-
tion will continue to require the efforts of thinking
refinery engineers. The non-predictive nature of
start-ups, shutdowns and upsets will require on-
site personnel. Turnarounds will also remain peo-
ple intensive.
3. The major categories of refining functions should
remain. But intensive information management
will be significant in operations, engineering, en-
vironmental and maintenance efforts.
4. We are seeing an emerging trend of schools inter-
ested and eager to train process operators. We are
also aware of the extensive use of engineers as
process operators in Europe.
While a technical background and understanding will
gain importance, a certain amount of the “right stuff ” will
continue to be valued, because of the need for responsive,
decisive people who can perform with minimal supervi-
sion and support.
Question 33.
How successful has the application of software been
that optimizes units in a non-linear, on-line fashion?
How extensive have these applications been?
DiCAMILLO:
This question refers to real time optimization or RTO.
This is a control method. It links the process simulator
with the process controller. In theory, the process simula-
tor, being intelligent, picks the optimum operating con-
ditions and directs the refinery to the best economics.
The system has been tried primarily on FCCUs and
also some hydrocrackers and naphtha hydrotreaters. Al-
though we are heading towards a computer world in the
future, right now in practice, the success rate for this
system has been low. My sources said it was less than 30%.
The primary reason is that clients have not dedicated
the manpower to learn how the system operates. They
assume the system can run itself. What happens in practice
is that after the vendor installs it, gets it running and leaves,
nobody understands how to fix an upset in the system.
Consequently, what usually happens is they turn the new
system off and go back to the old system.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I would say that this is an
example of how modern technology cannot compensate
for industry downsizing.
GENTRY:
It is our observation that there are relatively few docu-
mented applications of non-linear, on-line rigorous
TOC/INDEX
optimization systems in the refining area as compared to
other process industries. Application of this type of opti-
mization system to other processes, such as ethylene and
ammonia production, seems to be more widespread. We
feel that this is, in part, the result of the complexity
involved in characterizing petroleum fractions and in
rigorously modeling the reactions taking place in refinery
processes. Nevertheless, the applications that have been
reported in the literature, and those reported in the
petrochemical area, have achieved significant benefits.
We have seen significant progress in the area of modeling
petroleum fractions and reactions. One case in point is the
Mobil work in the area of Structured-Oriented Lumping
(SOL). This is a technique described in an article by Quann
and Jaffe in 1992 (I&EC RESEARCH, 1992,31). As
computing power increases, and techniques such as SOL
modeling are perfected, we foresee on-line optimization as
an area of significant growth in the near future.
BALDASSARI:
The most successful application of on-line, non-linear
optimization to date has been for gasoline blending appli-
cations. In addition, simple non-linear model optimizers
using the 20/80 cost benefit rule have been successfully
applied in FCCUs. The greater the complexity of the
model, the farther one gets from the 20/80 cost-effective-
ness rule. The big issue then is not the non-linearity of the
model, but it is the accuracy and the reconciliation of the
model against the real plant data. This requires a large
effort using skilled process engineers to make the op-
timizer work and later to maintain it.
LEE E. TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
On-line optimization has been applied in our industry
for about 30 years, with limited success in the beginning.
Major problems included computer performance and du-
rability, data handling systems and lack of constrain algo-
rithms. By the 1980s, modeling technology, data handling
and computer performance had evolved to where sequen-
tial modular solutions could be installed with a very high
success rate. Profimatics, which is now part of Honeywell
Hi-Spec Solutions, has focused on kinetic model-based
projects and continues to install about a half a dozen of
these systems a year. Equation based applications are
starting to be used with some success. And this success rate
is going to increase as we overcome problems such as
interfaces, data validation, model updating, initialization,
diagnostics and maintenance. By about the year 2000,
equation-based, closed-loop optimization technology
should be developed to where applications can be installed
quickly and maintained efficiently.
JOHN W. WARD (Aspen Technology, Inc.):
Aspen Technology has commissioned 25 closed-loop
real-time optimization (CLRTO) systems on refining (8),
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
petrochemical (9), and chemical processes (8) since 1987.
These CLRTO applications are based on rigorous process
models and encompass the entire process unit (e.g., an
ethylene plant CLRTO includes all the furnaces and the
refrigeration and separation sections, and an FCCU in-
cludes the reactor/regenerator, main fractionator and gas
plant). These CLRTO applications have been very profit-
able and successful for the plants in which they have been
applied with several well-documented applications, in-
cluding: SUNOCO, Lyondell Petrochemical, Mitsubishi
Chemical, Phillips Petroleum, and GE Plastics. The types
of processes that have been optimized include FCCUs,
hydrocrackers, catalytic reformers, crude units, ethylene,
phenol, bisphenol-A, and linear alkylbenzene.
CARL KLIESCH (Treiber Controls Inc.):
We have implemented on-line, closed-loop unit opti-
mization on 2 crude/vacuum units, an alkylation unit, a
naphtha hydrotreater, a catalytic reformer, an FCCU, a
polymerization unit, and natural gas plants. Two FCCU
and one crude/vacuum optimization projects are currently
in progress.
The technology employed is our Closed-loop Recon-
ciliation and Optimization (CRO) software. CRO uses a
first principles, nonlinear chemical engineering model of
the process. The model is comprised of the entire process
unit, i.e., pumps, valves, columns, exchangers, reactors,
flash drum, etc. The model is in simultaneous equation
form and the same model is used for a full reconciliation
and optimization. The model resides in a DEC Alpha or
similar computer and solution times for a complete rec-
onciliation and optimization range from 5 min. to 25 min.
Optimization set points are sent every 45 min. to 60 min.
The applications have shown high up-times, and payouts
have been in the range of 6 to 9 months.
A paper on the FCCU/Poly unit projects will be pre-
sented at the NPRA Computer Conference in November
(NPRA paper #CC-96-128). References for some of the
cited applications are given below.
Alkylation: Treiber, S.; McLeod, R.S.; Boyle, T.J.;
Powley, G.; and Lee, S., “Closed-loop Plant Wide Opti-
mization”, CPA Control Systems, ’92 Conference, Whis-
tler, British Columbia, September 29—October 1, 1992.
Crude/Vacuum: McLeod, R.S.; Treiber, S.S.; Brown,
M.W.; and Bell, M.B., “Closed-loop Plant Wide Optimi-
zation of a Crude Distillation Unit”, 48th Annual Instru-
ment Symposium, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, January 19-21, 1993.
Natural Gas Plant: Lyne, M.; Pidlisny, D.; Treiber, S.;
Powley, G.; Toffolo, R.; Smith, D.; and Bell, M, “Natural
Gas Plant Advanced Control and Optimization”,
75th Annual GPA Convention, Denver, Colorado, March
11–13, 1996.
FCCU/Polymerization: McCormick, R.; Gagne, N.;
Treiber, S.; Laurier, G.; Brown, M.; and Piette, R.,
49
TOC/INDEX
“Real-time Optimization of Fluid Cracking and Catalytic
Polymerization Unite”, NPRA Computer Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia, November 11-13, 1996.
R. E. (ED) PALMER (Mustang Engineering):
We do not handle advanced process control models or
software. I had a chance last week to visit a plant that I
had a very intimate knowledge of. I was involved in the
original design and recent revamp. They had just imple-
mented an advanced process control program on an FCC
main fractionator and gas plant. To be quite frank with
you, I was truly amazed at the improvement in capacity
and product quality that they have been able to maintain
with this unit since implementing this program.
H. Safety and Reliability
Question 34.
Has anyone experienced cracking in the LPG spheres?
What are the frequency and techniques used in inter-
nal inspections, especially to detect the cracks?
BARKER:
One of our large butane storage spheres, built in 1954,
was wet fluorescent magnetic particle tested in 1988. This
was part of a refinery-wide program to inspect all LPG
storage vessels as part of API recommended practice 920
(“Prevention of Brittle Fraction of Pressure Vessels”) as-
sessment of all the LPG storage vessels. All the wells inside
and outside were 100% examined. Numerous longitudi-
nal and transverse cracks were found — too numerous to
repair.
Based on laboratory examinations, our metallurgical
personnel concluded that the cracks were from frequent
rundown of wet sour butane when a production unit had
upsets. The tank was never returned to service and was
scrapped in 1989. We believe the exposure to sour butane
was unique to this vessel and is not a problem with our
other LPG storage vessels, as demonstrated by our other
WFMT inspections described earlier. Internal thickness
and internal visual inspections will be done on the remain-
ing spheres in the future.
FEARNSIDE:
We have had a number of refiners caution us on cracking
in LPG spheres, and what they attributed it to was amine
carry over from their amine absorbers. If you are experienc-
ing that problem, that may be one source to look at.
LEMMON:
We have experienced no environmentally induced
cracking in our spheres. We have found surface cracking
which we attributed to fabrication, and the cracks were
successfully removed with light grinding.
50 General Processing
SMITH:
Nearly all of our refineries have experienced cracks in
the LPG spheres. Most of them were minor cracks in the
heat affected zones of spheres and easily ground out with
corrosion allowance intact.
There is an exception. In the Ras Tanura Refinery, we
had over 60 cracks in one sphere used to store sour natural
gas liquids. It was inspected after being in service for 10
years. The sphere was constructed of OX602, which is a
0.17% silicon carbon steel which was quenched and tem-
pered, but it was not stress relieved. Additionally, the plate
thickness of this sphere was 11⁄2 in. with no post-weld heat
treatment. Only preheat was performed during construc-
tion. The cracking was conclusively shown to be sulfide
stress cracking. The quenched and tempered OX602 was
not suitable material for this sour service. The surface
hardness of the plate exceeded Rockwell C22, the maxi-
mum hardness recommended for carbon steel materials
that are going to be used in sour service per NACE.
Our inspection frequencies are 5 to 10 years at our
various facilities, depending on the histories of the spheres.
Previous history sets the equipment inspection schedule
which reflects the inspection findings. In all facilities, wet
fluorescent magnetic particle examination is recom-
mended for detecting cracks. The first inspection includes
examination of all welds in non-stress relieved vessels and
10% of welds in stress relieved spheres. If no problems are
observed in non-stress relieved vessels, subsequent inspec-
tions are reduced to 10% of the welds.
Question 35.
Which inspection methods have been used for detect-
ing cracks in vessels in wet H2S service? What is the
frequency of individual weld inspection? Can the
cracking potential of the wet H2S environment be
determined from process conditions and laboratory
test data?
LEMMON:
Tosco refineries use visual wet fluorescent magnetic
particle, ultrasonic sheer wave and acoustic emission as-
sisted hydrotesting to examine vessels for wet H2S crack-
ing and blistering. The frequency of the inspection is
dictated by vessel service categories which are assigned
based on the cracking potential, consequence of failure,
and the inspection history.
Process conditions and laboratory data that we use to
categorize the cracking potential are as follows.
1. Wet conditions. Wet H2S cracking can only occur
if water is present in a liquid form.
2. Corrosion reactions. We are looking for H2S and
water in carbon steel service.
3. Cyanide. If the levels are greater than 20 ppm, there
is an increased risk of H2S cracking.
TOC/INDEX
We also look at the hardness of steel, any post weld heat
treatment, and other environmental stresses. All LPG
vessels are inspected on a 10 year maximum inspection
frequency, but some are done more frequently based on
risk.
SMITH:
I agree with everything that Mr. Lemmon has men-
tioned. We also use, of course, wet fluorescent magnetic
particle examination. Our inspection frequencies range
from as little as 2 years to the maximum of 10. We use the
NACE standard MR 0175 which has two graphs (one is
for gas and the other is for multi-phased flow) that are used
to determine when the environment is considered to be
sour.
KIMBRELL:
Our practice is to use the wet fluorescent magnetic
particle test, and our reinspection interval is dependent
upon what we have found. If we find no indications the
first time through, we will go as long as 10 years before we
reinspect. If we find something when we do the first
inspection, we will then inspect again at the next sched-
uled turnaround.
BARKER:
The 76 Products Company refineries have comprehen-
sive programs for inspection of pressure-containing equip-
ment in wet sulfide service. These programs inspect
pressure vessels for sulfide stress cracking and associated
hydrogen-induced problems.
At one refinery, some 200 vessels are in the program.
They have all received initial inspection or testing using
WFMT or hydrotest methods. Vessels are entered during
turnarounds and pressure boundary and attachment welds
are sandblasted for WFMT inspection. Our practice again
is to inspect 100% of the accessible welds. Equipment too
small to enter is hydrotested, usually to a pressure of 11⁄2
times the maximum allowable working pressure.
All linear indications are removed and rewelded where
necessary. Post-weld heat treatment is applied if cracks are
attributed to environmental factors or if the vessel was
post-weld heat treated during original fabrication. Where
defects are extensive and concluded to be of environmental
origin, replacement is made with the new vessel fabricated
of crack and/or corrosion resistant materials. Some 25
vessels of the 200 in our program have been replaced.
Regarding inspection frequency, our refineries follow an
in-house guideline that assigns a reinspection interval based
on the initial inspection findings, crack characteristics,
repairs made, heat treat condition, and various risk factors.
It is very important to note that we are convinced that using
process conditions, such as sulfide content and levels of
cyanides, is not useful in predicting cracking potential,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
since material parameters and fabrication techniques play
such an important role in wet sulfide cracking.
HASSAN MAGHAZEL (Saudi Aramco):
At the Riyadh Refinery, we implemented the wet fluo-
rescent magnetic particle test (WFMPT) injection tech-
nique in 1994 to detect cracks in the vessels utilized for
amine and caustic services. We found this technique to be
an effective tool for stress corrosion cracking detection in
H2S amine service equipment.
Question 36.
Discuss the strategies for monitoring and inspection
of old reactors to maintain safe operation? Other than
safety, are there any economic advantages to be re-
alized by replacing old reactors? Are there significant
advancements in reactor technology that can make a
replacement project pay out?
ARNDT:
We developed a detailed, long range inspection pro-
gram for each and every reactor. It is different for each
reactor depending on metallurgy, steel chemistry, operat-
ing history and design details. When I say long range, this
is an almost 20 year program. Some of the frequencies are
very long. We want to make sure that we do not drop
certain inspections down a crack. The inspection plans
include dye penetrant testing of the internal stainless steel
attachments and overlaid ring grooves. UT testing of
nozzle welds and all the shell welds are in the program.
Six years ago we retired two major hydroprocessing
reactors due to fire. The reactors had been in service for
20 years. We cut out large chunks for in-house and outside
testing. The tests were very extensive. We found no unex-
pected metallurgical damage.
The other key to maintaining reactor integrity is a
good, operating monitoring program and good control of
your start-up and shutdown procedures. That is where you
create most of your thermal stresses and you are most apt
to have brittle fractures.
I guess the other part of this question is, do you see any
significant advantages for replacing reactors? Based on our
metallurgical evidence, we do not see any significant ad-
vantage in replacing an old reactor with a new reactor, as
long as you are making it the same size. There may be an
economic advantage to replacing a reactor with a bigger
reactor to increase unit capacity, but even that is rare.
Thinking of newer reactor technologies reminds me
that some of our really old reactor internals, especially
some of the quench distribution and liquid distribution
devices, were actually better in the 1960s than they were
in the 1970s and mid 1980s. So sometimes being old is
not a penalty at all.
To further enhance our confidence, we are participating
in a joint industry project to study long-term metallurgical
51
TOC/INDEX
aging mechanisms, inspection techniques, and repair
methods. Participants include both refiners and major
reactor manufacturers.
BARKER:
Older reactors should at a minimum be inspected with
the same techniques and attention applied to other pres-
sure vessels. However, since the reaction vessels tend to
have thick sections, thermal fatigue and creep cracking
from high stress concentrations and thermal gradients
warrant use of crack detection techniques such as dye
penetrant inspection, magnetic particle testing and ultra-
sonic testing, in addition to routine visual inspection and
thickness measurements.
Reactors in high temperature hydrogen service exist
that are fabricated out of carbon-1⁄2 moly steel. These may
fall outside the current design recommendations for new
equipment and should be carefully evaluated for hydrogen
damage following the inspection recommendations of API
recommended practice number 941, “Steels for Hydrogen
Service at Elevated Temperatures and Pressures in Petro-
leum Refineries”.
KIMBRELL:
We agree very much with the previous two comments.
The only addition I would make would be that older
reactor materials need to be preheated slightly warmer
prior to pressurization than the newer reactor materials,
but they both need to be preheated.
LEMMON:
For carbon steel half molybdenum reactors, we also use
UT techniques. For other reactors, we do a baseline UT
and acoustic emission follow-up. I heard a success story
from another refiner; they replaced a hydrotreating reactor
with a larger reactor, went to mild hydrocracking and it
paid out for the reactor installation in 9 months. So there
can be some economic incentive to going to larger vessels
when you replace them.
SMITH:
Once high pressure reactors have exceeded their design
number of pressure cycles (we normally use around 50),
the vessel manufacturers are contracted to do a thorough
evaluation of the remaining lives. The techniques em-
ployed include: 1) acoustic emissions, either in an over
pressure or depressuring mode; 2) a full ultrasonic sheer
wave inspection of all the wells; 3) internal inspection
using dye penetrant on the bed supports; 4) UT compres-
sion probes to monitor for any overlay disbonding; and 5)
dye penetrant checks of the ring joint flanges to look for
service related cracking.
Our inspection departments also employ many of the
same techniques during each of the turnarounds to ensure
safe reactor operation. For cold wall reactors, they also may
52 General Processing
use infrared thermography prior to shutdown to identify
refractory/lining deterioration. This is followed up during
shutdown by visually inspecting suspect areas. And, of
course, as mentioned before, we use wet florescent mag-
netic particle to check for cracks. As Mr. Arndt and Mr.
Lemmon mentioned, we have not determined any eco-
nomically viable cases for reactor replacement for same
size. We have, of course, looked at reactor internal revamps
for economic reasons.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
Mr. Arndt, you mentioned the reactors of the 1960s
had better vapor and liquid distribution in comparison to
the reactors of the 1980s. Could you give us some insight
into that statement. Why did the reactors of the 1960s
perform better and what performance indicators were you
using when you made that statement?
ARNDT:
I did this on purpose to generate this question. This
may be more in-house in Chevron, but we had internals
where we collected everything and brought it into the
middle of the reactor, added the quench, mixed it up and
spread it all out again. Those worked pretty well. Then we
changed in the 1970s and we simplified things, we did not
collect everything. We tried to spread the quench out only,
spraying it “uniformly” as the reactants flowed down.
There was no internal mixing of quench and reactants. So
what I am saying is that some of the old reactor internals
are very close to the “new” internals technologies currently
available.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
What parameters were you evaluating when you made
that statement?
ARNDT:
Spread of radial temperatures.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
Could you define that spread? What is a good spread
and what is not a good spread?
ARNDT:
It depends on what kind of catalyst you have in there,
but as a rule we try to keep our radials within 25°F. Mostly,
they are much closer than that. We do operate at times
with high Delta T’s, but we do not panic too much unless
they are over 25°. But if reactor temperature limit is not
exceeded, light gas make is reasonable, and the reactor is
controllable.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
Is that 25° the difference between the highest and the
lowest at the same elevation?
TOC/INDEX
ARNDT:
Yes, between highest and lowest.
CHARLES McCOY (McCoy Consultants):
I know of two refiners that have replaced reactors for
economic reasons. As Mr. Kimbrell said a minute ago, older
21⁄4 chrome reactors required preheat to a much higher
temperature than modern reactors to avoid brittle fracture.
In these cases, the savings in start-up time was sufficient to
justify replacement of the reactors. I have to say that in both
cases senior management people admitted to me that they
had heard conflicting advice from metallurgists, and felt
more comfortable replacing the reactors anyway. But there
was, in fact, a payout based on decreased start-up time.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
I endorse most of the panel’s comments here and one
in particular, that each reactor is unique.
We have some reactors in the PEMEX Salamanca re-
finery in Mexico which were field fabricated. These reac-
tors are 3000 psig pressure vessels in heavy oil and
hydrogen service. Back in 1988, we did have a need to
examine the reactors and we brought in the original
manufacturers to perform the examination. We did ultra-
sonic testing and X-ray testing of all the canister welds
where the reactors had been welded in situ, together with
some of the more critical nozzle welds. We were looking
for disbonding and for cracks. The reactors were given a
clean bill of health. What we did was to set up an inspec-
tion program which was based on a 2 year cycle for reactor
inspection. It may sound fairly aggressive, but the reactors
had undergone quite a few pressure and temperature cycles
during their lifetime. We do track the life cycles, not just
the pressure cycles, but the full life cycle of the vessels. We
also performed a fatigue analysis at that time which indi-
cated that we had a lot of life left.
The remaining life seemed to outdate most of us, and
I think that if you do set up a program, minimum length
between inspections should be 2 years. The maximum, as
Mr. Arndt said, could be anything, up to 10 years or so.
But do look at the main canister welds and the main nozzle
welds as the areas most susceptible to cracking.
RICHARD M. NASH (Shell Oil Products Company):
I would like to report to the panel and the audience a
reactor failure we experienced earlier this year in one of
our cyclic catalytic reforming reactors. After I provide
details, I would like to see if anyone has had similar
occurrences and what sort of inspection techniques they
would recommend for this.
Shell operates seven 5-reactor cyclic reformers in North
America. They all have spherical reactors and they are all
hot wall design. Their design operating temperature and
pressure is roughly 1000°F and 350 psig. This failure did
not occur during process operation. Instead, it occurred
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
during the oxychlorination step of the regeneration. Also,
these reactors are all aged from initial service in 1964 to as
late as 1970. And in fact, it was a 1970 reactor which failed.
Basically, the conditions at the time of failure were about
120 psig pressure, 950°F bulk gas temperature going into
the reactor, and about 8% by volume oxygen in those gases.
A crack opened up about 19 in. long and about 11⁄2 in.
wide at the widest which was discovered when it blew the
external refractory and aluminum sheeting over that refrac-
tory off. Regeneration was immediately discontinued.
These reactors are only partially refractory lined and
that is only to keep the catalyst away from the reactor walls.
So there is a refractory liner from about 4 ft above to about
4 ft below a horizontal equator in these spherical reactors.
The crack began just below the refractory partial liner and
proceeded downward. It was not in a weld, but it was in
the heat affected zone of the weld.
Upon taking off the external insulation and inspecting,
about an 8 ft diameter section of the reactor was found to
be bulged outward. The split occurred at the greatest part
of the bulge. When we emptied the reactor, we found that
the refractory near the bottom was badly displaced away
from the wall and severely cracked.
Upon fully emptying the reactor, we found that there
was a coke ball about the size of a soccer ball which had
formed between the wall of the reactor and the refractory
resting on the bottom inerts. This coke ball, upon sub-
sequent examination, was almost pure carbon with about
0.2 wt% hydrogen. It transmitted electricity much like a
metal. It did have quite a bit of iron contamination in it,
about 1 wt%. There were a few, less than 50, catalyst pellets
found in the coke ball. The catalyst was of the former type
loaded in the reactor.
Upon inspecting the metal, our conclusion was that the
failure mechanism was third stage creep, indicating tem-
peratures of 1500°F or higher for what was described by
our metallurgists as several hundred hours. Upon further
inquiry, they concluded that it was anything from 50 to a
few hundred hours.
So, under those conditions the failure occurred. What
we have no explanation for, at this point, is why this coke
ball formed. We have 35 of these reactors in service and
we have never seen this happen before.
As additional background, the refractory was made of
the correct material, that is a low iron content refractory.
Thus, we were not encouraging coke formation at all, and
it had been in the reactor for about 20 years. It had been
patched a number of times, but there were never any major
failures. Furthermore, this reactor had been completely
emptied and inspected with the refractory intact only
about 1 year before the failure because we had changed the
catalyst system.
Basically, what we have done so far is put an array of
thermocouples on the lower hemisphere of the reactor to
understand the temperatures below the refractory liner
53
TOC/INDEX
where the failure had occurred. We have looked at infrared
thermal surveys externally and have also tried to do some
standoff eddy current inspection, looking for the forma-
tion of bulges in that reactor and others. We are getting
mixed results from this. And so our real questions are: Are
we using the best technique? And number two, has any-
body ever seen this kind of coke formation before?
ARNDT:
I think I would have to know more. We have bulged
two reformer reactors. Both were hot wall reactors and the
bulges were due to coke balls formed in low flow regions.
Two comments: 1) We limit regeneration O2 to 5%.
Maximum temperatures are proportional to percent oxy-
gen. I recommend you consider dropping the 8% O2 level.
2) Many of our high temperature caused problems have
been associated with situations when a lot of iron was
around. This may be a key.
RICHARD M. NASH (Shell Oil Products Company):
We do not have any kind of sheeting over that refractory
belly band. It is just raw refractory. There was a significantly
larger than normal amount of iron oxide found in the
catalyst bed. It was well filtered out at the top. We did not
see iron penetration through the catalyst bed, but a great
deal at the top. I might also report that we had had a rather
severe feed sulfur upset about a year before this failure
occurred where we measured 1200 ppm H2S in the recycle
gas on this reformer, which is more like a hydrotreater than
a reformer. We think that is probably the source of all the
iron particulate that we found in the reactor.
J.B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Regarding Mr. Nash’s comments, in the early days of
Platforming in Europe, there were many failures around
the concrete lining in the bottom of the reformer reactors.
Here in the United States we did not have many failures,
but then later on there were failures of the concrete
(refractory) in the bottom of reformer reactors in the U.S.
also. I think the reason for the failures was the composition
of the refractory itself. I actually inspected some of those,
and I got involved this year in a similar failure in Europe.
It was an old unit, similar to the ones that you explained.
Coke can form in and around the refractory, and the
formation of coke is apparently caused by cracking, which
is catalyzed by impurities in the refractory itself. That is
one possibility.
A very likely possibility is the method of loading cata-
lyst. If the catalyst is not properly dense loaded, improper
distribution in the reformer catalyst bed can, in fact, cause
coke balls. And, of course, when going to the oxychlori-
nation step, very high temperatures result because of the
increase in oxygen content. For every 0.5% oxygen in the
recycle gas, there is a 100° temperature rise of the gas. That
does not mean that the catalyst temperature is 100° higher.
54 General Processing
It is actually higher than that, because the heat is trans-
ferred from the pill itself into the gas.
So those are two known mechanisms, and it is not
unusual to find a coke ball in a reformer where there has
been a catalyst loading problem.
Question 37.
What techniques are used to inspect multilayer high-
pressure vessels (separators and reactors)? What is
the inspection interval?
SMITH:
As my colleague from Riyadh mentioned a minute ago,
our Riyadh refinery has two hydrocrackers. One is about
6300 bbl/d and the second is 27,500 bbl/d. The smaller
hydrocracker, the one he was talking about, has a high
pressure multilayer reactor, 7 ft diameter operating at 2200
psi and 850°F.
For these reactors, we visually inspect all internals and
perform dye penetrant examinations on internal cladding.
Externally, we shear wave UT to check for disbonding at
areas of internal attachments. Magnetic particle inspec-
tions are performed on the external attachments and
nozzle areas. Additionally, shear waves are performed to
inspect head and nozzle welding on these multilayer ves-
sels. Inspection frequency is 3 years. Shear wave inspection
is done every 8 years.
KIMBRELL:
We have limited experience with multilayer pressure
vessels, but we did have one overseas operation that had
three vessels of that construction. We inspected them
using sheer wave technique, primarily focusing on the
welds between the plates and on the plate to head attach-
ments. Our concern was plates shifting and causing cracks
to initiate in the welds. We inspected those vessels on three
separate occasions and never really found anything. We
based our inspection frequency on number of cycles, as
the unit was up and down quite a lot.
ARNDT:
We have 3 of these beasts left in our system. They are
just separators, which helps. We inspected the internal
weld seams between shell and head using dye penetrant or
wet fluorescent magnetic particle depending on weld met-
al. We inspect at every major shutdown.
SALAH DARDEER (Saudi Aramco):
In this connection, I would like to get the opinion of
the panel on the following questions. What is the best
method to check the integrity of the internal layers of a
multi-layer reactor? If cracks are observed at the outlet of
the first layer, what would be the best method to repair
these cracks? In our experience, we have noticed a crack in
the outlet layer near the heat affected zone of one of our
TOC/INDEX
high pressure vessels in the hydrocracking unit. This is an
old vessel that was put in service in 1973. What are your
comments?
Question 38.
What philosophies are applied for dead end and dead
leg inspection methods, frequency, inspection mag-
nitude (100% of spot check)?
KIMBRELL:
Our philosophy in inspecting dead legs and dead ends
was to try to identify each and every one of them and put
them on a separate inspection schedule from the piping
they were attached to. The concern that we had there was
accelerated corrosion due to condensation of water. In hot
streams there is a thermo syphon effect that can cause
accelerated corrosion. The best technique we have found
to inspect these areas is a complete 360° UT scan of the
piping.
LEMMON:
We also identify all dead legs and do UT inspections,
but because of the localized nature of corrosion in dead legs,
we use radiography in high risk areas. We have also found
that thermography can assist in locating areas for more
focused inspection, especially when refluxing is suspected.
Dead leg removal is initiated primarily due to the risk
associated with installation, such as the potential for freeze
damage or any other reason for accelerated corrosion.
SMITH:
The first priority is to avoid designing dead legs into
piping, but, where dead legs exist, a concerted effort
should be made to eliminate them if you can. Our stand-
ards require an operational flush procedure be developed
and implemented for all dead legs if possible.
Alternatively, all piping material can be internally
coated or manufactured from corrosion resistant material.
Those dead legs already in place are spot x-rayed to make
sure there is no corrosion. After X-ray, UT, ultrasonic
gauge points are assigned on all dead legs and readings are
taken every 5 years, as are all other UT gauge points. Only
if remaining corrosion allowance divided by the corrosion
rate gives a remaining life of less than 10 years would the
interval be reduced. Remaining life divided by 2 would
give the next inspection interval.
Data is processed on an on stream computer inspection
program. If corrosion problems start to occur, the OSI
program would flag this and the UT inspection frequency
would be increased accordingly. The program would also
show annual corrosion rate and the retirement data of the
piping. External visual inspections are carried out on an
as required basis.
In our oldest refinery at Ras Tanura, which has been in
operation since the 1940s, we have had a dead leg removal
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
program for the last 15 years. During this time, 2243 dead
legs totaling 624,000 ft have been identified, of which
458,000 ft have been removed.
ARNDT:
I agree with the previous comments. First of all elimi-
nate as many as possible. We have an intensive on stream
inspection program. The frequencies depend on the serv-
ice and the previous history. We attempt to do the inspec-
tions just before shutdowns so we can do something about
it if we find any anomalies. Like Mr. Lemmon said, we
prefer radiography, but we will also saturate the area with
UT scans. We include vessel bridles and relief valve take-
offs in this program.
Question 39.
What are the experiences with Acoustic Emission (AE)
on tanks for bottom plates leak detection/corrosion
condition monitoring?
LEMMON:
The Bayway refinery has used acoustic emission moni-
toring as a tool for evaluating storage tanks for bottom
leakage. The tool has also been successful in identifying
several bottom leaks. It also has been used successfully to
satisfy jurisdictional requirements for leak testing of a large
number of tanks. They do not use this technique for
corrosion monitoring. They do not think it is suitable for
that purpose at this time.
SMITH:
As a company, we are moving toward the use of acoustic
emission as a grading technique for setting and extending
tank expansion schedules. Six tank trials were run to deter-
mine suitability of this technique for our tankage. The
initial trials were very disappointing. However, it was soon
recognized that the evaluation criteria had to be modified
to focus on local corrosion. The technique is effective for
identifying holes with flow, active scale spalling and other
types of active corrosion, such as growing cracks.
As might be inferred, the technique is not effective for
no flow holes that might be blocked by scale or internal
fiberglass coating. To date, 50 tanks have undergone
acoustic emission evaluation from which inspection inter-
vals have been increased an average of 4 years.
BARKER:
One of the 76 Products refineries tried acoustic emission
testing to detect bottom leakage on 9 or so tanks several
years ago. None of these tanks was initially suspected to be
leaking, and none of the acoustic emission tests indicated
leakage. We have not done any further testing since that
time.
55
TOC/INDEX
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
One 12,000 ton refrigerated anhydrous ammonia stor-
age tank was tested on-line using acoustic emission tech-
niques. Reference is given to Ammonia Plant Saf., Vol. 28,
p. 66-75 (1988). The tank belonged to Eastern Nitrogen
Limited, Australia and the acoustic emission procedures
were developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization. They mentioned that
special attention was given to the wall to floor junctions.
The tank rested on solid foundation and probes could not
be attached to the tank bottom. Consequently, they could
not examine the whole floor, but only a 3 meter area from
the tank edge.
Question 40.
What inspection procedures and testing methods are
used for small bore piping and fittings?
KIMBRELL:
We have experienced a lot of problems in small bore
piping and small branch connections. As a consequence,
we ended up identifying every small branch connection
throughout our facilities; small is identified as being 2 in.
diameter and smaller. On a one time basis, we went
through and had them all radiographed.
We looked for poor welding techniques, missing seal
welds and inadequate thread engagement. We found a
little of all of that. We do not really plan to go through
that massive effort again, but all new construction is
subject to the same level of scrutiny just to maintain our
mechanical integrity.
LEMMON:
Radiography is the preferred inspection technique at
Tosco refineries. Because insulation removal is not re-
quired, sometimes radiography is most cost-effective.
SMITH:
Our Ras Tanura refinery has strict requirements for
inspection of 2 in. or smaller piping and their associated
fittings. Considerations include required examination of
threaded and flange joints along with checks to ensure
proper engagement of screwed fittings. Small bore piping
and fittings are tested and radiograph inspected on a
routine basis at least once every 5 years. Fittings 2 in. and
above are UT gauged on a 5 year interval. Fittings below
2 in. are radiographed instead of UT gauged at 5 year
intervals. Small bore piping is part of an on stream inspec-
tion program, and, as such, it is identified, tracked and
quarterly reported. Other refineries are setting up similar
programs and they will all be on a 5 year interval.
BARKER:
The 76 Products Company refineries rely heavily on
radiographic testing for inspection of piping in general.
56 General Processing
Ultrasonic thickness measurements are also taken. Small
bore piping is included in the piping inspection program,
and it is inspected exclusively by the radiographic tech-
nique. In our opinion, radiographic testing is the appro-
priate way to inspect small diameter piping, and one or
two radiographs reveal a large amount of information on
wall thickness and internal condition.
Question 41.
What type of reliability programs do p/ants have in
p/ace for their electrical equipment? What tracking
and trending is done in this area?
SMITH:
Again, at the Ras Tanura refinery, substations and asso-
ciated electrical equipment are provided with scheduled
preventive maintenance, on a 2-year cycle for minor pre-
ventative maintenance and a 4-year cycle for major pre-
ventative maintenance. Minor PM consists of visual
inspections of equipment and adjustments made as nec-
essary. Major PM activities include more thorough inspec-
tion, cleaning and testing.
An attempt is made to schedule major PMs to coincide
with the scheduled plant shutdown. However, this is not
always possible since many of our plants are on 5-year
schedules.
For these cases, if a plant has a double ended substation,
individual buses may be isolated on-line. All major PM
work, except for a tie breaker, is completed on the isolated
bus. Tie breakers are done during the turnaround. Major
PM work on a single substation is deferred until the
turnaround. Computerized records are maintained to
keep track of the work performed on each substation, but
no trending or predictive maintenance is presently being
utilized.
Several years ago, we installed operation counters on
approximately 200 medium voltage, which to us is 2.4 to
4.16 kV, E2 contactors in the refinery with the intent to
keep track of the number of contactor operations used in
TOC/INDEX
scheduling maintenance activities. However, because the
counters were directly wired to the E2 contactors, failure
resulted in contactor failures.
Following several nuisance trips due to the failure of the
operation counters, the program was abandoned and the
operation counters were deactivated. Our upgrade pro-
gram includes DCS status points (open and closed) for
these contactors, and consequently we plan to use plant
automation or information systems to perform this track-
ing function post refinery upgrade.
KOOIMAN:
The most successful program that I am aware of con-
sists of the following items. First, the transformer oil is
sampled and measured for the following 8 parameters:
dielectric strength, acidity, interfacial tension, color, vis-
ual, specific gravity, moisture, and dissolved gas. If the
values are out of range for any of these 8 parameters, then
the oil is reconditioned on-site. Second, vibration analysis
is done routinely on all motors. Third, infrascans are done
yearly to find hot spots in the electrical gear and high
voltage distribution components. Fourth, all starters and
switch gear are inspected and tested by Westinghouse field
engineers during shutdowns. Fifth, maintenance has a
preventive maintenance program where inspections are
performed at set intervals for all electrical components
from batteries to transformers. Finally, all motors over 300
horsepower have a surge test performed. This information
is used to predict failures.
HUNKUS:
For MAPCO switch gear and motor control centers, we
perform infrared surveys and correct hot spots as required
on an annual basis. Every 5 years we perform Hipot,
Megger, Ductor tests, and we also calibrate all trip devices.
We clean all compartments and vacuum dust as needed.
We perform oil and dissolve gas analysis on our transformer
on an annual basis. We also perform any manufacturer’s
recommended testing and paint as required every 5 years.
For high voltage cable, we perform Hipot, Dielectric Ab-
sorption, and Polarization Index tests every 5 years. For
high voltage motors, we check oil levels and clean filters on
a monthly basis. Every 5 years we perform Hipot, Dielectric
Absorption and Polarization Index tests. On suspect mo-
tors, we will perform a surge comparison test as required.
On all motors we perform IRD mechanalysis vibration
tests on a monthly basis. We have custom programs on our
large non-synchronous motors.
We have a double ended, double feed design with all
our motor control centers having two 100% transformer
and Bus systems with separate feeds and breakers with tie
devices. This allows us to operate on one system while the
other side is down due to failure or maintenance activity.
We also have our own substation tied directly to Tennessee
Valley Authority’s primary grid system. All our control
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
panels and critical safety systems automatically switch to
our uninterruptible power supply with a generator and
backup battery supply. We also have multi-LIN diagnostic
switch gear components on all our motors.
BARKER:
All of our electrical equipment is inspected on a pre-
scribed frequency varying from weekly to yearly as out-
lined below. We have a prescribed inspection plan for each
type of electrical equipment within the refinery. All rou-
tine and turnaround inspection reports are sent to our
electrical foreman for review, analysis and initiation of any
additional planned future maintenance, if required. Our
inspections include:
• 112 kV intertie transformers are visually inspected
3 times a week for adequate loading, temperature
within acceptable ranges, oil leaks, nitrogen blanket
leaks, and tap changer operation. Yearly inspections
include infrared and ultrasound inspection, sound
(decibel) level checks, dissolved gas chromatogra-
phy, oil quality tests, moisture and inhibitor content
tests, and check of the liquid power factor at 25°C
and 100°C.
• Distribution transformers’, 300 KVA and above,
yearly inspections include dissolved gas chromatog-
raphy, oil quality tests, moisture and inhibitor con-
tent tests, and check of the liquid power factor at
250°C and 100°C.
• PCB transformers are inspected quarterly for spills
and leaks.
• Overhead Power Distribution Lines’ yearly inspec-
tions include ultrasound and infrared tests, pole line
inspection, insulator high pressure washing, and
pole and hardware replacement.
• Underground Distribution Lines are inspected dur-
ing unit turnarounds and include Megger checks,
polarization index test, and AC/DC high potential
test.
• Substations are visually inspected 3 times a week,
loadings are checked, ground fault detectors are
tested and the battery banks are inspected. Ultra-
sound and infrared tests are conducted yearly. During
turnarounds the medium voltage circuit breakers and
main buswork are inspected. The protective relays are
calibrated, timing of autotransfer switches is checked,
and the low voltage circuit breakers are inspected.
• Power Generators have the battery banks inspected
quarterly. During turbine turnarounds, the stator
coils are inspected, the exciter diodes are inspected
and replaced, the stator is Meggered, polarization
index is checked, the permanent magnet generator
and control cabinet are inspected, and the control
relays are inspected and cleaned. Ultrasound, infra-
red, and partial discharge analysis tests are conducted.
57
TOC/INDEX
Question 42.
What control procedures are used for material identi-
fication specifically where alloy and stainless steel
materials are involved?
LEMMON:
All three Tosco refineries have a positive material iden-
tification (PMI) program for all alloy materials. This
includes getting the manufactures’ test reports and con-
ducting inspection of materials as they are received. We do
100% alloy testing using Texas nuclear analyzers and
spectrometers. We use the spectrometer for examination
of higher temperature carbon steel equipment looking for
silicon levels.
SMITH:
We also use the Texas Nuclear Metal Analyzers. On our
large upgrade project, we have a formal PMI program to
ensure that the nominal alloy composition is being cor-
rectly supplied for all pressure containing components of
piping and fabricated equipment. The focus of the pro-
gram is on the alloy components likely to be confused
during fabrication. These materials primarily include low
alloy steel being used in critical services for high tempera-
ture hydrogen, high temperature sulfur or low tempera-
ture service. The program allows the contractor to use a
number of X-ray emission devices to ascertain the compo-
sition of the alloy being checked.
The extent of the verification is as follows. 1) 10
exchanger tubes per lot, 2) 10% of furnace alloy tubes, 3)
all plates and piping components used in the fabrication
of a pressure vessel, and 4) all low alloy valves and piping
(less than 9 chrome).
A color coding system was also implemented for proper
materials identification on alloy material ranging from
carbon molybdenum steel up to 9 chrome 1 molybdenum
steel.
KIMBRELL:
We have a similar program. All alloy steels and stainless
steels are tested with a Texas Nuclear device as they come
into the warehouse. On new construction, we also do the
same sort of thing on all alloy materials. We have a training
program to explain to the new operators and new employ-
ees the importance of alloys in the different places, so that
they can help us keep that straight.
HUNKUS:
This is an important issue, since most of the day-to-day
materials used in a refinery are carbon steel. Where alloy
material is used/needed, a few simple procedures are exe-
cuted. Here is our current approach. First, the vendor is
required to provide material specification sheets on all alloy
components. Matching identification is attached to the
material itself so that this material can be tracked and kept
58 General Processing
separate, which serves as a key quality control technique.
Second, when the material arrives in the field, equipment
stamps are checked and material analyzers (i.e., Texas Nu-
clear Analyzer) are used on a spot basis to confirm the
material specifications. Material is then normally kept in a
separate lay-down area with Purchase Order and Job Num-
ber tags. We also usually have alloy material marked and
tagged by Iso and layout drawings. Third, once installed,
materials are spot checked (repeating step 2) again to
confirm proper material installations. Refinery Inspectors
or contract Quality Control resources are involved to make
sure the above steps are followed.
The most important thing to focus on is to keep special
material marked and separated. Everyone involved needs
to understand why it is important to use the special
material, and feel comfortable reporting problems. This
has a cost savings impact, but most importantly, you want
your alloy and other exotics to be used in the critical
services that require them.
ARNDT:
We have a very similar process.
BARKER:
All 76 Products Company refineries have one or more
Texas Nuclear alloy analyzer and formalized positive ma-
terial identification (PMI) programs for the receipt and
installation of new project and maintenance installation
of alloy materials. This includes materials entering our
machine shops that are used in rotating equipment repairs.
The program works, but we still receive mismarked com-
ponents, especially piping.
Question 43.
What is the philosophy and frequency of overhauling
pilot operated safety valves on high pressure service?
Has anyone experienced a major problem with this
type of valve? When should these valves be replaced?
ARNDT:
We do not like pilot operated valves in high pressure
service. We have carefully set them, installed them in the
field, and after a period in-service, brought them back to
the bench and found they can pop some 100 psi to 200
psi above set point. One of our refineries had a 500 psi
pressure excursion above set point without the valve pop-
ping. There has not been a single fault factor; we have seen
swelling O-rings, sensor line plugging, and sticking pis-
tons. Although we do not use them in high pressure
service, we do have some in lower pressure, very clean
service.
SMITH:
I agree with Mr. Arndt. These are things to be avoided.
Currently our highest pressure pilot relief valves operate
TOC/INDEX
at 450 pounds of pressure. Future service will include “no
flow” hydrocracker pilot valves at over 2000 psi service.
We have had major problems with pilot operated relief
valves. Of a total of 34 that we have in the Ras Tanura
refinery, 1 is on a 2 month testing cycle and 19 are on 6
month testing cycles. The remaining 14 are on nominal
12 month testing cycles. Every valve is completely disas-
sembled during testing and failed parts are replaced. The
relief valves tested at 6 month or shorter intervals have had
previous problems. Typical problems have included com-
ponent sticking and diaphragm rupture. Sticking resulted
from using the wrong grease on the seats and corrosion.
Broken diaphragms occurred when differential pressure
exceeded the pressure rating of the diaphragm material.
These valves on the spheroids had teflon diaphragms that
ruptured when differential pressure exceeded 1.5 psi. Pilot
valves should be replaced when they are no longer repara-
ble or parts are no longer available.
KIMBRELL:
We have had actually a different experience than that.
We have had very good performance from these pilot
operated relief valves in high pressure hydrogen service.
Our practice is to perform service on them at every
turnaround. The valves are complicated; operators need
additional training to make sure they are serviced prop-
erly. You also have to have them applied in the right
locations because small changes in temperature can affect
performance.
JOHN BERG (CENEX):
Mr. Arndt, what is the limit for high pressure where you
would not go to the pilot operated valves?
ARNDT:
We would not go to the pilot operated valves on any
high pressure hydroprocessing loop, and by that I mean
around 700 psi to 800 psi and above, usually with H2S
around. Our major problems were in isocrackers ranging
from 1500 psi to 3000 psi.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
Regarding the comment on the pilot operated relief
valves in high pressure service, we have them in our FCC
feed hydrotreater operating at 1200 psi in the cold sepa-
rator and they seem to be working all right. We have had
only minor problems with them. We have two and can
isolate one. They are on a common header and they can
be isolated so that one is always in service.
Question 44.
What is the experience of refiners in adding process
side filters specifically to increase the reliability and
run length of the unit? Where have the filters been
installed and how have they performed?
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
LEMMON:
We have found side stream filters to be essential to the
reliable operation of amine solvent gas treating systems,
especially the new MDEA systems. Side stream filters
remove particulates that have been proven to accelerate
corrosion, cause foaming, and foul exchangers and trays.
It has been a long uphill battle for our process people to
convince the maintenance and operations people that the
time and effort to do the filtration is worth it. I am proud
to say that our operations people now strongly endorse
filters in the MDEA systems. The filters in MDEA service
have reduced foaming and we are no longer injecting over
a gallon a day of concentrated antifoam.
We had a hydrogen plant that was rate-limited based
on amine performance that has now been debottlenecked
primarily due to filtration.
We have also used full flow feed filters in hydrocracker
feed service. The use of 5 micron paper element full flow
filters in combination with some other changes, like
graded catalyst beds, has extended the run length of one
unit from 6 months to over 3 years.
I also like to caution people that the back type flushing
filter elements typically do not remove fine particulate
matter until late in their cycle. So if you have a 25 micron
wound wire element filter, you need to be aware that the
25 micron gaps are going to pass a lot of small material
until they precoat with larger particles. We do use them
and like them for high temperature filter applications.
The refinery that I am stationed at has just begun an
evaluation of available filters. We have suddenly realized
that we are spending over a quarter of a million dollars a
year in filter elements. We are beginning to ask the ques-
tion, which is the most economical filter element, and we
are now testing different elements.
SMITH:
We are using side stream filters on amine streams to
control foaming and fouling. Our laboratory tests have
shown that the carbon filters are the most effective for this
purpose. However, most plants now only have precoat
filters to remove particulates which contribute to amine
foaming.
Laboratory checks have shown that carbon filters are
more effective since they also remove soluble foaming
agents including carboxylic acids and alkyl phenols. The
new DGA facilities that we are installing in Ras Tanura
will incorporate carbon filters.
KOOIMAN:
My experience has been mostly good as well. It has been
somewhat mixed, but I have to agree with Mr. Lemmon
and Mr. Smith on the amine plant. That is an excellent
use of filters. We also have filter separators upstream of
reciprocating compressors in the hydrotreating units.
59
TOC/INDEX
There are screens on the FCC main fractionator bot-
toms right upstream of the pumps. There was a lot of
pump disassembly that was required prior to their instal-
lation. Since the screens were installed, we have not had
to disassemble the pumps, and a 6 hour job has become a
1 hour job.
In another case however, filters were installed in a coker
to remove coke fines from the fractionator tower. That was
an effort to keep the tower from filling with coke. The
initial installation had filter elements that were probably
a little bit too fine. The engineer was transferred before
getting to work out all the bugs. I am not sure of the status
on that system anymore.
BARKER:
I echo the earlier comments and note that we have two
micron nominal size filters, cartridge filters and coalescers
on the feed to one of our hydrocracking units. The filter
micron size is somewhat important. We disagree with the
old rule of thumb that particles less than 20 microns will
pass through catalyst beds. That is not always the case.
Significant fouling can occur with smaller particles which
has driven us to the smaller 2 micron size filter.
FEARNSIDE:
We have run into a number of units that use filters.
Specifically to amine units, I have a quick rule of thumb
to determine the health of the amine unit in terms of
corrosion control. If your filter changeouts are at a fre-
quency of greater than once per month, you have a fairly
healthy unit. If you are within 2 weeks of changing out
your particular filter, you have a problem developing
somewhere and you better find it fast. If you ate less than
2 days between filter changeouts, you have a severe corro-
sion problem occurring somewhere.
The other places we see filters is typically on feed to
naphtha hydrotreaters or kerosene hydrotreaters to try
and mitigate reactor delta P problems or preheater ex-
changer fouling problems. Usually when we run into
60 General Processing
those situations, those filters are installed as a “band-aid”
to upstream corrosion problems and 90% of the time we
do find corrosion related problems upstream.
JOHN EMBRY (LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Company Ltd.):
The comment was made about the use of the filter
system on cokers. I have experience with three different
cokers that use filter systems on the bottom, and all have
been very successful in extending the runs of those units
and keeping the tower bottoms from filling up with coke.
We also have some experience in using filters on the feed
to hydrotreaters downstream of the coking unit, hydro-
treating the gas oils.
NEIL HOWARD (UOP):
Not being familiar with too many cases where people
have used 2 micron and 5 micron filters, I wanted to get
Mr. Lemmon’s comments on how often the cartridge
elements were needing to be change out? Was that just
vacuum gas oil feed to the hydrocracker or was there any
coker material in there?
LEMMON:
There are light coker gas oils in the hydrocracker feed
heading to those filters. They were originally installed to
remove FCC fines. We charge a lot of cycle oil to that
hydroctacker and some vacuum gas oil. The 5 micron
filters typically last about 2 to 3 weeks. If you have wet
feed the water has a tendency to cause the paper to swell
or in some other way plug the filter in 3 to 4 days. When
we get that short cycle time, we start looking for water.
On the particle size, I would agree with Unocal’s expe-
rience. We recently had a FCC feed hydrotreater run
shortened because the catalyst bed plugged after we
charged FCC decant oil to the hydrotreater. The decant
oil contained FCC fines of less than 0.3 micron particle
size which penetrated the filters and coated the catalyst
beds. We sent the decant oil to the hydrotreater early on
in the run, and the catalyst performance was poor from
the very beginning. So in hindsight, the fines caused bed
channeling almost immediately and eventually shortened
the run from plugging. I was shocked; I thought 5 micron
was the end all size filter that could stop anything and was
proven wrong.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
Mr. Lemmon, you mentioned Ronningen-Petter 25
micron filtration causing problems in FCC hydrotreaters.
That is what we have at our place with automatic back
flush. Could you elaborate on what your concern was with
this type of filter?
LEMMON:
As a young engineer many years ago, I was assigned to
evaluate hydrocracker feed filters and I did some test runs
TOC/INDEX
on back flush filters equipped with Johnson screen style
wound wire filter elements. What my test basically showed
is that the design of the Johnson screen makes it very
particle size sensitive. It is not a depth filter, it is an orifice.
Particles smaller than the orifice would penetrate right
through until there was a precoating of larger particles on
it. Then, after a precoat would build up, the filter would
plug up very rapidly as it would filter out the smaller
particles. So you need to think of the wound wire filter
elements as a very fine screen, but do not think of it as
something that might take out FCC catalyst fines or iron
sulfide.
I. Miscellaneous
Question 45.
What new techniques, other than steam air decoking
and shot blasting, are proving to be effective in clean-
ing fouled piping and furnaces, e.g., “pigging”?
ARNDT:
Pigging furnace tubes has become very popular in Chev-
ron now. We have pigged crude unit furnaces, coker fur-
naces, and high pressure hydroprocessing furnaces.
Obviously, the simpler your pass arrangement, the better.
In addition, you should really know the mechanical details
of your furnace tubes before you bring in the pigging
companies. Watch out for hidden temperature indicators,
lips on your header plugs, and the like. Bottom line, if you
have a very complicated pass arrangement, pigging may not
be the right answer. But we think it is the answer for those
with simpler pass arrangements. It has worked very well.
KIMBRELL:
I would echo those comments. We have used the pig-
ging technique to clean our coker heaters several times.
The performance of the pigging has been as good as a really
good steam-air decoke. Time to set up for the pigging and
for steam-air decoke is about the same. It has taken us
about 30 hours to do the pigging, and that is faster than
we can do a good steam-air decoke. So we think it is an
excellent technique.
LEMMON:
We tried furnace pigging for the first time about 2
months ago. On our first try, it was not a total success, but
we were encouraged enough that we will give it a try again.
What we are excited about is that we have a lot of return
bend headers with threaded plugs, steam-air decoking
burns the coke out of the threads, expands the joints, and
causes a lot of leaks. The vendor told us that the pigging
method does not cause the return headers to leak.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
PEGGY L. SIMS (UCISCO):
UCISCO provides the Innerclean Pigging Service.
Our experience with our customers is that a successful
pigging can produce lower start-up temperatures than a
steam-air decoke, as well as a more even distribution of the
temperatures across the unit which can result in longer run
lengths. We have several customers who are experiencing
significant increases in run lengths between cleanings. In
addition, while the pigging process is cleaning to bare pipe
wall, samples of the coke being removed can be retrieved
for analysis.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
I was wondering if anybody from the panel or from the
floor has used the nitrogen propelled BB shots for cleaning
furnace tubes, and what their experience has been with
that method compared to the pigging method?
ARNDT:
I am not an expert here, but we used various “blasting”
methods; nut shells, sand, BBs, etc. We prefer pigging over
shot blasting.
KOOIMAN:
A long time ago, we shot blasted the tubes. We used
BBs at the time, but the heater was so coked up that we
ended up plugging it with coke, and we had to go in.
Fortunately, we had the header design that allowed us to
pull off the plugs, and we ended up rattling those tubes. I
think that was almost 16 years ago. They have improved
the process since then.
I have not used the pigging, but we set up for it at one
facility and that offers a lot of promise.
There is one other technology though that sounds
pretty good. If you have the time to do the steam-air
decoking, TruTech will come out and set up and monitor
with, I believe, infrared to watch the progress of the burn
wave going through. That will avoid over heating and
expanding the plugs. They actually commit a dedicated
crew to watch it going all the way through. It sounds like
a pretty slick setup, but I have not had any personal
experience with that yet either.
ROGER BARTAKOVITZ (UCISCO):
We provide both the Sandjet® and the InnerClean
pigging services. One comment is that on the Sandjet®
response, we did learn a lot. We moved some metal around
the bends and since then we limited the linear velocities
and we do the calculations. We look at diameter changes
and look at linear velocities as steel is shot through the
heater. We got a good handle on that about 15 years ago.
In regard to Sandjet® versus pigging, one of the big
reasons I pushed the development of the hydraulic decok-
ing was that Sandjet® was good on the light end heaters.
It was good on HDS preheaters and those kind of heaters.
61
TOC/INDEX

It was generally successful on atmospheric crudes, but
seldom successful, because of diameter changes, on vac-
uum crudes and cokers because of the tenacity of the coke.
If you have a light ends heater that is set up for
Sandjet®, we prefer to go that way. It is quicker and it is
cost-effective. On the vacuum crude heaters and cokers,
we go with the pigging. They are two alternative methods,
and they both have their places in the market.
JOHN BERG (CENEX):
We used the same company with two different methods
on the same heater. The first one was the shot pellets and
we considered that a failure. Then we tried a couple of
years later with the pigging and had good success. It was
on gas oil feed to an FCCU.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
My question is regarding the furnace convection sec-
tion outside tube fouling. Can you do any on-line cleaning
when the furnace is in operation with chemicals or some
sort of mechanical cleaning?
LEMMON:
About what type of service are you asking the question?
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
Any furnace or particularly for a crude furnace.
continue to run until losing suction. Then steam is put into
the discharge of the bottoms pumps and the exchangers
and the lines are steamed to slop. During the turnaround
the bundles are pulled and hydroblasted on the wash slab.
And that is where the design comes in. We gave up a little
on efficiency but made a larger exchanger with square pitch
so the hydroblasters could clean it.
SMITH:
At our Ras Tanura refinery, the vacuum bottom ex-
changers are scheduled for cleaning and maintenance
every 5 years. In-place and shop cleaning have never been
used. Our normal practice is at shutdown the exchangers
are in situ washed with hot diesel (about 150°) for 2 to 3
hours following isolation. Once the black sludge and
residues are dissolved, the diesel is drained and the steam
applied to flush out the remaining diesel and loose resid.
This procedure is also used for taking asphalt exchangers
out of service. Because asphalt production in our plant is
batch wise, the procedure is successfully used 3 or 4 times
per year on these exchangers. At another facility, similar
procedures are also used except that diesel is circulated at
340° and circulated for 4 hours. In both services, if repairs
are required, the tube bundles are extracted after in situ
cleaning and shipped to the shop where maintenance and
inspections are performed. Scale and fouling are removed
by hydrojetting.

LEMMON:
For the outside of heater tubes, we have done water
jetting to spall off scale and dust. I was cautioned by other
panel members not to advise this for all heaters, but on a
crude heater we have been successful in removing scale
from the outside of the tubes using on-line water blasting.
I believe we were taught this method by maintenance
people from the local Shell refinery. Perhaps it is common
in the Shell organization.
ARNDT:
We recently cleaned the resid heat exchangers in each
of our three West Coast crude units. The cleaning was
done in-place. Turpene-based detergent was injected with
very hot water or steam into the exchangers. Resulting
on-line performance of these exchangers was very good.

Question 46.
What techniques are being used to clean bundles in
vacuum tower bottoms and asphalt services? What
success have they had with chemical cleaning outside
of the shell? What success with in-place chemical
cleaning?

KOOIMAN:
Well, in one case it came down to the shutdown se-
quence and the exchanger design when we were talking
about cleaning the vacuum tower bottoms bundles. In the
normal shutdown sequence, the crude oil is charged
through the unit and the products are sent to the slop oil
tanks as temperature is gradually reduced. Eventually, there
is a material looking a lot like the crude in the vacuum tower
bottoms. At the specified temperature, the crude charge
pumps are shut down. The vacuum tower bottom pumps

62 General Processing
TOC/INDEX

II. HEAVY OIL PROCESSING

A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking retain collar was then welded to the air ring itself. Half of
the test nozzles were drilled, tapped, back filled with
Mechanical Reliability Fermanite, grub screwed and welded. The latter back
filled retaining collar appears to be the most successful
Question 1. design. The problem was that the collars were installed in
What is the panels experience using ceramic materials the field and not correctly preloaded, so that air could
in the converter section of the FCCU? bypass the nozzle between the collar and the nozzle
resulting in erosion of the collar. The back filled ones did
JACKSON: not bypass the air. Based on this experience, another unit
We have been asked to introduce ourselves and I feel has modified its fixing techniques to ensure the integrity
happier doing this in the FCC Session. I have been in the of the new installation by preloading the ceramic nozzles
oil business for 15 years, 7 of those with BP and 8 of those in the workshop and only leaving a single backing plate
with Foster Wheeler out of London. I drifted into cracking weld to the existing air ring. A number of alternative
with Foster Wheeler. I have worked in the Middle East, designs have been developed by ceramic companies. The
Europe, Scandinavia, the U.S. and Australia. I am now the following pictures show the ceramic nozzles before and
manager of FCC refinery support in London. After after installation.
Christmas, I will return to Australia as Asset Manager for
half the fuels part of our Perth, Western Australia refinery.
BP Oil has three refineries, at present, in the U.S. We
have six in Europe at the moment and we ate taking over
the running of all the BP and Mobil refineries in the recent
joint venture. We have a refinery in Singapore, two in
Australia, one in New Zealand, and one in South Africa.
All of these, apart from the New Zealand refinery, are
cracking refineries.
BP has had mixed experience in using ceramic parts in
the FCCU converter section. We have used ceramics in
the following locations:
Regenerator air distributor two stage nozzles
Regenerator cyclone internals
Third stage separator underflow critical flow nozzles
Reactor stripper baffle nozzles
Orifice chamber tube linings
Critical flow nozzles in continuous catalyst unload-
ing systems

Two Stage Nozzles

A number of our units have installed ceramic nozzles
in the regenerator air distributors. One unit has installed
two designs and methods of attachment in selected loca-
tions around an air ring to test the suitability and success
of the designs and techniques used. The experience with
this test has clearly indicated the importance of the nozzle
fixing to the air ring. The design used fiber washers
beneath the nozzle, between the nozzle lug and the air
ring and on top of the air nozzle, between the nozzle and
the retaining ring. The retaining ring was machined and
contoured to mirror the shape of the ceramic nozzle. The

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 63

TOC/INDEX

Regenerator Cyclone Internals

We have installed various linings within regenerator
cyclones that have been ceramic parts. The addition of
ceramic parts was in addition to design modifications. We
tried to deal with the cause, high velocity catalyst laden
gas, and with the effect, erosion resistant material.
Locations where we have actually installed ceramic
parts have been in regenerator cyclone dust bowls and
diplegs and on vapor outlet tubes. One was very success-
ful and one not so successful. The lower section of the
cyclone dust bowl was lined with preformed ceramic
overlapped tiles. In the cone and top of the dipleg, a two
piece ceramic insert was used that, again, over lapped.
These were held in place using a backing of Sureflow
refractory. These were installed in 1994 and have been
very successful to date; one swoop down allowed inspec-
tion of the cyclone internals. Pictures III.A.1.1.3, 4 and
5 show the 3 cyclone dust bowl cones having their ceramic
tile, fitted, the plan view of one cone and the inside of the
cyclone once reinstalled.
The vapor outlet tubes were less successful. They were
installed as three pieces; a single tube piece, and a two part
ceramic collar. The collar was held in place with a 304H
SS retaining ring and the ceramic collar back filled with
refractory in situ. At the same swoop down, two of the
ceramic tubes had cracked and one was totally dislodged
and another one was partially dislodged. The third was in
position and working as designed. The post mortem con-
cluded that the main reason for the failure was that the
cracks made in the initial installation of the tubes weak-
ened the tubes resulting in their failure. Again, workshop
preloading of the tubes prior to installation might have
been the way to proceed.

Third Stage Separator, Reactor Stripper and

Orifice Chamber
These designs are well known throughout the refining
industry and, again, the fixing and installation techniques
used are paramount to the success of the devices’ opera-
tion.

Erosion Resistant Bend Linings

These have been installed in the catalyst transfer lines
around a third stage separator and have been successful to
date. These are shown in pictures III.A.1.1.6 and 7 show-
ing the ceramic lining and the completed piping items.

Continuous Catalyst Unloading Systems

The latter design is used by licensors and three refiners
that I am aware of and has been very successful.

Materials
For the first two designs discussed above, we have used
zirconium alumina. We would use either this material or
the silicon carbide ceramic materials without any problems.

64 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX
Both are acceptable to BP and very resilient to erosion as
determined by the ASTM C-704 testing method. Results
show erosion rates of much less than 1 cm3, whereas the
very best refractories are typically 3 cm3 to 4 cm3 by the
same test. The companies BP would use are SEPR, Core-
hard and Carborundum.
Conclusions
Based our experience using ceramics to date, we would
consider using ceramics in the FCCU on each installation’s
own merit. The key learning aspects of BP are:
The ceramics attachment to the parent metal
Preload the ceramics in the workshop (controlled
environment)
Services using ceramics should not be in tension
GENTRY:
To reiterate some of what Mr. Jackson has said, ceramic
materials have been successfully applied onto various in-
ternal components and shells for increased protection
against erosion. Some common ceramic applications have
been as air dome lining, air distributor distribution noz-
zles, cyclone inlet horns and even slide or plug valves.
Ceramics, such as alumina, silicon carbide and zirconia,
have exceptional strength at high temperatures, so they
have a wear resistance advantage over metals at FCC
operating conditions.
Their main drawbacks are that they are also very brittle
and have a low coefftcient of expansion. So they are subject
to cracking when attached to internal low chrome or
stainless steel elements which have much greater thermal
expansion. Ceramic costs have decreased over the past few
years and are now generally competitive with hard surfac-
ing materials.
BILL WILSON (Caltex Petroleum Corporation):
On the ceramics, we have an old unit where the spent
catalyst still flows through the air distributor grid in the
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
regenerator along with the large portion of the regenera-
tion air. We put silicon carbide inserts in this unit some
years back. They have held up extremely well under this
very demanding service.
Question 2.
What best practice would refiners recommend for
reliable slurry metering?
JOHNSON:
UOP has been specifying a close coupled DP cell to the
orifice plate in slurry service for many years. The orifice is
eccentric to prevent catalyst accumulation on the bottom
of the line, and the connecting piping is vertical and of
minimum length, with the DP cell being located above
the orifice plate. This arrangement has been successful,
with few problems reported.
LEMMON:
We use a standard orifice plate arrangement for slurry
service. The only difference from what UOP has recom-
mended is that we have used side mounted taps, but we
always flush both the upstream and downstream taps. I do
want to caution people about using fresh feed for flush. If
you have a high naphthenic acid feedstock, you could get
corrosion of the taps.
JACKSON:
I concur with Mr. Johnson. We have used close coupled
DP cells very successfully with the eccentric orifice plate.
One type of instrument that we have also used has been a
Coriolis meter from Micro Motion. We have used that in
one of our Australian refineries to great effect.
From BP’s experience, close coupled DP cells with
heavy insulation and tracingwith an eccentric orifice plate
would appear to be the best practice for slurry (and fresh
feed) metering.
65
TOC/INDEX
We have reviewed the whole of BP’s FCC refining and
the following indicates the types of installations we have
across the group: Classical Venturi’s, Dall Tubes (shortened
venturi), Orifice plate, Eccentric Orifice plate, Taylor
wedge, Flow Element, Quarter Circle Orifice Plate. The
impulse line has been everything from uninsulated to
insulated only to insulated and traced.
Most of our refineries purge the impulse lines with cycle
or gas oils, although some have attempted to close couple
the transmitter to the element without purging, with
mixed success.
The mixture within BP has been a consequence of the
contractors or the refineries’ preferred practice. The refin-
eries themselves have varying qualities of heat tracing,
installation and maintenance practices. The result is that
the sites have experienced quite different reliability and
performance from what would appear to be similar instal-
lations.
The best practice is based on an eccentric orifice (with
the hole at the bottom) which is installed in a horizontal
line. The transmitter (DP cell) is not flushed and is
mounted as close as possible directly above the line, ac-
counting for the transmitters operating temperature lim-
its. The impulse lines from the transmitter to the line
should slope down into the line with no pockets. Gravity
then ensures that the solids in the liquid are kept out of
the impulse legs and the transmitter. This is the opposite
of the normal liquid duty transmitter practice of mount-
ing the transmitter below the orifice.
BP has also found that using DEKORON-jacketed
impulse lines has proven a very effective solution for
non-flushed transmitter impulse lines on vacuum residue
duty and should be directly transferable to slurry service.
Other technologies that have been considered and, in
some locations, used on less arduous service are as follows:
• Coriolis Meters — As mentioned earlier, these have
been installed in BP refineries on cracker feeds.
Again, the installation and maintenance of these
instruments is crucial to their success. These are
considerably more expensive than the orifice instal-
lations described above, but are supposedly more
accurate. Micro Motion instruments have been used
at our sites.
• Vortex Shedding Devices — These are in-line bluff
body devices and susceptible to erosion, but prob-
ably not much more than orifice plates. They require
fully developed turbulent flow to work and are
limited by fluid viscosity and operating temperature.
Our experience on FCCs is very limited and not very
encouraging.
• Ultrasonic Devices — These appear more promis-
ing, although we have not used them directly on
slurry or FCC feed service. They are non-invasive
and have ’clamp-on’ applications. They are more
accurate (±1%) than orifice plates, but are limited
66 Heavy Oil Processing
by the transducers operating temperature; most are
limited to 250°F to 300°F, (120°C to 150°C) with
Controlotron’s being limited to 375°F (190°C).
BARKER:
We have had acceptable service from an orifice plate.
For good readings, both taps to the differential pressure
cell must be flushed with light cycle oil, or equivalent,
supplied through a small restriction orifice.
DAVIS:
I agree with the rest of the panel. I might also add that
one of the best practices is to keep the BS&W as low as
possible in the slurry.
Question 3.
What is the experience with the back wash filters
versus electrostatic filter in terms of efficiency, ease
of operation and recycle rates back to the reactor?
JACKSON:
BP has a number of slurry cleanup installations, filtra-
tion, electronic and hydrocyclone type devices. The ques-
tion here specifically excludes the latter.
BP has 4 sites (5 if you include a site receiving engineer-
ing service from BP) with filtration type systems and 2
sites (3 if you include a different site than the one above,
also receiving engineering service from BP) with electronic
systems. The filtration type devices are from Pall Filtration
and Mott Filtration. There is a third supplier who supplies
the Vacco Etched disc filtration technology.
Our experience with all of these technologies is good
after some teething troubles at some sites. The problems
have been predominantly associated with:
• Units producing substantially different flow rates
and properties to the original design specified to the
supplier by the refinery, contractor or licensor.
• The amount of solids in the slurry has also been an
issue at some sites because it was different than the
original design.
Once these issues have been resolved, the units have run
well and predictably. One site has had no problems from
day one of the filters’ start-up. This was specified and
project managed by the refinery and included the process,
operations and maintenance personnel throughout, as
well as the experiences from another BP installation. There
were no surprises.
The Gulftronic Separators started to get an unreliable
reputation about 10 years ago. This was addressed by the
company and the service supplied by Gulftronics has been
good. Our two units work reliably and predictably in our
refineries.
The efficiency of the units across the group is very
similar for each device with efficiencies of between 90%
to 98%, depending on the unit’s loading and on-time
TOC/INDEX
frequency. The material captured is, at best, all material
greater than 10 microns (certainly greater than 20 mi-
crons) for all technologies.
All the devices require a recycle, typically to the reactor
riser. Most use LCO, HCO or fresh feed. BP has tried,
wherever possible, to minimize the impact of recycling
cycle oils back to the riser by using fresh feed as the carrier
material. We do consider having the facility to back flush
with cycle oils paramount to enable the filters and glass
bead columns to be soaked and cleaned if a particularly
difficult slurry material is processed. All the refineries
except one recycle the backwashed material back into the
riser via a separate recycle nozzle placed above the fresh
feed nozzle. The one recycles the material back to the fresh
feed nozzle. The nozzle is a modern nozzle with internal
and to date has not seen severe erosion. We watch with
interest.
We would install either 3xl00% units or 4x50% units
to ensure complete integrity of the system. We would only
drop to 2xl00% or 3x50% units if it was acceptable to
bypass the whole system at times.
The Gulftronic device has very low pressure drop op-
eration, down to as low as 15 psi (1 bar), but requires
upstream cooling to 450°F (230°C).
The filtration systems have a much higher pressure
drop requirement, which can be as high as 100 psi (6.9
bar). This can be made considerably lower if required. In
some installations, this requires new rundown pumps or
booster pumps and the downstream exchangers then have
to be reviewed and protected as necessary.
Pall, Mott and Gulftronics have the largest number of
refinery installations for slurry cleanup and all are accept-
able to BP.
Whenever we look at a new slurry cleanup installation,
we always look at both the filtration and electrostatic
systems. The decision is made based on total project
operating and maintenance costs of the electrostatic versus
the filter option and then a secondary review of the
filtration suppliers if this technology is selected as the
cheapest for the specific location.
It must be said that Pall Filtration has recently showed
excellent support on an issue associated with one of our
filtration installations.
G. RAY FRITSCHE (Chevron Gen. Atomics):
At present over 40 electrostatic separators are installed
for de-ashing slurry oil. Electrostatic separators are pro-
ducing FCC slurry oil with less than 10 ppm particulate
material. Not only are the large particles captured, but also
the 1 micron and smaller particles are removed.
Electrostatic separators are usually installed in FCC
slurry oil rundown lines. They are controlled using small
computers and require no operator attention. They utilize
a scrubbing action which keeps the internals clean and
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
permits 5 years continuous service. The electrostatic sepa-
rator does not need to be shut down for periodic cleaning.
The recycle of HCO and LCO to the FCC reactor is
normally minimized because of the impact on coke make.
The electrostatic separator can be back flushed with raw
feed oil which is then injected into the riser without an
increase in coke make. The electrostatic separator has a low
15 psi pressure drop and does not require booster pumps
or surge drums for operation.
JACKSON:
Just one feedback on all the filters and the electrostatic
separators that we use. I did a survey of the panelists. We
were getting somewhere between 90% and 98% solid
removal. All the material was being removed except
maybe the less than 10 micron material out of most of
them, with one of them we were getting everything except
less than 20 micron material, but certainly all meeting the
specifications.
Safety and Environmental
Question 4.
Has there been any success using a fire eye or flame
rod as a safety shut-off on a direct fired FCC air heater
rather than stand by operator observation for start-up
and continuous operations?
HUNKUS:
All the catalytic crackers I have worked on have relied
on standby operators during start-up and intermediate
on-line use for unusual operations. Even now with the
availability of flame detectors, multiple temperature
probes and remote shutdowns on the structure and on the
board, we still require an additional operator on continu-
ous standby duty whose responsibility is to periodically
check the air heater and respond if needed and also to
check the heater during any process change to verify
proper operation.
We feel that there is a significant safety advantage in
having an operator “in the loop”. Finally, we cannot
recommend continuous operation of in-line air heaters of
conventional design as proper or in-line with unit optimi-
zation.
JACKSON:
BP has a variety of systems, old and new. The consensus
across BP is that the use of flame detectors is useful enough
to be installed on the air preheater, but should not be tied
in to the shutdown logic. Experience has indicated that
spurious trips at start-up are a nuisance.
BP would not recommend running the air preheater
continuously. If refiners perceive this as necessary then the
whole FCC operation should be reviewed (see response to
67
TOC/INDEX
questions 8 and 9 in this section). Any continuous fired
heater should have flame detectors, but again should not
be tied in to the shutdown logic. Other protections ensure
the safe operation of the heater.
Assuming that the air preheater is only used intermit-
tently, the best practice appears to be having the following:
• Low fuel gas pressure trip
• Low air flow trip
• High air temperature trip
• Flame detector alarm
• Trip shuts the fuel gas valves
When selecting the type of flame detector, BP uses a
violet flicker type device. These appear to give the best
all-round performance. We used to recommend ultraviolet
detectors for gas flames and infrared detectors for oil
flames, but we still had problems from time to time.
“Ionization” devices have also been considered, but reli-
ability due to dampness, dirt and electrical signal interrup-
tions (insulation breakdown) would not allow us to
recommend these devices.
Some of our sites still man these air preheaters around
the clock when they are operating to observe the flame via
the viewing port. This tends to be at older FCC units that
do not have the recommended shutdown systems. The
new units that do have the shutdown systems rely on the
trip logic and alarms, plus occasional operator observa-
tion, to monitor the air preheaters operation. The tem-
perature indicators downstream of the preheater and
upstream of the regenerator are another good indication
of the status of the flame.
ARNDT:
All of our air preheaters are equipped with fire eyes. We
still use a fire watch for all start-ups. We have one excep-
tion. The new unit in Richmond has a Triconics automatic
shutdown system that shuts down on loss of air blowers
and high or low burner pressure, high outlet temperature,
and loss of flame. It is a 2 out of 2 voting logic. The hope
is to wean ourselves away from fire watches, but that has
not happened yet.
GENTRY:
Refiners have reported mixed results in this application.
Some have experienced no difficulty, while others have
discontinued their use because of frequent unwarranted
shutdowns. The key element to a successful application is,
naturally enough, proper placement of the fire eye toward
the pilot and burner. Contributing factors to reliable
operation are (1) an adequate air-to-fuel mix so that the
burner flame is not uneven or erratic and (2) ensuring
before start-up that the eye lens is clean.
BARKER:
We have never used fire eyes or flame rods during
start-up; we require an operator to stand by. We do not
68 Heavy Oil Processing
recommend automatic devices for start-up applications.
The regenerator is much like a fired heater with one major
difference. If the flame went out undetected on a fired
heater, it is possible that an explosion could occur once
sufficient fuel has accumulated and an ignition source is
found. Fired heaters are designed with explosion doors to
release the pressure without destroying the heater. How-
ever, a regenerator is an enclosed vessel that does not have
explosion doors. When the air heater goes out, someone
must be present to immediately shut off the fuel to
prevent an explosive mixture from accumulating in the
regenerator.
In theory, once the regenerator temperature is nice and
hot (approximately 1000°F or more), and held at that
temperature by some other heat source such as torch oil
or coke, and operator standby is no longer required. At
this point, if the air heater goes out, the fuel will be burned
with the torch oil or the coke when it enters the regenera-
tor. Since no unburned fuel can accumulate in the regen-
erator, an explosion will not occur.
Question 5.
On start-ups, can we commission the FCC ESP before
lining out the unit?
BARKER:
Yes, if you start up in a complete combustion mode of
operation with excess oxygen in the flue gas since there is
nothing explosive in the flue gas. However, those units that
start up in either the controlled afterburn or the partial
burn modes of operation should line out the unit first,
since they can have carbon monoxide in the flue gas which
could possibly produce an explosion in an energized elec-
trostatic precipitator.
ARNDT:
For environmental concerns, we commission our ESP
first, before charging catalyst. We minimize the risk of an
explosion by manually turning down the maximum volt-
age setting. We add a little ammonia to “grease” the
precipitator to reduce flue gas opacity when catalyst is
charged. And we have well thought out and understood
emergency procedures in case we get in trouble.
JACKSON:
The main concern with operating the FCC ESP before
lining out the FCC unit is that an explosive mixture of
hydrocarbons or CO will be present in the ESP and set off
an explosion due to sparking.
One full burn unit in BP operates with the flue gas
passing through the ESP without the FCC being lined
out. They put the ESP into a “stand-by” position where
everything is set up, but the ESP remains electrically
isolated. The PRT is then started, the catalyst loaded, and
heating is commenced. The catalyst is then circulated and
TOC/INDEX
the feed introduced. Once stable operation is achieved on
the FCCU, the unit is in full burn as indicated by the CO
and O2 analyzers on the regenerator flue gas lines, the ESP
is energized, but with the ESP electrical controller
detuned. This ensures a gradual increase in the electrical
current to the ESP until it reaches its sparking operation.
This particular unit does not have a bypass around the
ESP.
Another unit in the U.S. starts the ESP operation much
later. They ensure that the convertor is circulating and the
pressure balance around the system is stable when the wet
gas compressor is commissioned. Shortly afterwards, the
CO boiler is lined up to take the regenerator flue gas. At
this time the ESP is still bypassed. Once the CO boiler is
considered stable, the ESP is lined up to take the fully
combusted gas and is gradually heated. The ESP only
receives flue gas when the flue gas is at a minimum of
300°C and gradually heated to an operating temperature
of around 500°C.
In conclusion, with the correct start-up procedures, key
outs, and isolations, the ESP can be lined out to the
regenerator flue gas prior to stable FCC operation. The
ESP should not be energized until the flue gas it receives
is fully combusted, by either the regenerator or the CO
boiler. Otherwise an explosion in the ESP could result.
KIMBRELL:
Our CO boiler has the ability to have supplemental
firing. We do energize the ESPs prior to lining out the FCC
unit and have procedures in place to trip the ESP off-line
should the CO go up high enough to overwhelm the
supplemental firing.
LEMMON:
Our California refinery is located in a particularly
sensitive to visible emissions geographic area. To minimize
visible emissions, they typically energize the precipitator
before they begin loading catalyst. Normally the FCC CO
boiler is already on-line and its flue gas is going through
the precipitator, but the regenerator flue gas is bypassed
around the CO boiler and goes directly to the precipitator
until the unit is lined out. The unit’s precipitator is large
enough to allow start-up on half of it while the other half
remains blinded and in reserve. Be particularly careful
during the introduction of torch oil. You may want to shut
off the precipitator power if you cannot be certain that the
torch oil will ignite immediately. You could have excess air,
a sparking device, and the possibility of fuel all at the same
time.
The Bayway Refinery does not have an ESP but they
do have a wet gas scrubber (WGS) for regenerator offgas
treating. In their start-up procedure, they do not put
regenerator offgas into the WGS until they have estab-
lished regenerator bed level and have begun the process of
catalyst circulation. They delay the start-up of the WGS
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
in case an episode of excessive catalyst carryover were to
occur, which could negatively impact the WGS unit’s
reliability. They do, however, have the WGS on-line well
before putting oil feed to the reactor.
Question 6.
What methods do refiners use to dry out their FCC
main fractionators on start-up? What are the critical
steps of this operation and what should be monitored
to insure a smooth start-up?
HUNKUS:
We use a fairly standard combination of low point drains
from the heavy cycle, light cycle and naphtha pumps and
circuits, switching pumps, and stroking valves and by-
passes. After steaming, we begin cascading raw oil down
the fractionator, inventorying the overhead receiver with
naphtha, circulating the bottoms circuit on raw oil and
backing steam through the slurry generators to provide heat
to drive the water up the tower. We do this at low pressure
and heat the bottoms up to about 315°F to 340°F.
With a little experience, you can tell if you have water
coming out of the bottoms or not and when you have the
bottoms hot enough. Do not forget that a little water in
the flush will cavitate your bottoms pumps. A little water
in a spare pump or a bypass line can wreck your entire
tower, especially if you put it into the bottom of a hot
tower.
JACKSON:
After steaming out the main fractionator at start-up,
our refineries use similar, but subtly different, methods of
drying out the column and associated systems.
All vent valves are fully open, as are the drain valves.
The unit is warmed up and brought up to 15 psig (1 barg).
Fuel gas is brought in and the pressure maintained at 7
psig (0.5 barg). As the steam cools the pressure drops.
LCO connections have their blinds removed at the
battery limit and the column and circuits filled. The LCO
is then circulated and the system is heated using high
pressure steam via the pumparound exchangers. All the
low point drains are checked for water. The bottom of the
tower is heated to 250°F to 265°F (120°C to 130°C) using
the pumparound heating. Once well above 212°F
(100°C), the heat up is ramped 45°F to 55°F/hr (25°C to
30°C/hr). When the column base is at around 320°F
(160°C), the LCO is slowly flushed out and fresh feed is
added. The overhead is filled with naphtha from the crude
unit, and fill drum and return lines, as well as the secon-
dary absorber. All the time low point drains are checked.
The heat continues at the same rate until the bottom
temperature is at 645°F to 660°F (340°C to 350°C) and
the main fractionator is ready to go. All the way through
the warm up procedure, and even now, the low point
drains are checked for water.
69
TOC/INDEX
On one of our bigger FCCs flushes the main fractiona-
tor with cold feed from the top of the main fractionator,
then out the bottom and back to tankage for water sepa-
ration. When the drains have stopped pouring water, the
oil is heated using the fired preheater and the flushing
continued from top to bottom — feed drum, through the
heater to the top pumparound and the return nozzle. This
way the feed system and the main fractionator are dewa-
tered, dried out and heated up.
The critical steps in the operation are:
• Steam out everywhere and long enough to get the
air out of the system.
• Drain all low points.
• Fill the system with either LCO or fresh feed.
• Circulate and keep draining.
• Heat up the circuit and keep draining.
• Fill the overhead systems and keep draining.
• The main rules are drain, drain and then drain again
and use the circulating hydrocarbons to displace the
water rather than heat to drive the free water out.
KIMBRELL:
We use the same technique. We bring in fresh feed
through the feed heater and then back out to tankage.
KOOIMAN:
My experience has been to operate without a feed
heater, similar to that described by Mr. Hunkus. The big
thing again is to drain the low spots of the water.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
We are using the same procedures. Regular draining of
water from each circuit, heavy naphtha, light naphtha,
LCO, and HCO and from whatever low point drains there
are, including the drains of pumps and the spare pumps.
We find this draining very satisfactory.
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
I have had experience in starting up FCCUs using
steam anywhere from 100 psi up to 650 psi, and that is
quite a temperature range to be dealing with. Quite
frankly, when I have used 100 psi steam, it did not seem
to make any more difference than when I have had the
really hot stuff. So, I just wondered if it is time for a reality
check, and whether we go through all this effort for a
legitimate purpose. True, it does get the oil in the bottom
of the main column, but is it hot enough to do any good?
Could it be perhaps that when you start circulating cata-
lysts, and put steam to the riser, that you are heating that
20 psi steam up to about 1000°, and that is what really
affects the dry out of the main column?
HUNKUS:
I agree with most of what you say. Our high pressure
steam is 150 psi. We do not have 600 psi steam. I will tell
70 Heavy Oil Processing
you that we had problems when we tried to use a lot of
riser steam with a new start-up procedure after a reactor
modification, and pulled our system down to about 115
psi. We could not get our bottoms pumps to run properly.
What we found was that we could not get the water out
of the bottom of the tower with the pressure balance that
we had and our ability to heat up the bottoms. We had to
get the pressure on the main column down well below 10
psi then and put a third slurry steam generator on-line,
backing steam through it.
So it is a pressure, temperature relationship and if you
do not drive the water out of the bottom of the tower, you
may find your bottoms pumps will not pump. If you
cannot circulate the bottom circuit, you are not going to
be able to be sure that you are not going to put water in
the main column. Having a column that has had the trays
ripped out of it is not pleasant. I want to caution anyone
on your “reality check”. Systems are different, and you
need to fully understand all the reasons and differences
before you recommend changes.
Question 7.
Has anyone had experience with sulfate formation in
a full burn unit using SOx removal additives? What has
been done to minimize sulfate formation if it impacts
the opacity limit?
ARNDT:
We recently commissioned a new UOP combustor-re-
generator replacing a Model IV regenerator and its CO
boiler. Initially, we witnessed sulfate plume which was
generated outside the stack and was not picked up by the
opacity analyzer in the stack. We now avoid sulfate plume
formation by watching our SO2 levels carefully, and main-
taining them quite low by using a SOx reduction additive.
We also rigidly control oxygen levels.
BARKER:
Several years ago we used to use quite a bit of DeSOx,
and we cannot find any record or are not aware of any
sulfate formation problems associated with this operation.
Our current operation, with our gas oil hydrotreater in
service, does not require use of DeSOx.
LEMMON:
Sulfates (SO4) are likely the result of reactions involving
SO3 in the regenerator flue gas.
The Bayway refinery had a sulfate problem (in partial
combustion mode) so they investigated using SOx reduc-
tion additives to reduce SO3-to-SO2 ratios. They learned
from the manufacturer that the standard SOx reduction
additive consists of two active systems, one part is a sulfur
oxidation promoter that is trying to increase the SO3/SO2,
and the second part is a “SO3 capture agent”.
TOC/INDEX
They ran a test using a special SOx additive that did not
have the SO3 promoter added. They wanted to capture
the SO3 that was naturally present, reasoning that this
would reduce the potential for sulfate formation. They
found that the SOx additive did reduce the total sulfur
being lost from the regenerator. However, they did not see
a significant change in the SO3/SO2 ratio and did not see
a significant change in the stack sulfates.
A full burn regeneration will tend to have a higher
SO3/SO2 ratio in the first place. The combination of this
fact and the SOx additive promoter functionality makes it
possible that a full burn unit with a SOx additive could
have more of a sulfate problem than an untreated unit even
though you would have expected the opposite.
If we were running a full burn unit and wished to reduce
sulfates, we would try to reduce the excess O 2 in the
regenerator flue gas. This should reduce the SO3 being
produced. The downside here is if SO2 is the unit con-
straint then you will capture less of the sulfur input to the
regenerator with your SOx capture additive, so you could
trade an opacity issue for an SO2 issue.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
In response to Mr. Lemmon, we have seen sulfate
problems in partial burn units. We believe a two particle
SOx additive system will help minimize or eliminate this
problem. A two particle additive is currently being tried
commercially.
We have also seen the sulfate problem in full burn units,
but generally this is due to mechanical or operational
problems. One suggestion is to try operating the stack at
a higher temperature.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
We have used deS0X additive to reduce SO2 emission,
but we have not yet checked SO4 formation. In which area
would the sulfate be deposited, in the CO boiler area or
in the stack? How do you correct the opacity problem?
MODERATOR:
No comment.
Regeneration
Question 8.
When an FCC feed is hydrotreated, the delta coke
declines significantly. How can the resulting tow re-
generator dense bed temperature be controlled or
raised? Can the continuous use of the air preheater be
employed?
HUNKUS:
Some of the obvious things are slurry or heavy cycle
recycle, reduction of reactor stripping steam, higher
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
pressure on the reactor, reduced feed preheat, controlled
addition of non hydrotreated feed, “hotter” more aggres-
sive catalyst and some residual feed cracking; not to
mention increasing charge rate to the FCC. Some of these
actions are quick fixes, but economic optimization will
require careful evaluation. More charge, higher conver-
sion, more active catalyst, adding heavy feed and running
for octane top our list.
The air preheater may seem to be a solution, but safety
considerations would seem to make this undesirable. I
would recommend against this practice with a traditional
air heater design and instrumentation installation. It
would also seem that a more economical way to exploit
this unit opportunity can be found.
JACKSON:
I agree with most things that Mr. Hunkus said bar one;
that is I would not use stripping steam as a control of
regenerator temperature. We have had problems resulting
from this practice. First, it depends on the regeneration
mode the unit is operating in. In partial burn, the regen-
erator can operate at low temperatures quite stably (as-
suming feedstock quality is stable). Temperatures as low
as 1220°F to 1240°F (660°C to 680°C) have been com-
mon and stable. The problems associated with running
in partial burn at low temperatures are usually associated
with the efficiency of the regeneration step and the carbon
on regenerated catalyst (CRC). This has not been a
problem at low regenerator bed temperatures, even
though the regenerator bed temperature has an effect on
the combustion kinetics. We have found that the selec-
tivity of the unit is affected detrimentally at CRCs above
0.4 wt% based on one of our European FCCUs running
in partial burn (experience between 0.15 wt% and 0.6
wt% CRC).
In full burn, the only problem we have seen is the
afterburn, but it can usually be controlled by CO Pro-
moter.
71
TOC/INDEX
That said, we do not run any of our FCCUs with fully
hydrotreated residue and have sold off our last refinery
running hydrotreated feedstocks last year to Tosco.
There are a number of possible ways of raising the
regenerator bed temperature, but let us redefine the fact
that regenerator temperature is proportional to delta coke.
With that in mind the methods that can be used are listed
below.
• The old method of recycling slurry to the riser is a
sure way to increase the regenerator temperature, but
at the expense of conversion and selectivity. We have
also fed vacuum residue to our units that have room
to move on regenerator bed temperature and limited
fresh feed availability. This too will raise the regen-
erator bed temperature.
• Increasing equilibrium catalyst (Ecat) activity, by
increasing fresh catalyst additions, increasing fresh
catalyst activity/surface area or by using additives
with very high surface area, effectively do the same.
All these will increase the Ecat, MAT and surface
area and the delta coke and, hence, the regenerator
bed temperature. The refinery may hit other con-
straints in the main fractionator and gas recovery
unit, because all of the above will increase the unit’s
conversion too.
• Recycling spent catalyst to the reactor riser will also
increase the unit’s delta coke and regenerator bed
temperature. This principle is implicit in the UOP
X-Pot technology and is ideally suited to very clean
feed, low delta coke (short contact time riser cracking
and riser termination devices with efficient feed noz-
zles) operations. BP has examined the technology and
process closely. Contact UOP for further details.
The following are a number of unit operations that BP
would suggest refiners consider carefully before under-
taking.
• Reducing feed nozzles dispersion steam. To see any
delta coke effect by reducing modern, high efficiency
feed nozzle steam, the steam has to be substantially
reduced, so much so that the integrity of the feed
nozzles would be in question (catalyst ingress and
erosion). The yield selectivities would also be very
badly affected.
• Reducing steam to the main stripping ring is not
recommended as mentioned earlier. The effect will
increase the delta coke of the operation by allowing
hydrocarbons to pass into the regenerator, increasing
the hydrogen in coke and hence the apparent delta
coke. This will create a number of potential unde-
sirable effects, such as increased catalyst hydrother-
mal deactivation and compromised integrity of the
steam ring. One of our units in the U.S. reduced
steam to their stripping steam ring and experienced
severe catalyst deactivation that took over a month
to fully recover.
72 Heavy Oil Processing
• Using torch oil rapidly deactivates the Ecat in a unit
and should only be used at start-up and restarts.
• From a catalyst deactivation point of view, using the
air preheater to heat up the regenerator bed is pref-
erable to using torch oil. The main concern is the
safety of this operation as a continuous operation.
Some sites still have start-up procedures requiring an
operator to sit by the air preheater viewing port and
ensure a flame remains present. This is with a much
lower regenerator temperature, too. We have esti-
mated the effect on one of our FCC’s. With a
1100°F+ (600°C+) regenerator temperature, the
consequence of continuously feeding flue gas from
the air preheater into the regenerator needs to be
carefully considered. From a “normal” regenerator
bed temperature of 1250°F (676°C) and a preheated
air temperature of 750°F (400°C), the regenerator
bed temperature will be elevated to 1283°F (695°C);
for a preheated air temperature of 1112°F(600°C),
the regenerator bed temperature will be elevated to
1310°F (695°C); and for a preheated air temperature
of 1470°F (800°C), the regenerator bed temperature
will be elevated to 1340°F (710°C). This would
effectively increase the regenerator bed temperature.
Obviously, increasing the regenerator bed temperature
will decrease the catalyst-to-oil ratio and affect the yield
selectivities adversely. Consequently, BP recommends that
one of the first set of options above are considered based
on the particular unit’s feed options, constraints, hardware
and capital expenditure constraints.
HUNKUS:
I wanted to clarify that I was not recommending raising
the pressure or reducing stripping steam. Those are things
that are obvious, but what you are doing is burning
product in the regenerator. There are better ways to opti-
mize the unit.
KIMBRELL:
Feed to our FCCU is 100% hydrotreated. We have been
able to control the regenerator temperature by using a high
surface area, high rare earth catalyst, and it does not take
very much addition. That is about 0.5 wt% of the inventory
per day addition and it seems to work out fine. We have
tried some of the other things that Mr. Hunkus has men-
tioned and we agree there are more economical solutions.
LEMMON:
First off, lower generator temperature is a good thing
from a catalyst deactivation standpoint. So you need to
ask yourself why you are asking this question. We have a
fully hydrotreated unit that operates at about 1240°F in
full combustion and the partial combustion unit operates
about 1270°. This is good for a catalyst’s life. But each
refiner needs to explore the unit’s capabilities.
TOC/INDEX
Some units are unstable and they have a tendency to lose
combustion. Basically, the kinetics become unfavorable.
Unit operators need to know that a rapid introduction of
feed tends to drop the regenerator temperature suddenly,
and they need to be prepared equally to cut feed rapidly if
they see the regenerator temperature plummeting.
If you are operating in partial combustion and you see
the regenerator temperature dropping, you certainly
would not want to add torch oil. So the operators need to
know how to respond to a loss of regenerator temperature.
At our hydrotreated feed unit, we choose to recycle
slurry oil or heavy cycle oil to increase regenerator tem-
perature if need be. The preferred route is to go up on
catalyst activity. When you recycle slurry, you are basically
making coke and some LPG feed for the alkylation plant.
While continuous firing of the air preheater is possible,
you need to have a plan for what you are going to do when
the preheater burner fails from extended use. How are you
going to restart the unit, for instance, without having an
extended shutdown to go in and fix it? Also, if you are
already out of regeneration air, firing the preheat burner
is just going to force you to cut rate.
BARKER:
We have a few examples to quantify some of the moves
recommended earlier. First, on raising the feed tempera-
ture, every 100°F increase in feed temperature increases
the regenerator dense bed temperature by about 20°F.
Second, in terms of raising the reactor temperature,
every 3°F increase in the reactor temperature increases the
regenerator dense bed temperature by about 2°F. However,
there are limitations to how high one can raise the reactor
temperature, so this move is not very practical if you want
to increase the regenerator dense bed temperature quite a
bit.
Third, once the unit is fully up and running, one can
increase the temperature of the combustion air to increase
the regenerator dense bed temperature. The mass flow
rates of both the air and the feed are about the same,
however, the specific heat of the air is about a third that of
the liquid hydrocarbon. Increasing the air temperature
will have about a third the impact as increasing the feed
temperature. That is, every 100°F increase in combustion
air temperature will increase the regenerator dense bed
temperature by about 6°F. However, as this is done, the
pressure drop through the air grid increases and one may
end up running out of air blower capacity.
GENTRY:
The other panelists have covered all of the points well.
I just wanted to reiterate a couple of them. The easiest ways
is to increase regenerator temperature are often the worst.
Torch oil or reducing stripping steam rate are not good
solutions to controlling regenerator temperature, because
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
these practices hurt catalyst activity while negating the
improved coke selectivity.
With regard to air heaters, air heaters are one of the
more hazardous aspects of FCC operations. FCC air
heater firing should be limited to unit start-ups.
Question 9.
What problems have refiners had operating regenera-
tors at low temperatures? Is the problem any different
for two-stage regeneration systems?
JACKSON:
As with the previous question, it depends on what
mode of regeneration the regenerator is operating in —
partial or full burn.
In partial burn, the operation at low regenerator tem-
peratures is not a problem. The FCCU operations pre-
1970 had regenerators operating in partial burn, CO2 to
CO ratios around 1.0 and very low regenerator bed tem-
peratures. The carbon steel internals were usually the limit
and most units kept below 1150°F (620°C). The afterburn
was controllable, 20°F to 30°F (10°C to 15°C). The main
concern was, and still would be, the carbon on regenerated
catalyst (CRC). The units ran between 0.2 wt% and 0.5
wt% CRC. Today, with the new air and spent catalyst
distributor designs, modern catalysts, flue gas analyzers,
and advanced control, the operation can be made control-
lable and stable. With sufficient temperature probes in the
regenerator bed, the burn in the bed would be monitored
by the operators who have claimed to be able to monitor
the “flame front”.
In full burn the operation can be a little more problem-
atic. The excess oxygen will result in afterburning, which
becomes the constraint in most units. The afterburn can
be controlled by use of CO promoter (refer to question 10
in this section). The operation of the FCCU in full burn
at low temperatures is a function of:
• Efficiency of regeneration (oxygen residence time
and partial pressure in the catalyst bed, regenerator
bed temperature, catalyst and air distribution, etc.)
• CO Promoter efficiency (quantity, accessibility, etc.)
• There are no additional problems encountered with
two stage regenerators and temperature increases that
can be considered as discussed in question 8. The two
stage regenerator is particularly flexible when a vari-
ety of feedstock types are being run. The distribution
of the burn simply has to be between the two regen-
erators. If the CO boiler on the partial burn unit of
a two stage, two flue gas regenerator (SWEC & IFP)
is designed for sufficient auxiliary firing, to cater for
the refinery steam balance needs, the two stage system
can be operated in partial and full burn or both in
full burn. If the flue gas ducts and CO boiler are
configured and designed correctly, both regenerators
can be operated in partial burn, too.
73
TOC/INDEX
KIMBRELL:
I agree with Mr. Jackson. We did see an excessive CO
afterburn problem. Our complete combustion unit bed
temperature dropped and we solved that with additional
CO promoter.
DAVIS:
This problem is most likely dependent on the specific
unit in question. At CENEX, lower regenerator tempera-
tures usually initiate a regenerator slide valve low differen-
tial alarm necessitating some move to improve that.
GENTRY:
Units operating in complete CO combustion may ex-
perience excessive afterburning while operating with low
bed temperatures. The breakpoint is unit-specific, de-
pending on the quality of air and spent catalyst distribu-
tion and the CO promoter activity of the FCC catalyst
inventory. Some units have operated well in complete CO
combustion with bed temperatures of 1220°F, while other
units have afterburning problems even with high bed
temperatures.
Catalyst circulation capability can also limit the ability
to operate at low regenerator temperatures. Lowering bed
temperature causes increased catalyst circulation rate for a
given feed and reactor temperature. As catalyst circulation
rate increases, catalyst control valve differentials decrease,
primarily due to increased riser pressure drop. Optimiza-
tion of disengager-to-regenerator pressure differential and
optimization of standpipe aeration can help maximize
catalyst circulation capability, but at some point the con-
trol valve differential and/or control valve opening will
limit the ability to further reduce regenerator temperature.
These comments also apply to two stage regenerators.
BARKER:
Our 76 Products Company FCCU has had problems
with higher catalyst circulation rates, lower differential
pressures across slide valves, and temperature instability in
74 Heavy OiI Processing
the regenerator (we operate in a complete combustion
mode). Use of a CO promoter will help both the tempera-
ture instability and the slide valve differential pressures,
but it increases operating expenses.
To deal with these problems, one can use torch oil
(which is tough on the catalyst), slurry recycle (which
creates gas), or a CO Promotor (which is expensive).
We have no experience with the second part of this
question.
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
In the late 1970s I was associated with a catalytic
cracker in Roosevelt, Utah that ran a very light paraffinic
crude. Normal operation was running with maybe a
1075°F regenerator temperature with about 1 pound pres-
sure drop across the slide valves. We were forced into using
torch oil essentially full time to get the regenerator up to
1100°F just to maintain a stable operation.
It was about that time that CO promoter came along.
We tried that with just phenomenal success. It moved the
regenerator temperature up to about 1230°F, and gave us
about 3 pounds differential across the slide valves. As far
as I know, that is the only full burn regenerator that did
not have stainless steel internals.
PAUL FRITZ (Pennzoil Products Company):
The refinery at Roosevelt, Utah that was converted to
full burn in the early 1980s without putting in stainless
alloy did result in damage to the cyclones. All stainless
alloy was put in that regenerator in the mid-1980s. So it
was not a success in terms of full burn without stainless
internals.
LAWRENCE A. LACIJAN (UOP):
We would normally consider a low regenerator tem-
perature to be a real opportunity to make some process
changes, as the panelists said. UOP has developed a novel
process concept called the X-design where some reactor
catalyst is recycled to the bottom of the riser. This effec-
tively increases the riser catalyst-to-oil ratio without put-
ting any increased load on the stripper or the regenerator.
The combined regenerator and reactor catalyst is remark-
ably selective and in many cases has an activity nearly equal
to the regenerated catalyst itself.
In addition to the increased conversion and improved
yield selectivity, one of the results of this scheme is that
the delta coke increases, bringing the regenerator tempera-
ture back up to the comfortable combustion range.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
We feel that stripping steam rates should not be used
at all for controlling the regenerator temperature because
it will result in lower liquid recovery. There are so many
other variables, like reactor temperature, that you can
successfully use to control the regenerator temperature.
TOC/INDEX
We have tried CO promoters also to increase the regen-
erator temperature.
JONAH SMITH (TRIADD FCC Additives):
I just wanted to remind everyone of Question 7. With
the use of the excess promoter in situations like this, you
have to consider what might be happening to your SO3-
to-SO2 ratio. You could be solving one problem and
causing another.
Question 10.
Before the advent of complete CO combustion in the
regenerator, the regenerator would operate at a
CO2/CO ratio of about 1.0. In the mid-70’s the opera-
tion was converted to complete combustion. Now we
are considering operating with a CO2/CO ratio of be-
tween 3 and 10. Please discuss the best possible
method to control this operation, if combustion pro-
moters are necessary and at what level, and whether
too much promoter will lead to high carbon on regen-
erated catalyst.
LEMMON:
Our Bayway refinery operates with a CO2 to CO ratio
of 2.5 to 4 and our Avon refinery operates in partial
combustion occasionally. Both units utilize on-line CO
monitors in regenerator offgas and make minor adjust-
ments to blower air vents to keep the CO within target
range. The range of CO they can operate with is controlled
by CO boiler limitations, both on the high and low range
of CO, regenerator temperature targets, and high and low
carbon on regenerated catalyst limits. I agree with what
Mr. Jackson said earlier, we find that CRC up to 0.35 wt%
is fine. If you go over that, you rapidly begin to see a loss
of catalyst selectivity.
When we are operating slightly in partial combustion,
we do see higher afterburning. If the regenerator dense
phase is below 1300°F, we do add promoter and we do see
some benefit. At our California refinery, the regenerator
does not respond well to CO promoter; afterburn tends
to increase to as high as 80° when we are in partial
combustion.
If a combustion promoter is used, it should also reduce
the maximum CO that can be run before reaching catalyst
regeneration carbon limits. Afterburn, in itself, is not a bad
thing. If it does not uneconomically reduce cyclone or
catalyst life, it may allow you to run more rate or severity.
As with a lot of things, these answers need to be found out
for your specific unit.
HUNKUS:
There probably are many FCCUs that are successfully
running in partial combustion. Possible adverse effects
associated with partial combustion include afterburning
and higher carbon on regenerated catalyst (CRC). After-
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
burning is generally not a problem in a regenerator with
adequate air/catalyst distribution, but your adequate pro-
moted unit may turn into an inadequate partial combus-
tion unit. One particular FCCU with only a mediocre
air-to-catalyst ratio runs a “cool” regenerator, about
1250°F, without combustion promoter, and sees only
40°F of afterburning. Higher carbon on regenerated cata-
lyst (CRC) is likely, but may still be profitable if margins
on incremental throughput are favorable. One of the
catalyst companies, Grace, has a relationship between
CRC and microactivity. It shows a decline of 5 MAT while
going from 0 wt% to 0.3 wt% CRC. My experience on
10-plus FCCUs is that once you get below 0.24 to 0.18
carbon on regenerated catalyst, depending on your distri-
bution system and your catalyst system, you probably have
gotten 90+% of the yield advantage associated with run-
ning low carbon on catalyst.
Recall that MAT numbers are generally reported after
burning off any residual coke, so they may not represent
the activity which the FCCU will see. In this type of partial
burn operation, it is very important to match the catalyst
to the unit.
We also believe the relationship of CO2 to CO to be a
strong function of vanadium content of the equilibrium
catalyst. Obviously, this is more pronounced on resid
crackers or in crackers like ours that crack very long resid.
We run with high metals on an AKZO-based catalyst
system and, for us, a cold regenerator without promoter is
in the 1200°F class. We also have run as high as 1460°F.
This may be an area of lost knowledge in your organi-
zation. You may have an entire shift of operators, engineers
and supervisors who may not ever have knowingly run in
partial or non-auto promoted, incomplete combustion.
We had that experience after our 1995 turnaround when
we started up with very clean catalyst because of a larger
inventory, due to unit modifications, and a 150°F cooler
regenerator from a much improved stripper we got from
Stone & Webster. We had a 200°F afterburn, and I am
talking about the difference in the dense phase versus
cyclone outlet, for 1 or 2 hours before I realized that we
had dropped out of promote, plenty of time to visualize
what might be wrong on the inside of the regenerator.
JACKSON:
We have a number of FCCUs that operate in partial
burn operation in the range of 1.0 to 3.0 CO2 to CO ratio.
To ensure you can control the CO2 to CO ratio in your
partial burn FCCU, it is very probable that you will have
to use CO promoter. The promoter will control the after-
burning in the unit by pulling the burn back into the
regenerator bed. The higher the CO2 to CO required in
the flue gas, the more promoter will have to be added. The
dense bed temperature will rise and the carbon on regen-
erated catalyst (CRC) will fall.
75
TOC/INDEX
One of our residue units that has high metals on the
Ecat (very high Ni) operates with a CO2 to CO ratio of 3
to 4 with no promoter.
If too much promoter is added, the effect will not be
increased CRC, as stated in the question, but decreased
CRC (clean it up) and increased bed temperature.
One of our partial burn units sees no yield selectivity
deterioration for a CRC from 0 wt% to 0.4 wt%. Above
this, 0.5 wt% +, the selectivity is affected. They only ever
get into this operating spiral when they cut back on the
air to try to decrease the CO2 to CO ratio. With the
feedstock run, the regenerator geometry, hold up and
air/catalyst distribution, they can achieve no higher than
6 vol% CO in their flue gas.
If the FCCU has variations in feedstock quality, the
refiner should keep the CO promoter as a separate particle
and not inclusive on the parent catalyst. If the feedstock
changes and the controls or operations group does not
react quickly enough in reducing feed and increasing air
slowly (if the feedstock becomes heavier), then the CO
promoter will have to be added to enable the burn to be
brought back into the regenerator bed and the CO2 to CO
ratio increased, and hence, the CRC reduced or at least
manageable (less than 0.3 wt%). Almost all of our refin-
eries have the CO promoter as a separate particle, and even
the ones with impregnated promoter have bags of pro-
moter in reserve.
Our dosage levels vary from 15 lbs in 300 tons (1 lb of
promoter/20 ton of Ecat inventory) to 4 kg in 65 tons
(1 lb of promoter/8 tons of inventory).
One interesting point is that one of our refineries ran
out of CO promoter. It scared the operators so much that
every operator has a bag of CO promoter in his personal
locker in the changing rooms. That only ever happens
once.
JOHNSON:
Operating the regenerator at a 3 to 10 CO2 to CO ratio
is similar to a conventional partial CO combustion opera-
tion, except that a higher level of combustion is used. The
resulting dense bed temperature will be higher, and usually
combustion promoter is required to maintain the CO
combustion. Although it is possible to use too much
promoter and cause the available oxygen to be consumed
directly to CO2 and leave a high level of carbon on the
catalyst, it is not very common. Only enough promoter to
keep the CO combustion in the dense bed should be used.
This would be about 1 ppm platinum, based on catalyst
inventory.
BARKER:
One of our engineers operated a unit this way several
years ago and found it to be a very stable operation. He
noted the regenerator was about 2% oxygen deficient. A
CO promoter was tried and there did not seem to be any
76 Heavy Oil Processing
measurable difference between when it was used and when
it was not. During this time, they noticed no increase in
coke on the regenerated catalyst when it was being used.
GENTRY:
Refiners who run with a CO2 to CO ratio in the range
of 3 to 10 are usually using platinum combustion promot-
ers in what is sometimes referred to as partially promoted
operation. The operation is controlled by adjusting pro-
moter addition, to keep the temperature in the dilute
phase afterburn and carbon on regenerated catalyst in the
desired range. Constraints include metallurgical tempera-
ture limits on air grids, cyclones, and downstream equip-
ment such as expanders and third stage separators. Many
units also have minimum firing requirements for the CO
boiler which limit the amount of CO combustion done
in the regenerator.
Most partially promoted units run with carbon on
regenerated catalyst between 0.1 wt% and 0.2 wt%. Care
must be taken to avoid over promoting the operation. It
has been found, in some units, that too much promoter
leads to preferential combustion of CO, which starves
carbon burning and can lead to a buildup of carbon on
regenerated catalyst.
In addition to the above, the addition rate of promoter
depends on other factors, such as platinum content of the
additive, regenerator residence time, metals on catalyst,
and type of catalyst in use.
We are aware of two partially promoted units running
a flue gas CO2 to CO ratio of 7. The larger inventory unit
of the two uses 0.05 lb/day promoter per ton of catalyst
inventory. The smaller inventory unit uses 0.13 lb/day per
ton of inventory.
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
In the late 1970s, another catalytic cracker I was asso-
ciated with was in Farmington, New Mexico. We used to
practice a technique of going back and forth from com-
plete combustion to partial burn depending on where we
wanted to run the unit. This FCCU had been relocated
from Winnipeg, Manitoba, where the elevation was much
lower than in Farmington. Consequently the main air
blower could not keep it in complete combustion at its
design feed rate of 5000 bbl/d. We could run it in complete
combustion up to about 4000 bbl/d. If we wanted to go
higher, we had to be in partial burn above 4500 bbl/d.
Between 4000 and 4500 was kind of no man’s land. We
would make this transition by simultaneously increasing
the feed rate and cutting the air, or vise-versa.
As we went back and forth, we called this going across
the hump, the dense bed temperature in the regenerator
on both sides was about 1320°. As the regenerator was
moved from one side of the hump to the other, the
temperatures would get up to 1420° to 1450°F at its apex.
TOC/INDEX
If you are going to do this, you need to learn to get through
that regime fairly quickly.
I tried the CO promoter as Ms. Barker mentioned, but
I did not see any difference as we were making these
transitions.
JOSEPH W. (BILL) WILSON (Caltex Petroleum Corp.):
Well, the gentleman from Unocal stole half of my
response. I was going to warn people about the transition
range. There has been some comment about the effect of
carbon on regenerated catalyst on the effective activity
inside the riser. I have an equation that can be used to
estimate this effect:
Effective Activity = MAT - 5.05 (CRC) - 5.081 (CRC)2
Question 11.
With increasing superficial velocities in the regenera-
tor dilute phase, 4 fps or greater, what have refiners
done to lower dilute phase catalyst entrainment?
JACKSON:
A number of options are available to minimize the
catalyst entrainment in the dilute phase of the regenerator
and reactor vessels. Most of our concerns about catalyst
entrainment in BP FCCUs have been in the regenerator
side of the convertor, as we have installed short contact
time disengaging devices in the reactor vessels. The bulk
of the hydrocarbon products and dispersion steam is
separated from the catalyst and do not affect the entrain-
ment of the catalyst in the reactor vessel.
That said, a number of options are available to mini-
mize the catalyst entrainment in the regenerator dilute
phase.
• Increasing the regenerator pressure to decrease the
superficial velocity. We have, in some cases, rerated
our regenerator vessels to increase the design pres-
sure of the vessel and hence the maximum operating
pressure possible in the regenerator.
• If the refiner has the room to vary the total disen-
gaging height in the regenerator, then this should be
done by lowering the regenerator bed a little. The
total disengaging height is the distance between the
regenerator “bed” and the inlet to the first stage
regenerator cyclones.
• Minimize the excess oxygen from a full burn regen-
erator. Best practice within BP Oil is less than 0.5
vol% O2 in the flue gas outlet. One of our units
bounces off 0% O2 in the flue gas and a number run
at 0.2 vol% to 0.3 vol%. To be able to do this, the
refiner needs reliable and accurate O2 analysis as well
as CO/CO2 analyzers and good air/catalyst distribu-
tion to ensure efficient regeneration of the spent
catalyst and limited afterburning.
• Some of our sites that used to run in partial burn 15
to 20 years ago, with all the problems they USED to
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
have, moved into full burn over the past years and
have now moved back into partial burn and taken
some of the burn out of the regenerator and into the
CO boiler downstream. This minimizes the air
needed in the regenerator and hence the superficial
velocities and hence the catalyst in the dilute phase.
Refer to questions 8, 9 and 10 of this section for
responses for the issues associated with partial burn
in a regenerator.
• Refiners have debottlenecked their regenerators by
using oxygen enrichment. This gives a higher coke
burn, but can also minimize the catalyst entrain-
ment in the regenerator dilute phase. One of our
sites has a regenerator combustion air nozzle tip
velocity constraint to minimize the catalyst in the
dilute phase due to either entrainment or attrition
or both.
• Seek out all attrition sources in the regenerator, as
the attrited catalyst will be the catalyst in the dilute
phase.
• Catalysts with higher particle densities for the same
hardness will result in lowering the catalyst in the
dilute phase for the same superficial velocity. We have
seen particle density variations of less than 68 lb/ft3
(1100 kg/m3) and greater than 100 lb/ft3 (1600
kg/m3). Obviously, optimum catalyst for a refiners
operation is not necessarily the densest catalyst.
• Refiners have targeted the fines in the fresh catalyst
as a source of losses and hence catalyst in the dilute
phase. The 0 to 40 micron content of the fresh
catalyst is specified as less than 10% (and lower in
some cases) by some refiners.
• The spent catalyst distribution can be a contributor
to the catalyst in the dilute phase. Some designs
attempt to distribute the catalyst on top of the
regenerator bed and actually throw the catalyst into
the dilute phase.
• A few refiners have built a second regenerator to
move toward two stage regeneration and debottle-
neck the coke burning limit. This will also result in
a lower regenerator superficial velocity and catalyst
entrainment.
It should be said that if the regenerator cyclones show
no signs of eroding and you are not carrying gross quan-
tities of catalyst into the downstream cleanup facilities
(such that they can not handle the loads) or the solids
emission levels are too high, then the solids entrainment
in to the dilute phase should not be of concern to the
refiners. The maximum quoted superficial velocities are
very sensitive to each refinery’s FCCU — the type of
FCC, the catalyst used, the internals and their orientation,
etc. We have wide variations of superficial velocities within
BP from 2 fps to nearly 5 fps (0.6 m/s to 1.5 m/s). The
very high velocity is in a UOP high efficiency unit that has
been revamped way beyond its name plate capacity. One
77
TOC/INDEX
of our units has studied their superficial velocities and
trailed operations to fully understand where they are in
terms of catalyst entrainment and losses. Consequently,
they run hard up against their superficial velocity as a real
constraint. They target a maximum operating superficial
velocity of 4 fps (1.2 m/s) and start to see the cyclone begin
to flood at 4.1 fps to 4.25 fps (1.25 m/s to 1.3 m/s), and
see the whole bed begin to lift at 4.4 fps to 4.6 fps (1.35
m/s to 1.4 m/s).
KOOIMAN:
Well, we have inadvertently tested the limit of our unit
twice and it was fairly dramatic. We must have exceeded
the superficial velocity in a small UOP stacked unit.
The unit was converted to complete combustion just
recently. An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) was added at
the same time and the flue gas piping had a low spot in it.
There were two occasions where, without any kind of
warning, we had evidently carried enough catalyst over
into that low spot and pressured up the regenerator. The
flue gas valves went wide open, and we lost our reactor
differential and ended up having to cut feed. By the time
the upset was over, the catalyst had blown through and we
were able to start up again without incident.
As far as things to do, I cannot add much to what Mr.
Jackson said. Cyclone design might help a little bit; and
anything that you can do to minimize the coke production
would reduce the air and would minimize superficial
velocity.
GENTRY:
Mr. Jackson covered the field well with the answer
regarding increasing operating pressure of the regenerator.
I believe he also mentioned going to a coarser catalyst with
a higher specific gravity, if that is available. However, one
caution is that care must be taken with coarser grades of
catalyst to ensure that there are enough retained fines to
avoid circulation difficulties.
High superficial velocities can be mitigated by oxygen
enrichment, depending on the availability of oxygen. This
is a way to increase coke burning capacity without a
substantial increase in flue gas dilute phase velocity. There
are some problems associated with oxygen enrichment,
not the least of which is catalyst deactivation. However,
these have been faced and addressed by the industry, and
the solution still could provide a cost-effective means of
addressing this bottleneck.
Another solution, which does not directly reduce the
dilute phase velocity but will help the refiner deal with the
additional catalyst losses, is to consider the installation of
an external third stage separator. Kellogg and Mobil have
developed new technology in this area, now available for
license, that has the potential of reducing emissions down
to 50 mg/m3.
78 Heavy Oil Processing
JOSEPH W. (BILL) WILSON (Caltex Petroleum Corp.):
We have two units that run in this range, right around
4 fps. One thing that you can do if you are forced to run
that way, after you have done everything you can to get
the velocities down, is to look at the distribution of air in
the regenerator. There is a misconception that the air mixes
laterally in regenerators. It does not. It flows straight up
from wherever the jet turns vertical.
There are units that either through design or due to
damage do not have very even air distribution. In these
units, the velocities in specific areas in the regenerator are
much higher than the superficial velocities that you would
calculate. These areas, of course, have higher localized
entrainment up to the cyclones.
So if you are going to run at these velocities and you
want to minimize your entrainment, getting the air distri-
bution as even as possible will help quite a bit.
DAVID S. McCAFFREY (Exxon Research & Engineering Co.):
A number of features can be incorporated into the
design of the FCCU such that it can operate at high
superficial velocities in the regenerator while minimizing
entrainment and catalyst losses. These include features to
minimize fines generation and catalyst attrition by careful
attention to the design of the regenerator cyclones, the
regenerator grid and the feed zone.
The objective is to minimize both impact and jet
attrition by avoiding local zones of high velocity. Also,
transfer lines should be designed to allow stable, smooth
catalyst circulation for a wide variety of densities and
particle distributions, including dense catalysts with low
fines content. J bends are preferred to U bends. These
features are standard in our grassroots designs and, to the
extent possible, they are incorporated into our revamps.
LLOYD WINGER (Conoco Inc.):
What is the maximum recommended regenerator cy-
clone inlet velocity to maintain 3 to 4 year run lengths?
JACKSON:
To maintain a 3 to 4 year run length, we would design
for 66 fps (20 m/s) in the first stage and 70 fps to 80 fps
(21 m/s to 24 m/s) in the second stage inlets. We have seen
as high as 85 fps (26 m/s) and 100 fps (30 m/s). We design
outlet velocities of 82 fps (25 m/s) and 131 fps (40 m/s)
for first and second stages respectively, and seen as high as
100 fps (30 m/s) and 200 fps (60 m/s) respectively.
Question 12.
What results have refiners experienced with refrigera-
tion (chilling) of the regenerator air to increase FCC
capacity or conversion? How does this compare both
operationally and economically with using oxygen
enrichment or supplemental air blowers?
TOC/INDEX
HUNKUS:
I have most often used the addition of supplemental air
to the regenerator to increase throughput, and the injec-
tion of an oxygen-rich stream to the compressor suction
to increase the capacity of the main air blower, and oxygen
to the regenerator for capacity and circulation improve-
ments. We have also heard of using the injection of finely
atomized water to chill the air in the intake to compressors
or air blowers, with a resulting gain of 3% to 8% which is
obviously climate-dependent. Memphis is unfortunately
hot and humid at the same time, which would reduce our
benefits.
We also have looked at the cost of refrigeration systems
for the main air blower inlet, but found the operating costs
prohibitive when compared to additional rental compres-
sors. We are currently running 7 large diesel-powered units
and one very large electrically powered unit in addition to
our main air blower.
Refrigeration always sounds like a good idea during the
spring when you start to see the blower flow rate drop off
with warming outside temperatures. However, the eco-
nomics probably will not support the use of refrigeration
to enhance capacity unless you have a very dry climate and
can use a passive system.
I believe the use of oxygen enrichment and supplemen-
tal air blowers are the two most common practices, with
oxygen often used if velocity restrictions are limiting unit
throughput. Your supplier will help you design the system
and the limits on how high you can go on oxygen. I want
to caution people that this is not something to enter into
without thoroughly understanding the consequences and
taking the proper design precautions.
In general, temporary compressors are added until their
cost will justify the replacement of the main air blower
with a larger and more efficient unit, which is what we are
hopefully going to do next year.
JACKSON:
BP has experience with temporary and permanent cool-
ers to the main air blower inlets. One FCCU has retrofit-
ted an evaporative cooling on the air intake filter, an
AmerKool II evaporated cooler from American Air Filter.
The justification claimed a 10°F (6°C) reduction in the
ambient air temperature to the main air blower and re-
sulted in additional air to the regenerator and horsepower
savings. Once installed, it has produced a 15°F to 20°F
(8°C to 11°C) reduction in the ambient air temperature
to the main air blower. The ambient air temperature varied
typically between 70°F and 100°F (20°C and 40°C).
Both evaporative and chilled evaporative coolers were
considered. The evaporative cooler increased the main air
blower air rate by around 3%, and the chilled cooler by
5%. The evaporative cooler installation and delivery tim-
ing, plus the lower costs associated with this machine,
meant that this device was installed over the chilled cooler.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
The refinery has taken advantage of the cooler air by
running between 1% to 2% more throughput through the
FCCU. The refinery also has the option of whether or not
to increase the conversion, or decrease the quality
(cheaper) of the feed, or recycle more material to the riser.
The installation and operation was easy and has been
reliable. In this location this was absolutely the most
cost-effective investment option at the time, greater than
30% rate of return.
One refinery fitted temporary air conditioning units
for 9 months a year and ran temporary ducting to the air
blower inlet. This returned a 2% to 3% increase in
throughput for the same conversion due to the lower inlet
temperature of the air, but had higher operating costs and
had ongoing revenue expenditure costs associated with it.
A number of air separation companies, e.g., BOC, Air
Products, Air Liquide, etc., will finance, build, operate and
supply oxygen (and nitrogen) to a refinery. The contracted
cost of the oxygen will be anything from less than $20 to
$100 per ton of oxygen to the FCCU for a long-term
contract. The final cost will depend on the location, size
of production, contract duration (10, 15, 20 years, etc.),
method of production, etc. The air separation companies
also offer to design, engineer and project manage a full
turn key installation to be operated by the refinery. This
latter option is a capital expenditure, whereas the former
is an operating cost. Whenever we look at the new invest-
ments we talk specifics with the oxygen production com-
panies and see which is the most attractive to the particular
refinery. Talk directly to your air separation companies and
talk specifics with local economics for all options.
The potential of modifying the air blower can be
simple, such as rerating the motor windings rating and
allowing the motor to run slightly hotter; revamping the
steam turbine; and revamping the main air blower itself.
On a revamp of a newly installed main air blower, we have
found that we have been able to achieve between 10% to
15% of the original design by internal modifications
costing between $0.5 million to $3 million, depending on
the machine and the modification necessary.
Supplemental air blowers are somewhat similar to the
main air blower revamp options. One refinery installed a
number of “temporary” air blowers that they tied into the
main air blower line to the regenerator. Another refinery
installed a traditional auxiliary air blower in parallel with
the existing air blower at a higher discharge pressure and
lower throughput to the original airblowers. This was
selected due to the larger requirement in air duty (greater
than 20% of existing air blower duty).
All of these options are not normally available to the
refiner for a variety of reasons. If the regenerator vessel is
superficial velocity limited, then oxygen enrichment could
be very attractive. If the operating pressure can be increased,
then all options are possible. Chilling of air is dependent
on the ambient temperature swings. Evaporative cooling is
79
TOC/INDEX
obviously beneficial in hot dry locations. The amount of
air required will also influence the selection of the technol-
ogy, 0% to 5% can be achieved by cooling/chilling or main
air blower revamp; 5% to 15% can be achieved by “tem-
porary” air blowers, oxygen enrichment (if other oxygen
demand exists on the refinery, e.g., sulfur plant or there is
a local air separation plant) or airblower revamp; 15% to
30% can be achieved by oxygen enrichment, auxiliary
blower or “temporary” air blowers.
BARKER:
Chilling the air will lower the dense bed slightly, which
also increases the catalyst circulation. So from this stand-
point, it will not help in increasing the capacity of the
FCCU as much as one would expect. Most air blowers
have discharge temperatures in the neighborhood of
300°F, so it would only be practical to chill the air by 200°F
to about 100°F. This would lower the regenerator dense
bed about 12°F from say 1332°F to 1320°F, which is less
than 1%. So from a superficial velocity standpoint, it does
not improve things very much. The bottom line, in addi-
tion to all of Mr. Jackson’s comments, is that we feel that
oxygen enrichment or supplement air blower will be much
more practical.
RAGHU MENON (BOC Group):
In addition to all that Mr. Jackson has said, I would like
to add that if there are any considerations associated with
velocities and delta p’s in the regenerator and all the way
downstream in the flue gas train, oxygen enrichment is the
clear answer. Additionally, it is a good solution in the
context of considerations related to erosion and particu-
lates, which are becoming increasingly important.
WARREN S. LETZSCH (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
Regarding the excess oxygen, it should not cause deac-
tivation of the catalyst, but you do need to be sure that the
stripper is performing very well. It is going to work best
in a counter current regenerator where if any hydrocar-
bons are coming in, they are not going to see the higher
oxygen concentration. I think that is important when
adding oxygen to the air.
With regard to the question about CO promoters and
partial CO burn, most people find it much easier to run
a unit in full burn operation. However, the refining indus-
try is not putting in any capital, and they are pushing their
capacities right to the limit. Air rates are maximized and
regenerators put into partial burn operation to accommo-
date more feed or higher conversions.
As a consequence, operators need to learn about carbon
run-away, because you can get into some very serious
problems with carbon building up on the catalyst. If the
carbon is burned off too quickly, very high regenerator
temperatures will occur, hurting the catalyst inventory.
80 Heavy Oil Processing
Units are going to have more of these problems when
feedstocks and the delta coke characteristics are changing
on a rather regular basis. These are the conditions where
inattention to the carbon on catalyst can get you into a
serious problem.
The other point is that there have been a couple of
comments about carbon on catalyst being not particularly
important. Not much with regard to the yields is seen until
a certain point is reached and then the unit really seems
to crater.
Generally, the carbon left on the catalyst when you are
in the 0.2 range or so is all left on the zeolite of the catalyst.
You probably are losing some selectivity, and it is generally
better if you can burn the carbon down to a lower level.
In reality, what you are doing is using a lower activity
catalyst when you let the carbon build up. A lower activity
catalyst without carbon on it would probably be more
selective.
The old literature in the 1970s certainly suggests that
there is a significant yield penalty of say 1% or 2% gasoline
yield when operating at 0.3 carbon versus a cleaner catalyst.
JACKSON:
I have not disagreed with anything you have said so far
Mr. Letzsch, apart from the last section. We tested one of
our resid units (100% residue operation) where we took
it into partial burn. We sampled regenerated catalyst and
looked at it from a range of clean (less than 0.05 wt%) all
the way up to 0.3 wt% carbon of regenerated catalyst.
We did not see any selectivity loss in the commercial
yields up to about 0.3 wt%. We could not go higher in
carbon on regenerated catalyst at that time. We also sent
the sampled Ecat to a laboratory where it was tested for
carbon on regenerated catalyst (0.05, 0.1, 0.15 ... 0.3
wt%), the MAT of the regenerated catalyst samples, and
the MAT of the cleaned (burnt) regenerated catalyst sam-
ples. For every 0.1 wt% carbon on regenerated catalyst
increase we saw between 1 and 1.5 MAT numbers drop.
It appears that any loss of active sites on the Ecat due to
more coke on the regenerated catalyst is more than coun-
tered for by the increase in cat-to-oil ratio due to a lower
overall Ecat activity. It is also believed that the vanadium
is left in a reduced or lower oxidized state that melts at a
higher temperature. Hence for high vanadium operations,
a higher carbon on regenerated catalyst is preferred assum-
ing the catalyst can be circulated at higher rates.
UDAY N. PAREKH (Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.):
Some of the advantages of oxygen enrichment that are
worth emphasizing are that it gives a far greater capacity
increase than the other two alternatives that were dis-
cussed, especially much greater than chilling of the air
which is limited to 5% as was mentioned.
The other key benefit also touched upon is that it is
extremely useful when the regenerator is superficial velocity
TOC/INDEX
limited. Oxygen enrichment helps control regenerator gas
velocity, reducing catalyst attrition and extending cyclone
life.
Finally, when evaluating the rental cost of blowers or
chillers to the extent that these are not utilized around the
clock and every day of the month, the cost of this equip-
ment is much more than would appear. The cost of oxygen,
on the other hand, when it is hauled in is essentially totally
variable and is only incurred when the oxygen is used.
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
I have a question for those on the panel who are using
humidifying techniques or water injection to cool their air
instead of chilling. Literature tells us that we want to keep
the steam content of the regenerator down to prevent
thermal hydrodeactivation of the catalyst. Humidifying
the air obviously is creating more steam in the regenerator.
Are you seeing that impact, or how are you rationalizing
that?
JACKSON:
You are absolutely right. Directionally, the more water,
the more steam you put into your regenerator, the more
hydrothermal deactivation you are going to realize. We
have not seen any deterioration; it is within the noise of
the data. If you calculate how much water is produced
from burning the hydrogen in coke, it is large. Injecting
water or steam directly into the regenerator (not the air)
will cause rapid hydrothermal deactivation, due to very
high local steam partial pressure.
Reactor
Question 13.
What are the best spent catalyst stripping operating
practices and what criteria are used to judge stripper
effectiveness?
GENTRY:
The best operating practice for an existing stripper is to
increase stripping steam to the point where it is no longer
effective for stripping. This is usually judged by monitor-
ing the regenerator dense bed temperature. When the
regenerator temperature no longer falls with increasing
steam rates, the optimum steam rate has been found.
Hydrogen-in-coke has been the traditional parameter
used to judge stripper performance. The hydrogen-in-
coke value is calculated from the flue gas analysis and the
combustion air rate. We have found that the numbers
which typically get reported are subject to a lot of error,
and that you usually have to look at a lot of these numbers
to draw any conclusions about stripper performance.
A better measure of stripper performance is measure-
ment of strippable hydrocarbon in spent catalyst. This
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
requires sampling the spent catalyst from the stripper or
standpipe and subjecting it to exhaustive stripping. It
reflects not only hydrocarbon vapor occluded between the
catalyst particles, but also the material which can be
stripped from the catalyst pores.
Strippable hydrocarbon provides a useful basis for com-
paring one stripper to another or evaluating changes in
stripper design. As an example, one refiner recently used
this technique to evaluate the stripping improvement in a
unit which had installed the new Kellogg/Mobil Flux Tube
trays. At constant feed rate, the unstripped hydrocarbon,
expressed as a percentage of total coke, decreased from
15% to less than 5%.
BARKER:
The two independent variables that most refiners have
available to them are stripping steam rate and catalyst level.
A third, slightly less independent, variable is the reactor
temperature since at higher reactor temperatures the cata-
lyst strips easier. We operate with a high level to increase
residence time, use as much steam as the nozzle velocity
allows, and operate the reactor temperature as high as the
refinery fuel gas system will allow us.
In our FCCU, we have a two stage catalyst stripper with
two stripper steam distributors, an upper and a lower, that
are about 18 ft apart. We have experimented with chang-
ing the steam rates to each header, and have determined
that the steam rate to the lower header has a larger impact
on the regenerator than that to the upper header. However,
we note there is a synergistic effect between the two, and
the best operation for us is to roughly split the stripping
steam between the two rather than to put all, or most, of
it through the lower distributor.
There are two methods to monitor the performance of
the catalyst stripper. One of them is very objective, and is
merely the temperature difference between the dense bed
and the flue gas in the regenerator. The better the perform-
ance of the catalyst stripper, the lower that temperature
difference.
The other method is more analytical, and calls for
determining the weight percent hydrogen that is in the
coke by using the flue gas orsat analysis. A high hydrogen
content implies that some hydrocarbon was not stripped
off of the catalyst in the catalyst stripper. The lowest
theoretical hydrogen content is about 5.5 wt%. And we
consider above 8.0 wt% to be poor.
DAVIS:
CENEX has a stacked UOP FCC unit with a two stage
reactor stripper. The first stage is in the bottom boot of the
reactor and consumes about 25% of the stripping steam.
The second stage is the actual high efficiency stripper which
uses the balance of 75%. Design rate is 1.7 pounds of steam
per 1000 lb of catalyst circulated. Effectiveness can be
81
TOC/INDEX
judged by the changes in regenerator temperature as you
adjust stripping steam rate.
JACKSON:
The function of the reactor stripper is to replace any
entrained or adsorbed hydrogen “rich” hydrocarbons from
the spent catalyst after the reaction process is complete and
before the spent catalyst is regenerated. This does a num-
ber of beneficial things; recovers valuable hydrocarbons,
reduces the hydrogen in coke of the spent catalyst and
consequently the delta coke of the operation. The BTU/lb
of hydrogen to water versus carbon to CO2 is much greater
and hence the regenerator runs hotter and a lower cata-
lyst-to-oil ratio results. The water partial pressure will also
increase with more hydrocarbons carrying through to the
regenerator resulting in higher hydrothermal deactivation
of the catalyst.
BP considers the following operating practices to im-
prove the stripping of spent catalysts:
• Increase reactor stripper operating temperature;
• Efficient catalyst/steam contacting;
• Minimize operating reactor pressure;
• Increase reactor stripper residence time; and
• Maximize stripping steam.
Obviously, for a given reactor stripper, you can not
affect some of the changes above. Pressure can be mini-
mized for a given operation. The residence time can be
increased a little without affecting the cyclones flooding.
Maximizing stripping steam can be undertaken up to a
limit, when any further increase has no beneficial effect.
All of these operating variables can also limit the
FCCU’s maximum throughput or conversion: wet gas
compressor limiting, reactor cycle flooding, main frac-
tionator flooding or overhead condensing limiting, and
sour water handling limit.
Some other important criteria that can be designed into
strippers are:
• The efficiency of the stripping process improves
greatly with increasing stripping temperatures,
either by heat exchange with regenerator flue gas, or
regenerated catalyst. UOP’s X technology does this
to some degree.
• Some refiners prestrip the catalyst as it disengages;
prestripping cyclones (Mobil and Shell).
• One refining major believes in long stripping with a
lot of steam.
• BP would design strippers for a 2 minute hold-up
and at least 3.5 lb/1000 lb of circulating catalyst. BP
no longer prestrips spent catalysts.
• BP believes that good catalyst/steam contacting is
very important and would hence install holed and
lipped baffles in the reactor stripper, based on radio-
active tracer studies carried out before and after the
baffles were installed.
82 Heavy Oil Processing
A number of methods are available to determine the
efficiency of a reactor stripper.
• Hydrogen in coke determination is most commonly
used within the refining world and relies heavily on
accurate determination of the flue gas composition.
But it is still a good way of trending a strippers
operation.
• We have also used reaction mix sampling to sample
entrained gas in the spent catalyst standpipe for a
variety of operations; stripping steam variation;
stripper bed level variation; etc.
• BP also has a proprietary FCC model that reviews a
unit’s operation and backout riser temperature, re-
actor pressure, catalyst-to-oil ratio, Ecat activity and
feedstock type effects. The unit’s operation and coke
factor is a very good indication when compared with
a number of operating variables to the strippers
operating trends.
The best, believable hydrogen in coke figure we have
within BP is around 6 wt% to 6.5 wt%. These units are
close to BP’s best practice designs, hold-up, baffled, high
stripping steam rates, and low catalyst fluxes.
JOHNSON:
The typical stripping rates are between 1.8 and 3.0
lb/1000 lb of circulating catalyst, depending on the design
and operating conditions of the stripper. The normal
procedure is to increase stripping steam until the regen-
erator dense bed temperature stops decreasing, indicating
maximum stripping has been achieved. The most com-
mon guideline for stripper effectiveness is hydrogen in
coke determined from the flue gas analysis. This can be
misleading, however, as coke composition is determined
not only by the stripper but also by the feed quality and
reaction severity.
One easy to see indication of poor stripping is if the
regenerator dilute phase has a hot spot directly over the
spent catalyst inlet. This could indicate hydrocarbons are
flashing and burning in the regenerator immediately as
they enter with the catalyst.
KIMBRELL:
Similar to some of the others, we also calculate the
hydrogen on coke and use it as a trending device. We also
pull spent catalyst samples and extract them with acetone.
If the acetone is a deep yellow, we need to strip harder.
Question 14.
In order to maximize distillate production how low do
refiners run the FCC riser outlet temperature? Is this
temperature a function of feedstock properties or op-
erating considerations? How are safety considera-
tions incorporated into the unit alarms and trips when
running at low riser temperatures?
TOC/INDEX
GENTRY:
Refiners maximizing middle distillate production often
run the riser outlet in a range of 910°F to 930°F. The most
serious concern related to riser temperature operation is
the possibility of carryunder of oil soaked catalyst into the
regenerator due to lack of complete feedstock vaporiza-
tion. In small quantities, the oil soaked catalyst will result
in excessive catalyst deactivation and increased regenerator
temperature. Larger carryunder of oil soaked catalyst has
resulted in severe regenerator temperature excursions with
damage to both equipment and catalyst. When operating
at low riser outlet temperatures, refiners should be wary of
the regenerator bed temperature increasing as riser tem-
perature is reduced. If this occurs, incomplete feedstock
vaporization is indicated, and the riser temperature is too
low.
The minimum recommend riser operating tempera-
ture is unit- and feedstock-specific. As feed vaporization
becomes more difficult, due to such things as higher feed
resid content, lower feed temperature, and poor feed
injection technology, a higher minimum riser temperature
is recommended.
FCC units with distributed control systems typically
include alarms for both low riser and disengager tempera-
tures, as well as alarms for high regenerator temperatures.
FCC units are not typically instrumented to shut down
automatically on low riser temperature or high regenerator
temperature. Refiners usually rely on operating judgment
and operator intervention to stop regenerator temperature
excursions. Several actions can help to bring the situation
under control, and these are presented in a typical se-
quence of execution.
1. If low riser temperature has been a factor in the
high regenerator temperature, increase the riser
outlet temperature.
2. Verify that no torch oil is getting into the regen-
erator.
3. Increase stripping steam.
4. Increase dispersion steam.
5. Discontinue slurry or heavy cycle oil recycle.
6. Reduce fresh feed to riser.
7. Implement light cycle oil recycle.
Even after taking these steps, and finally removing all
feedstock from the riser, the regenerator temperature may
continue to increase rapidly if the regenerator inventory
contains oil soaked catalyst. At this point, understanding
one aspect of unit heat balance is critical in the decision
making process — the regenerator temperature cannot
increase after the air blower is shut down, regardless of the
regenerated catalyst oil content. In hindsight it becomes
clear that even though taking the blower out of the unit
means a shutdown, this is better than having a fused
catalyst inventory and melted cyclones.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
HUNKUS:
That was quite a vivid description. I would say if you
have the ability to add a lot of steam in the riser, and you
start to experience a runaway, and you cut the feed back
or cut the air back as a final measure, quite often you can
easily ride through it without having to deal with ex-
tremely high regenerator temperatures.
My experience is that 930°F to 940°F is a typical range
to balance distillate yield, lost volume gain, and lost
octane. The best place to run depends on your feedstock,
desired yield, plant economics, and special unit charac-
teristics.
The lowest temperature we are familiar with is 920°F
for a continuous operation of a modern FCCU on normal
feedstock, and that would happen to be us. Also, you may
need to adjust your operation as you introduce heavier
feed or residuals. The lowest temperature operation is
highly dependent on feedstock properties, reliability, and
safety considerations.
You need to look for signs of unvaporized feed in the
regenerator, or what we call a “fast forward.” We have
found that out through experience. Other problems with
running too low a riser outlet include accelerated coking
in your stripper/reactor, accelerated catalyst aging, and
significant yield value loss. As for safety, you need to stay
well away from areas of unit instability. Any change in
alarms or trips would require a well thought out manage-
ment of change review. Plugged risers, glassed refractory
and melted thermowells are the obvious things to guard
against.
JACKSON:
Most of our FCCUs and RCCUs run between 940°F
and 1015°F (505°C to 545°C) riser outlet temperature,
distillate operations from 940°F to 960°F (505°C to
515°C), and gasoline from 970°F to 1015°F (520°C to
545°C).
One of our FCCs that runs high portions of residue,
up to 70% residue, ran a trial period at ultra low riser
outlet temperature for a number of weeks to determine
selectivity effect, vaporization ability and coke laydown
propensity.
The unit operated at a range of riser outlet tempera-
tures between 895°F and 915°F (480°C to 490°C). The
evaluation to date indicated that the yield selectivity did
not deteriorate at the low riser outlet temperature. We
shut down the unit for its planned turnaround after
almost 6 years of continuous operation and saw no extra
coking that had not been seen before. The feed nozzles in
the unit were BP Oil’s own proprietary design and seem-
ingly very successful.
Most of the BP units that have low temperature alarms
and trips on the riser outlet have them set at around 915°F
and 885°F (490°C and 475°C) respectively. Needless to
83
TOC/INDEX
say, the trip had to be keyed out at this refinery for the
duration of the trial.
LEMMON:
We do not typically operate our FCCUs below 960°F.
As you drop temperature, you get both more distillate and
more heavy cycle oil. With the blend of resids and heavy
feeds that we run, our marketplace does not favor going
lower.
On the other hand, shifting the back end of the naphtha
into the distillate does not create more heavy gas oil, and
you can increase the amount of distillate production sub-
stantially by dropping the heavy naphtha into it.
Both of our FCC units experienced very bad things
when the riser temperature dropped below 880°F. It
sounds pretty consistent with what I am hearing from the
other panelists. As a result, Bayway installed a low riser
trip that automatically diverts feed if the riser temperature
drops below 880°. The Avon refinery posted a minimum
operating temperature of 930° and the operators are
trained to pull feed.
I am certain that feed distillation has a big bearing on
that minimum temperature before the catalyst becomes
oil wetted. My advice is once you go below 900°F, you are
on your own, and oil wetted catalyst in the regenerator is
never a pretty sight.
RAYMOND W. PETERMAN (Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.):
An important consideration for maximizing distillate
selectivity is selection of an FCC catalyst that has an active
selective matrix to crack bottoms into light cycle oil. The
zeolite-to-matrix ratio is usually decreased in a maximum
LCO operation.
PETER DRAKE (Caltex Services Corporation):
Regarding Mr. Gentry’s comments addressing the fun-
damentals, the CO to CO2 burn occurs as the result of
high excess air, and, discounting feed options, it can be
arrested by reducing air. If the situation is desperate, where
temperatures are off scale, a short slug of torch oil will
quickly consume the excess air and reduce the runaway
temperature. A shutdown of the blower is not an option.
DILIP DHARIA (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
For the maximum distillate operation, it is very impor-
tant to control the mix zone temperature in the riser to
vaporize the feed and prevent the condensation of heavier
molecules on the catalyst. It would be very difficult to
remove these heavier molecules in the stripper, particularly
at lower reactor/stripper temperatures. Stone & Webster
and IFP offer a technology called MTC (Mix Temperature
Control) that recycles a stream from the main fractionator
which you can raise the temperature in the mix zone while
operating at lower riser outlet temperatures to maximize
the distillate yield.
84 Heavy Oil Processing
LEWIS A. FREDERICKSON (Chevron Research & Technology):
I would like to comment on Mr. Gentry’s response to
this question. I agree with most of what he said, but I
disagree with the recommendation to take feed out of the
unit and shut down the air blower in the event that oil
soaked catalyst is carried back to the regenerator. This is a
tough situation and the operator on the spot has to make
some important decisions to protect the unit from severe
damage. First of all, and here I agree with Mr. Gentry, the
condition that caused oil to get into the regenerator should
be corrected, and reactor stripping steam rate should be
increased to get as much oil off the catalyst as possible. After
that, there are several important principles to consider:
1. The regenerator temperature will not increase dra-
matically if there is not enough oxygen present to
burn the oil. Therefore, it is important to stay
oxygen deficient to protect the regenerator.
2. In this situation, there are several phenomena oc-
curring at the same time, and whether the regen-
erator temperature increases or decreases will
depend on the amount of oxygen available and the
amount of oil that enters the regenerator.
a) The fuel in the regenerator will contain signifi-
cantly more hydrogen than normal, and hydrogen
burns with a very high heat release.
b) Lack of oxygen will lower the CO2 -to-CO ratio
in the flue gas. Less heat is released when carbon
burns to CO rather than CO2.
c) The oil entering the regenerator will vaporize,
removing heat from the system.
d) Some of the oil will crack in the hot regenerator
catalyst bed, also removing heat from the system.
3. If feed rate is reduced, catalyst circulation will have
to be reduced to avoid overheating the reactor, and
the primary source of heat removal from the regen-
erator will be reduced. Also, reduced feed will
reduce coke production and make more oxygen
available to burn the oil, unless the operator can
reduce air rate in exact step with the feed. If feed is
completely removed, catalyst circulation will have
to be cut back significantly, and with no heat
removal. A small quantity of excess fuel will cause
severe overheating of the regenerator.
4. Since the regenerator is oxygen deficient, some
hydrocarbon will not be burned and will cause the
FCC stack to smoke. (Greenish-yellow is the com-
monly observed color.)
5. Due to the vaporization and cracking that is occur-
ring, regenerator velocity will be high and will
likely carry catalyst out the stack. (This is a con-
tributor to the greenish-yellow color.)
6. If the flue gas passes through an electrostatic pre-
cipitator to remove catalyst, it is safest to turn off
the power to the precipitator to remove an ignition
TOC/INDEX
source in the event that an explosive mixture is
formed with the air purges to the precipitator.
Although leaving the feed in the unit and maintaining
the regenerator in an oxygen deficient condition is not a
pretty sight, it is not unsafe and can be utilized to burn
excess hydrocarbon off the catalyst without damaging the
regenerator. If the blower is shut down with the regenera-
tor hot and containing oily catalyst, a very difficult situ-
ation is created. There is a risk of explosion if any air enters
the regenerator (Reference: FCCU Regenerator Incident,
by J.P. MacLean, Texaco Refining and Marketing, pre-
sented to the API Operating Practices Committee,
September 29, 1992). About the only safe way to deal with
that situation would be to 1) steam the regenerator until
all temperatures were below the ignition temperature of
hydrocarbon, which is difficult to accomplish in a large
vessel full of slumped catalyst, or 2) maintain the regen-
erator under an inert atmosphere and water flood it to cool
the catalyst. Another issue to consider in the scenario
where feed is stopped and the air blower is shut down is
that unless the operators anticipated that an extremely
high temperature incident was imminent and shut the
blower down before the catalyst temperatures much ex-
ceeded 1500°F to 1600°F, there would likely be significant
damage to the air distributor and any other equipment in
the bottom of the regenerator. In this case, the cyclones
might be saved at the expense of other damage.
Obviously, the best solution to this problem is to avoid
situations that result in oil-soaked catalyst that must be
processed in the FCC regenerator.
GENTRY:
If you heard the litany here, we went through step-by-
step many things that can be tried before this step would
be taken. The point, though, is that there have been many
occasions where this sort of run away situation has oc-
curred and the temperature has continued to go up and
has caused damage to cyclones and to catalysts. In retro-
spect, there is a step that can be taken, and has been taken
effectively, but it is a last resort.
LAWRENCE A. LACIJAN (UOP):
This is a difficult situation. I am not sure there is any
one right answer because of all the different operating
situations you can get into. But in general, we would agree
with Mr. Frederickson’s approach. If you got into a situ-
ation where you had oil wetted catalyst going into the
regenerator, the best possible outcome would be to pull
feed, steam circulate, keep the blower running and try to
burn it off slowly. If you cannot do that, then you have
some real problems and you may have to go further. But
the proper initial reaction of doing the above should get
you through it and get you back on track again. Burning
oily catalyst in the regenerator with only steam circulation
does not provide much of a heat load to remove or
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
consume the heat of combustion. If emergency quench
such as LCO or naphtha is available, it should be charged
to the riser. It will consume heat through vaporization but
will not add significant coke yield. This will stimulate
catalyst circulation and help to cool the regenerator.
JACKSON:
From an operator’s point of view, I support the floor in
this case. I would rather have a controlled burn and
cleanup of the catalyst and risk catalyst and mechanical
damage than open the doors on a bed that has hot oil
soaked catalyst in it. Remember, you have turned off the
air blower, the bed is slumped and oil soaked. If you open
that and get a sudden rush of air in, it is going to be lethal.
The bed does not cool down unless you put something
through it. It is going to stay hot for a long time.
JOSEPH W. (BILL) WILSON (Caltex Petroleum Corp.):
Just to confirm what others have said, we actually did
do this mistakenly once. The regenerator bed was at about
1000°C when we tripped the air blower. A week later, the
regenerator bed was still at 1000°C. You cannot turn the
air blower back on because you may have evolved combus-
tible gases at that temperature. As soon as the oxygen hits
that, it can blow up all the way down the flue gas line and
take your CO boiler, power recovery turbine, and electro-
static precipitator completely off the map. Tripping these
things at high temperature is just a very bad practice.
PHILLIP K. NICCUM (The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company):
Perhaps once a year you will hear about a refiner that
has had a regenerator temperature excursion. The regen-
erator temperature has gotten so high that it actually
exceeds thermocouple ranges. Temperatures of 2000° and
higher have been estimated, and the cyclones and internals
of the regenerator are ruined. So that is where a tempera-
ture excursion can lead. There were many good sugges-
tions made on how to control the regenerator temperature
increase after you have had oil soaked catalysts or very high
carbon in the regenerator.
But there comes a point where the regenerator tempera-
ture is increasing rapidly, 1800°, 1900°, etc. It is still
increasing rapidly. The point is that there is really only one
sure way to prevent the regenerator from climbing to 2000°
or beyond. It is a very difficult decision to make when you
are having the problem. It is something I suggest you think
about carefully before you get into that situation.
It has been done; I have experience with one FCCU
which did include an electrostatic precipitator where the
air blower was removed, and in time the inventory from
the regenerator was unloaded back into the equilibrium
catalyst hoppers. The carbon level on the regenerated
catalyst was 7.0 wt%. It looked like lamp black it was so
black.
85
TOC/INDEX
There was concern that the unit would be difficult to
start up with catalyst in that condition, but the calcula-
tions said that we should be able to accommodate the heat
released from the catalyst. Indeed, once the loading of the
equilibrium catalyst was started, the air heater firing was
turned down to an idle. Just the fuel on the catalyst, in
fact, heated the regenerator up nicely. Now, I am not
recommending this as a way to start up, but I am saying
that it has been done. In that case, the unit was restarted
without incident.
HUNKUS:
I have several comments. That debate got me so excited
I wanted to go back and answer all my questions over
again. We routinely see 150° swings in our regenerator
temperature and our Concarbon on crude swings by
almost 2 numbers from batch to batch.
Our operators have a lot of experience with running
out of air and getting behind. They understand what
afterburn is. They understand what getting behind is. It is
an easy situation to control if you use your feedback. They
also understand trimming air back and then adding it back
in, in a controlled manner.
The torch oil suggestion works, but I do not like it,
because sometimes people forget that they are putting it
in or they lose track of that. I have seen people get in big
trouble by adding torch oil, although I have used it
successfully myself. So, if you keep your operators really
in the loop and do not try to make this an engineering
thing, I think you will be in much better shape.
Back on the distillate question, I did want to clarify that
we use bottoms cracking additive and also use ZSM-5
when we are maximizing diesel while we reduce riser
temperature, which is probably considered unusual. We
also run about a 56 MAT on our base catalyst inventory,
produce less than 4% slurry oil, and we are currently
yielding in excess of 45% distillate off of our FCCU.
The last comment I wanted to revisit was on carbon on
catalyst. I said that throughout my experience I have seen
between 0.24 and 0.18 to really be a break where you see
big yield losses from carbon on catalyst. We run less than
0.1 carbon on catalyst because we feel we still see a yield
benefit there.
HAK N. KIM (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
My advice is that do not underestimate the effect of
CRC (carbon on regenerated catalyst) even at 0.1 or higher
level. There is plenty of evidence that CRC adversely
affects both activity and selectivity in FCC operation. In
addition, the CRC influences the composition of gasoline,
making it more olefinic due to suppressed hydrogen trans-
fer. Higher olefinic gasoline may or may not be to your
advantage depending on your objective.
86 Heavy Oil Processing
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
I used to operate the FCCU in New Mexico, that I
referred to earlier, at 890°F to 910°F on crude unit
residue. On start-ups I would grease the riser at 850°F.
On one particular start-up, I had an especially hot regen-
erator. On previous start-ups, I had always been able to
suck the regenerator temperature down by increasing the
reactor temperature, but in this case it did not work. I
also had a very high main column overhead temperature
and wet gas compressor temperature. In desperation I had
the instrument man check the control room potentiome-
ter, and discovered it was reading 250°F high. I was still
only at 750°F on the reactor, and was apparently produc-
ing a lot of hydrogen. When I finally got the reactor up
to 900°F everything dropped back into line. Perhaps I was
lucky, because the crude residue had a 28° API. We had
a riser temperature/feed diversion system on the unit for
normal operating purposes, but it was always in bypass
on start-ups.
Optimization/Design
Question 15.
How effective is post riser quench in reducing the
dilute phase thermal reactions and dry gas yield com-
pared to short contact time reactor termination de-
signs?
JACKSON:
First we need to understand the riser and post-riser
reactions and the effect on the product yield slate. The
hydrocarbons catalytically crack in the riser over a 1.5 sec
to 3 sec residence time, and then, for a standard (not a
short contact time) disengager, it takes another 5 sec to 40
sec in the reactor vessel and transfer line before being
quenched in the main fractionator. After disengaging, the
reaction products are then thermally cracked. The thermal
cracking of the reaction products degrades the gasoline
selectivity and increases the gas make.
The short contact time termination devices (DCC,
RHS, VSS) quickly separate the catalyst from the gaseous
products and route the gaseous products out of the reactor
vessel as quickly as possible.
The quench technology is a method that attempts to
stop the reaction products after the initial bulk catalyst
hydrocarbon separation.
BP has short contact time disengagement devices in
almost all of their FCCUs around the world. We have
looked at the quench technology at one of our refineries
to date.
Amoco’s patent US 5089235 indicates that the tech-
nology is best used in FCCUs with riser outlet tempera-
tures in the region of 980°F to 1040°F (525°C to 560°C).
and maybe as low as 950°F (510°C). Amoco has seen
TOC/INDEX
reductions in dry gas and increases in gasoline selectivity.
I know George Quinn of Amoco is in the audience today
and would be grateful if he would share his experience and
expertise with this technology with the panel and the floor.
At one of our FCCUs, we undertook reaction mix
sampling and tracer work, and we sampled the reaction
products in the reactor (short contact time disengager
outlet) to the main fractionator. The yield slate was identi-
cal between the termination device and the main fractiona-
tor inlet at a riser outlet temperature of 970°F (520°C). So
the incentive at that refinery was not apparent.
Amoco and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
claim to have installed this quench technology on a num-
ber of units and have seen dry gas reductions of between
0.6 wt% and 1.2 wt% and increases in gasoline selectivity
of 0.6 vol% to over 2 vol%. The riser outlet temperatures
at these FCCUs were between 980°F and 1020°F (525°C
and 550°C) and had relatively high residence times, 10 sec
plus. Amoco has considered numerous possible quench
sources, LCO, 430°F to 650°F (221°C to 343°C); HCO,
650°F to 850°F (343°C to 454°C); HCCG 300°F to
430°F (149°C to 221°C); water, and numerous other
refinery streams. Water, as you might expect, is the best
quench media in terms of heat capacity, but it also has the
main fractionator overhead cooling increase/waste water
treatment increase baggage associated with its use. Hence,
Amoco recommends LCO.
To determine the potential benefit of quench in your
particular unit, Amoco’s patent, Figure 10, is a graph that
shows the potential reduction in dry gas make possible for
a 7% LCO quench and a given temperature reduction in
the product stream. It is straight forward to use.
Amoco is the biggest user of this technology and it is
now offered by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. At
the last Stone & Webster Symposium in Houston this year,
Amoco had six FCCUs with quench and there were two
other non-Amoco units with quench. The technology is
currently applied to rough cut cyclones and Ramshorn
separators terminators.
We recommend that our refineries install short contact
time termination devices first. Once installed it is recom-
mended that the refinery undertake reaction mix sampling
to determine the reaction products after the catalyst has
been separated and as the products enter the main frac-
tionator. The residence time also needs to be determined.
From those results, the potential benefits from quenching
the reaction products can be determined accurately. If the
refineries move to massive light olefins production and
ethylene in particular (refer to my response on question 25
of this section), then quench will undoubtably be beneficial
(riser outlet temperature in excess of 1110°F (600°C)).
JOHNSON:
The use of a riser termination device for rapid disen-
gaging results in a positive separation of product and
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
catalyst, which eliminates post-riser catalytic reactions.
The change in yield selectivities has been published in
various articles. The Oil and Gas Journal of August 19,
1996, discussed the VSS system installed at the Consum-
ers Co-operative refinery in Regina, Saskatchewan, which
resulted in a gasoline plus distillate yield increase of ap-
proximately 6 liquid vol%. Note that the hydrocarbon
containment of the vortex separation system is over 99%.
If a liquid quench system is used in place of a catalyst and
hydrocarbon separation system, the post-riser reaction
rates can be decreased, but not completely eliminated,
since the amount of temperature decrease is limited by the
quantity of recycled liquid to the reactor cyclones, main
column, and main column overhead condensers.
GEORGE P. QUINN (Amoco Petroleum Products):
Mr. Jackson has obviously read all the papers; I appre-
ciate that. I have often heard that you write these papers
and two people read them. I am glad I know one of them.
Mr. Jackson is right. We build these marvelous riser
systems with the feed nozzle and we have optimized the
design, and obtained beautiful catalytic cracking reac-
tions. Then we discharge this product into the dilute phase
where we basically cook it at 1000° for a lengthy period of
time. We are going to make gas, destroy gasoline, and
make diolefins.
I think you can approach the problem in two ways,
reducing either time or temperature. The approaches of
direct coupled cyclones or closed coupled cyclones are
going after the time side of it. They are probably dramati-
cally reducing the time in the dilute phase, but they are
not reducing the time in the cyclones, plenum, or vapor
lines. So they are probably getting 70% to 90% reduction
in time.
With post riser quench, 50°F cooling drops the thermal
reactions by about 70%, 75°F cooling drops the reactions
about 90%. So we are achieving the same order of magni-
tude reduction in post riser thermal reactions. And if you
look at the yields in our patents or the paper that we
presented last year at the annual meeting of the NPRA
(AM-95-38), the delta yields are quite similar in terms of
gas make to the claims of the direct couple or closed couple
cyclone systems.
We also quantified the reduction in butadienes, and
improved acid consumption at the alkylation unit. We
have also quantified a pentadiene reduction which has
improved the gasoline oxidation stability.
My view, obviously biased, is that quenching is a more
elegant solution. We are going after the temperature in the
reaction rate expression rather than the time. So quench-
ing is relatively low cost, easily controlled and does not
involve complex equipment.
In 3 of the 6 locations we put quench in service on-line.
We hot tapped the vessel and put it on-line, so we were
87
TOC/INDEX
able to get the advantages immediately. We did not have
to wait for a scheduled turnaround.
HAK N. KIM (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
We think post-riser quench is a very effective way of
reducing dry gas yield with minimum capital cost and ease
of implementation. With 50°F quench, you can reduce
dry gas yield by 10% to 45% depending on temperature
level and residence time. You end up with 1 vol% to 2.5
vol% higher gasoline yield while relieving the wet gas
compressor limits, thus allowing higher throughput or
higher conversion. We have noticed that dry gas yield
increases linearly with time, but exponentially with tem-
perature. So temperature has a more dramatic effect,
especially at higher levels. Accessibility of hardware is an
important factor in choosing between RTD and post-riser
quenching. Also, in certain cases the RMS sampling has
shown that there could be some debits in the conversion
of heavy fractions under very short residence time.
Question 16.
When an FCCU is limited by gas concentration unit
compressor capacity, what are the advantages ob-
tained by reducing the conversion in order to achieve
an increase in unit feed rate? Please quantify the
potential increase in unit feed rate per unit of conver-
sion reduction.
BARKER:
To start out with, conversion is calculated as the total
feed minus the light cycle oil minus the slurry, all divided
by the feed. Therefore, with this definition the more feed
that is converted into gasoline and lighter, the higher the
conversion. So you can either make gas oil feed disappear
by increasing conversion or increasing feed rate. We push
barrels, because a 10% increase in feed rate processes gas
oil much faster than a small increase in conversion.
For an example, we produce about 275 scf dry gas per
barrel of gas oil feed. This changes about 10 scf/bbl for
every 1.0% change in conversion. Therefore, at 50,000
bbl/d we produce about 13,750,000 scf of dry gas. Were
that a limit, and we reduced the conversion by about
1.0%, the dry gas production would decrease to
13,250,000 scf. At this lower dry gas production rate of
265 scf/bbl, we could increase our gas oil feed rate by
almost 2000 bbl/d, to a total of just under 52,000 bbl/d.
Therefore, a 1.0% loss in conversion allows us to increase
feed rate by 3.8%. A 3.8% increase in feed rate processes
the gas oil faster than the 1.0% conversion that was given
up to accomplish this.
FEARNSIDE:
I looked at this question and I first had to ask if a metals
passivation additive had been tried. Nickel passivators can
reduce the nickel induced dehydrogenation by up to 50%.
88 Heavy Oil Processing
The new vanadium passivators can reduce the vanadium
induced dehydrogenation by up to 75%. We have used
these two methods to help unload wet gas compressors
when the metals loadings were below 1500 ppm.
GENTRY:
From a designer’s perspective, it would seem that taking
out feed or reducing conversion to limit dry gas make are
expensive options. A much better option, if you have a
choice, is to make sure you are taking full advantage of
modern technologies designed to reduce gas make. These
would include atomizing feed nozzles and advanced riser
termination devices that eliminate the post-riser cracking
that we were talking about earlier.
Of these two, riser termination technology can have the
biggest impact on gas make. Our experience shows that
closed cyclones, which are now operating in 20 FCCUs
around the world processing both VGO and resid feed-
stocks, typically reduce dry gas make by 30% to 40% on
a sulfur-free basis. This is achieved without a reduction in
throughput or conversion. In addition, closed cyclones
improve product selectivities by nearly eliminating unde-
sirable post riser cracking.
However, we understand that in between shutdowns it
is difficult to take advantage of this sort of thing, and it is
possible to make the tradeoffs that were described earlier.
JACKSON:
Initially, it must be understood that the old choice of
throughput versus conversion is very refinery dependent,
as well as seasonal.
Each refinery has specific gasoline blending require-
ments, dry gas constraints in terms of flaring restrictions,
etc. The refinery constraints also vary through the year, as
the ambient temperature varies, etc. The yield slate price
sets also vary though the year, i.e., propylene demand,
gasoline/diesel split, etc.
We have taken the wet gas compressor as constrained,
as required, and then moved conversion with throughput.
TOC/INDEX
The next graph shows the output and this particular
refinery’s relationship between riser temperature and
throughput (solid line) assuming the base riser tempera-
ture is 995°F (535°C). This also shows riser temperatures
effect on full range gasoline RONc. The riser outlet tem-
perature versus conversion study assumed no dry gas or
butadiene constraints. The Ecat MAT activity was then
moved (lowered) to show the catalyst-to-oil conversion
effect against throughput. This case assumed no catalyst
circulation constraint. For the study, it was also assumed
that the extra throughput could be handled by the down-
stream unit.
In summary, the question of throughput versus conver-
sion is refinery specific and varies through the year and
should be revisited fairly frequently by the refinery process
engineer and production.
KIMBRELL:
I agree with the previous comments. In our particular
unit with our feedstocks, reducing the riser temperature
lowers conversion. A 1% drop in conversion will allow us
to raise feed rate by about 8%. It also costs you a half of a
road octane number, so you have to balance what your
needs are.
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
To supplement Ms. Barker and Mr. Fearnside’s com-
ments about metal passivation, the data quoted by Ms.
Barker was for an operation on a somewhat hydrotreated
feed. We have about 250 ppm nickel on our equilibrium
catalyst and maybe 400 ppm vanadium. So the high dry
gas is not caused by metals. It is California crude which has
perhaps 3000 ppm nitrogen in it. What we need is a
nitrogen passivator, not a metals passivator. People may
find that on other FCCUs in other parts of the world, those
numbers may be a bit different with lower nitrogen feeds.
RAGHU MENON (BOC Group):
The quantitative tradeoff between conversion and
throughput also depends on the operational changes se-
lected. This also affects product selectivities. Altering the
unit and wet gas compressor suction pressures has a very
different debottleneck effect from either decreasing reac-
tor top temperature or increasing preheat. Increasing proc-
ess pressures might push the unit to air blower constraints,
which can be relieved by the various options that we have
already discussed. Although both alternate process-tem-
perature related options of increasing preheat or lowering
reactor temperature result in lower conversion due to
lower catalyst to oil, a typical example shows that at
constant wet gas make, lowering reactor temperature by
16°F allows a throughput increase of 8900 bbl/d for a
35,000 bbl/d FCCU. Selecting the alternate option of
increasing preheat by 50°F allows incremental throughput
of only 6700 bbl/d.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Question 17.
What changes in FCC operation or mechanical equip-
ment can reduce inerts in the recovered gas stream?
HUNKUS:
I assume this question relates to an FCCU which is
limited by the wet gas compressor and would increase
charge rate (or conversion) if there was less inert material
in the wet gas. The source of the inert gasses (nitrogen,
oxygen, CO, and CO2) is largely from the aeration in the
regenerated catalyst standpipe, some entrainment from
the regenerator itself possibly, and in one case, a lot of
nitrogen buffer gas on the wet gas compressor.
Typically, air is used for aeration in the regenerated
catalyst standpipe and it flows downward with the catalyst.
Some FCCUs use steam for aeration in the regenerated
catalyst standpipe and see a decline in the inerts. We use
air up top and steam below the regenerated catalyst stand-
pipe slide valve. Unfortunately, you may also see a decline
in catalyst activity due to hydrothermal deactivation, so
you will have to see how your system reacts. Other FCCUs
have used fuel gas for fluidization, but this does not really
help the capacity of the wet gas compressor itself. If the
gas were a byproduct gas which was going into the wet gas
anyway, there may be an advantage in using it for fluidi-
zation below the regenerator standpipe, but my experience
would say it would probably have heavy material which
would probably coke off the taps. Generally, fuel gas is not
used for aeration above the regenerator standpipe due to
safety considerations.
From a design standpoint, high density in the regenera-
tor standpipe will lower the amount of air transferred into
the reaction section. The highest density is achieved by
conditioning the catalyst before it enters the regenerator
standpipe. Aeration air is added only to maintain the high
density as the pressure builds along the standpipe, typi-
cally in the range of 40% to 70% of theoretical. An
external withdrawal well is required to achieve the best
condition for the catalyst. This is something we are con-
sidering for our next package of modifications.
JACKSON:
We have looked for a close relationship between the
inerts level in the gas recovery unit dry gas and the catalyst
circulation rate without any universal success. One of our
units showed some correlation. Clearly the converters
catalyst circulation has a great impact on the inerts carried
forward into the light ends recovery section, but other
criteria have an influence. Looking at each unit in isolation
and possible sources and causes of inerts in the gas recovery
unit, you quickly realize the following items also greatly
affect the level carried forward:
• catalyst circulation
• regenerator operating pressure
89
TOC/INDEX
• regenerated catalyst deaeration and reaeration in the
regenerated catalyst standpipe
• regenerator internals; combustion air system and
relative positions to regenerated catalyst standpipe
entrance; type of regenerated catalyst standpipe en-
trance; etc.
It is clear from all the economic drivers that we have
seen that no reduction in catalyst circulation is merited,
in terms of moving from any inerts or light ends con-
straint. The catalyst-to-oil penalty is too great. The oper-
ating pressures in our units are minimized, unless there is
a superficial velocity constraint calling for a maximum
operating pressure. We normally do not attempt to opti-
mize the catalyst circulation or operating pressures to
minimize the inerts level in the gas recovery unit.
To ensure good flow and pressure build in the regener-
ated catalyst standpipe, the circulating catalyst is fluidized
en route around the system. This is one possible area to
optimize inerts levels. Optimizing the level fluidization gas
in the regenerated catalyst standpipe will help minimize
the inerts in the gas recovery unit tail gas. Similarly, any
system with deaeration/reaeration, such as the external
withdrawal wells, should be reviewed and checked closely.
The aeration air in the main refluidization distributor
should not be too close to the regenerated catalyst stand-
pipe entrance. The rate should be checked to ensure this
is not excessive, but not at the expense of stable catalyst
circulation.
Some refiners have considered the effect of replacing
aeration air or nitrogen with steam, especially where the
residence time in the regenerated catalyst standpipe system
is small, 3 sec to 5 sec for instance. Even though the steam
concentration goes from 5% to 10% steam partial pressure
in the regenerator to something approaching 100%, the
hydrothermal deactivation effects on the circulating Ecat
will be negligible for these residence times. Steam quality
is obviously an issue and directionally this will deactivate
the Ecat, but it will be in the noise of the testing and
sampling errors for low residence times.
The location of the combustion air distributor to the
entrance of the regenerated catalyst standpipe will affect
the entrainment of air into the regenerated catalyst stand-
pipe. Some refiners and licensors install bypass pipe, called
vent pipes or burp tubes, along the upper side of the
entrance and top section of the regenerated catalyst stand-
pipe, that allows any excessive entrainment of air into the
regenerated catalyst standpipe to bypass the circulating
catalyst and pass back into the regenerator and not flow
through into the reactor and gas recovery system.
A new technology offered by UOP, X Technology will
ensure the absolute minimum inerts are carried forward
to the gas recovery unit if the design is installed with any
of a number of venting options. The basic technology
mixes the regenerated catalyst with the spent catalyst in a
mixing vessel at the base of the riser. The mixed catalyst is
90 Heavy Oil Processing
then fluidized and transported up the riser. The gases from
this vessel are either vented to the regenerator dilute phase,
a fired heater (CO boiler, for instance), the reactor dilute
phase or the main fractionator overhead system. If the vent
gas is routed to either of the first two options, and super-
heated steam is used as fluidization media in the mix
vessel, then the inert will be stripped from the mixed
catalyst that pass up the riser and a minimum level on
inerts will carry forward into the reactor and gas recovery
system.
JOHNSON:
A certain quantity of gas entrainment in the catalyst
flowing in the standpipes is necessary to provide the
fluidization needed by the catalyst. As unit operations
increase above the original design, the amount of en-
trained gases increases to undesirable levels. One straight
forward revamp is to replace the standpipe with one of a
larger diameter to decrease the catalyst flux and reduce the
inert entrainment. This might be expected. One option
available for units operating with a low delta coke is to use
the new UOP X-design. This design includes a hot-strip-
ping pot for the combined regenerated and reactor cata-
lyst, where the inerts can be effectively removed and
replaced with steam.
LEMMON:
I do not have much more to add. I do want to point
out that at today’s relatively low regenerator temperatures
and with the better catalysts we have today, the steam
aeration option may not have a large catalyst deactivation
penalty any longer.
GENTRY:
The topic has been pretty well covered. I will add that
properly design hoppers would ensure that excess inerts
are not entrained into the top of the standpipe. Shorter
standpipes will not be as dependent upon additional
aeration as longer standpipes will be.
JOSEPH W. (BILL) WILSON (Caltex Petroleum Corp.):
We have a unit that has steam on the regenerated
catalyst system and I will put its activity up against any
unit. So you are right, it is not really a problem because
the residence time is short.
Despite that, this particular unit still shows a fairly high
level of inerts in the dry gas. This is because they are being
pulled in from the regenerator. This is a good argument
for getting a good hopper design to disengage this material
before it gets into the standpipe.
If you have a unit where this is possible and if you are
drawing the catalyst from the active part of the regenera-
tor bed, you may very well be able to relocate the draw
point down to below the air distributor. That will help
TOC/INDEX
considerably in eliminating the amount that is actually
drawn into the standpipe with the regenerated catalyst.
JACKSON:
What is the residence time in the regenerated catalyst
system?
JOSEPH W. (BILL) WILSON (Caltex Petroleum Corp.):
I would have to calculate it. It is a model four unit. So
it is actually a U-bend. The residence time in the regener-
ated catalyst U-bend is approximately 17 seconds. It is
fluidized with 2000 lb/hr of steam. Catalyst activity is
normally above 70.
PHILLIP K. NICCUM (The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company):
There is another concern related to the replacement of
aeration air with steam that needs to be considered, and
that is that air is a much more effective fluidization
medium than steam. Theoretically, it may relate to the
lower viscosity and lower density of the steam. Steam is
not as effective for keeping the catalyst well fluidized.
Replacing the air with a similar volume of steam may result
in catalyst circulation problems on the unit even if the
steam is in fact very dry.
Feed and Product Quality
Question 18.
What is the experience processing used motor oil in
FCC units? What type of preparation or treatment was
necessary before charging to the FCC? Any detrimen-
tal effects on FCC catalyst?
FEARNSIDE:
We know of a couple of refiners who are charging used
motor oils, but they have chosen to first run it through
their crude unit and their coker. The reason they chose
that was that the motor oils had significant levels of
different metals that they thought would be detrimental
to the FCCU performance.
Also, some of the oils contained substantial organic and
sulfur acids that, had they been charged to the FCCU,
would have increased the corrosion and fouling in the
main fractionator.
What we would recommend if somebody is doing this
is to try to charge it through an FCC imported feed
desalter if you have one. But there we would caution you
that the surfactants in the used motor oil will stabilize
emulsions and can seriously affect the efficiency of that
particular desalter.
DAVIS:
I can only relate a bad experience CENEX had in the
late 1970s charging lube oil to the FCCU. A high chloride
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
content and heavy metal contamination, particularly lead,
resulted in severe deactivation of the catalyst. Because of
tighter controls on chlorinated solvents and the removal
of lead from gasoline, these problems may not be as severe
as they were back then. We did not attempt any pretreat-
ment to remove these contaminants.
DiCAMILLO:
Criterion does not get involved with catalytic cracking,
but this is my first chance this morning to get equal time
for hydrotreating. Instead of putting motor oil in your
catalytic cracker, a preferred route might be to hydrotreat
it. This is done by several people now. The additive
packages do result in increased catalyst deactivation, but
the advantage is you rerefine the oil and you can return it
to its original use. You may get more value from that rather
than trying to run it through the FCCU.
JACKSON:
BP does not process waste lube oils through their
FCCUs as standard practice, but has reviewed the use of
lube oils as FCC feed.
We believe that the waste oil has to be dewatered and
filtered prior to distillation before feeding the flash distil-
late to the FCCU. The material we consider worth routing
to the FCC as feedstock is the 480°F to 1020°F (250°C
to 550°C). This material is almost void of nickel, vana-
dium and carbonaceous particles.
On the work to date, we have found the material has
excellent crackability, but does have high levels of chlo-
rides, zinc, phosphorus, calcium and silicones in the oil.
We have looked at as high as 2.5 wt% on FCC feed being
flashed distillate from waste lube oil sources.
The zinc had some dehydration tendencies, but noth-
ing like nickel. The calcium appeared to have no detrimen-
tal effect on the catalyst and the silicone, if anything, had
a slightly positive effect. The phosphorus did appear to
affect the selectivity of the catalyst when the level on Ecat
rose to around 2000 ppm. It appeared to deactivate the
matrix. Chlorine, however, is a bit of a mystery to us. The
chlorides seem to distribute themselves everywhere, prod-
ucts, flue gas, Ecat and hardware. I would be interested to
hear the panel and floors experience of exactly where the
chlorides go.
We would run waste lube oil through the FCCU if the
collection and pretreatment was cost neutral. The material
would be spiked straight into the FCC surge drum at as
low a percentage as possible, less than 1% on FCC feed,
if possible.
GLENN GUGLIETTA (Grace Davison):
We know of a particular unit that has processed a
significant amount of lube oil over a short period of time.
What we saw happen on the Equilibrium catalyst was a 5
number drop in MAT, no change in zeolite surface area, a
91
TOC/INDEX

slight change in matrix surface area (2 to 4m2/gm), and a

slight change in water pore volume (0.2 cc/gm to 0.3
cc/gm). In this case the unit showed a significant reduction
in bottoms cracking and conversion. This is a relatively
short contact time design and a lot of people feel that
catalyst bottoms cracking activity is important. We meas-
ured the mercury pore volume and it tracked the water
pore volume measurements. The mercury pore volume
showed a significant reduction in the pore volume in the
200 to 1000 angstrom range while the nitrogen pore
volume remained the same. Apparently these materials
that are high in phosphorus, Zinc, and calcium can sig-
nificantly effect the catalyst matrix porosity, matrix activ-
ity, and affect the yields in the FCCU.
We went back and looked at a few other units that had
these metals contamination and saw definite decreases in
MAT The decrease in MAT was there but not as obvious is tankage dehydration where you can mix as you are
as the above case and the contamination could be over- unloading off the barge and the ship. You can mix it with
looked as a cause of the MAT drop. We have concluded water and a demulsifier and again use whatever tankage
from this that it is a problem and can cause MAT and yield you have. I call this a poor man’s desalter. Again, typical
changes in the FCCU. salt removal rates can be in excess of 50%.

WARREN S. LETZSCH (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.): ARNDT:

Mr. Jackson, to answer your question with regard to
chlorides, it is hard to say because it is hard to find
chlorides on the catalyst; they tend to get washed off in
the stripper or regenerator. One thought is that chlorides
will reactivate the metals, the nickel and the vanadium on
the catalyst, much like chlorides redistribute platinum in
a reformer. Therefore, with a slug of chlorides coming in,
you may see the hydrogen make suddenly go up. Then, of
course, it comes back down after a period of time when
the metals reagglomerate and are passivated again. Things
like fluoride and chloride would be expected to do some-
thing like that.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
What Mr. Letzsch said is true. I know of one unit in
particular that did experience significant increases in hy-
drogen production at very low nickel levels with the
introduction of the chloride from the lube oil. This is
something you need to be aware of.
Question 19.
How do people hand/e imported feedstocks that are
high in sodium prior to an HDS and/or FCCU?
FEARNSIDE:
For imported feedstocks there are basically three ways
to handle it. First, you just live with any sodium contami-
nation that might appear from time-to-time, especially if
it has been transported via the ocean and experienced
saltwater contamination. The second is that you can run
it through either an existing desalter that is specific to the
FCC feedstocks or install a new desalter. The third option
We go for source control first. One of our refineries will
not buy FCC feed unless it is less than 10 ppm sodium. If
we do bring in a contaminated load, we try to settle water
out in tankage, usually with only moderate success. Each
refinery then decides where best to feed the stock. As an
example, one of our refineries has a real robust resid
hydrotreater and that gets any stocks above 4 ppm sodium.
In fact, my general feeling is our refineries do more to
protect the FCCUs at the expense of our hydrotreaters.
HUNKUS:
The most common approaches I have seen include
dedicated desalting in a stand-alone desalter, or more likely,
treatment in some dedicated breakout tankage, or blending
the feedstock at a low percentage with other charge in order
to minimize the negative impacts. As long as catalyst
change out is controlled by some other factor, this may be
effective. Other approaches involve analyzing the feedstock
for rejection or slopping to crude, installing sacrificial guard
beds on your processes (especially your hydrotreaters), and
higher catalyst flush rates, or even tracking the problem to
its source and helping to resolve it.
We know of one refiner who tracked the problem back
to a particular European refiner and helped change their
passivation and handling programs to resolve the prob-
lems with a long-term opportunity feedstock.
JACKSON:
A number of BP refineries import atmospheric residue
and VGO on a frequent basis. Obviously, all are water
laden. The BP best practice is to:

92 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX
• Send the imported material to tankage, allow to
settle and dewater
• Desalt the imported atmospheric residue/VGO.
The desalter chemicals should be predosed prior to
the imported material hitting the desalter
• Target sodium is as low as possible, but is typically
between 1ppmw and 3 ppmw of the total FCC
feedstock
• Care should be taken when running imported resi-
dues with condensates, due to the condensates pre-
cipitating out the asphaltenes
For further details about desalting residues and im-
ported FCC feeds, refer to the responses to question 1 and
2 in the General Processing Session.
Most of BP’s FCCUs also have a full and detailed
catalyst management system that allows the refinery to
monitor and maintain the optimal Ecat activity. This
system is based around a proprietary BP dynamic catalyst
model that with fresh feed rate, feed metals, fresh catalyst
addition rate and activity, FCC operating conditions and
catalyst losses and spent catalyst unloaded from the FCCU
allows BP to monitor the activity. It also allows us to
manage mishaps (such as a feedstock higher in metals than
scheduled), variation in fresh catalyst addition (too much
or too little), or operation upsets (such as temperature
excursions) and modify the catalyst management plan.
This has been shown to work and be a very accurate
method of optimizing catalyst activity with challenging
feedstocks.
H. DAVID SLOAN (The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company):
I would like to approach questions 18 and 19 from a
slightly different angle. Kellogg recently published a paper
which detailed how ROSE deasphalting technology can
treat used lube oil for almost complete removal of lube
additives and sodium that are detrimental to the FCCU.
However, once you clean up the used oil, it may make
better sense to blend it back into lubes rather than send it
to the FCCU. Reference: “Reclamation Of Lube Oil From
Used Motor Oil By The ROSETM Technology”, Low, Jim
Y., AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, Lou-
isiana, March, 1996.
TOM COLLINS (Petrolite Corporation — Petreco Division):
The Petreco Division of Petrolite has installed 11 Bilec-
tric® desalters over the last 3 years for the treatment of
purchased FCC feedstocks. The justifications for these
installations were based on the removal of sodium con-
tamination levels that were not considered very high.
Petrolite can utilize its own proprietary economic
model to assist in the justifications for desalter installa-
tions. These justifications indicate that the treatment of
FCC feedstocks containing sodium levels as low as 2 ppm
can generate economic payouts of less than 1 year for the
desalter installation.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Furthermore, the treatment of HDS feeds for the re-
moval of sodium is of high interest among refiners.
Question 20.
CARB gasoline requirements now significantly limit
olefin content. What are the most economical routes
to reducing FCC gasoline olefinicity?
JACKSON:
The olefin content of gasoline will vary depending on
crude source, catalyst type and unit operating conditions.
Breaking the full range gasoline up and looking at the light
(LCCG), heart cut (MCCG) and heavy FCC gasoline
(HCCG), the typical olefin contents of gasolines in the
BP group are:
Gasoline Distillation Distillation RONc MONc Olefinicity Percent in
Type (°F) (°C) (wt%) FRCCG
wt%
LCCG 105–230 40–110 92 80 45 55
MCCG 195–295 90–145 85 77 25 10
HCCG 285–400 140–205 93 82 8–10 35
The following actions on an FCCUs operation will all
reduce the gasoline olefinicity:
• riser outlet temperature decreased
• reactor operating pressure increased, and
• catalyst-to-oil ratio increased.
Basically, anything that increases hydrogen transfer re-
actions reduces the olefinicity of the products. Figure 8,
from INTERCAT’s reprint of the 3rd INTERCAT Sym-
posium on FCC Additives in 1994 in Tokyo, Japan, shows
the effect of riser outlet temperature on the gasoline
olefinicity and supports the lower riser outlet temperature,
less olefinic gasoline rule.
The following catalyst modifications will all reduce the
gasoline olefinicity:
• Rare earth content of catalyst increased
• Metals content on Ecat increased
• No ZSM-5
• Increase the zeolite-to-matrix ratio on the catalyst.
It is worth discussing the use of ZSM-5 here as the effect
in the FCCU on gasoline olefinicity is not that simple.
True, the overall effect on the yields is to increase the LPG
olefinicity and the olefinicity of the front end of the
gasoline. The ZSM-5 will covert the highly reactive heavier
olefins in the heart cut to the front end of the heavy gasoline
range (C8 to C12 olefins). Blair at the 1993 Engelhard FCC
Seminar in Luxembourg quoted that olefins are approxi-
mately 100 times more reactive than paraffins. Conse-
quently, the olefins will be greatly affected by the ZSM-5.
Mobil showed in Applied Catalysis, 74 (1991) that the
larger olefinic molecules are more crackable than the
smaller ones and much more than their paraffinic relations:
93
TOC/INDEX

Component Conversion (wt%) Mobil directly, they will give you assistance and talk
C6 0.3 specifics with your data.
C8 0.4
A final method of disposing gasoline olefins is to recycle
the gasoline to the riser and the olefins will be readily
C10 0.6 converted to LPG. This will increase the catalyst-to-oil
C6= 26.0 ratio, too, as the gasoline will act as a heat sink in the riser
C8= 77.0 with negligible coke make. The issue with recycling full
range gasoline is the potential to load up the main frac-
C10= 83.0 tionator, overheads and gas recovery systems, and we
would preferentially recycle the heavy end of the gasoline.
In the same INTERCAT publication referenced above,
Figure 13 shows the effect of increasing the rare earth KIMBRELL:
content of the gasoline, reducing the olefinicity of the I think Mr. Jackson covered most of the comments we
gasoline front end. had. ARCO’s strategy has been to use a catalyst with high
Depending on what downstream upgrading equip- rare earth content and a high zeolite surface to matrix
ment the refinery has, the C5 olefins in the front end can surface area to maximize hydrogen transfer. That does
be used as feed to a TAME unit and the TAME raffinate increase your delta coke make. We have increased the
used as alkylation feed, or the C5 olefins can be sent to an severity of the hydrotreat of the feed to take advantage of
alkylation unit if you do not have a TAME unit. that. We do fractionate the C5 olefins out of the FCC
Assuming that the gasoline is made, then the effect of gasoline and we alkylate some of them and we hydrotreat
hydrotreating the gasoline will remove all (99%) of the some of them. That is how we are controlling the gasoline
olefins. The penalty, as we all know, is a massive reduction olefinicity.
in the LCCG octane and a big reduction in the MCCG
octane and a lesser reduction in the heavy FCC gasoline LEMMON:
octane. I agree with the other panelists. The point I would like
For the gasoline table above, the associated loss in to make is that the riser outlet temperature is the big
octane number due to hydrotreating is as follows: control handle here. When we talk to our catalyst vendors,
Gasoline RONc RONc MONc MONc Olefinicity we get excited about rare earth, zeolite to matrix, and on
Type Hyd’td Hyd’td (wt%) and on. But the big control handle is riser temperature.
LCCG 92 72 80 66 45 You will get about a 30% reduction in olefin content for
MCCG 85 75 77 69 25 a 20° riser outlet temperature cut. You will also lose about
1 number in RON. Everything else is just subtle fine
HCCG 93 90 82 79 8–10 tuning after that point.
The option to split the heavy, heart and light gasolines Having said that, our subtle fine tuning in catalyst is
and treat them separately is attractive in certain circum- going to be going up on rare earth, going up on activity,
stances: and running ZSM-5 when we have wet gas compressor
• Heavy FCC Gasoline — Hydrotreat capacity. We will be cutting riser outlet temperature about
• MCCG and LCCG — treat in Mobil’s Octgain 30°.
process
The latter is a process licensed by Mobil that hydro- ARNDT:
treats the gasoline, removing the olefins (and sulfur) while We have the ability to manage our olefins in CARB
maintaining the octane of the gasoline. The whole of the gasoline by managing our pentenes. We rarely make moves
gasoline could be treated, but by cutting the back end out on our FCC units. We produce TAME and then alkylate
of the gasoline into the LCO, the stream can then be the TAME raffinate. During upsets when we need more
hydrotreated with the LCO and enables a smaller Octgain olefin reduction, we can hydrotreat a portion of FCC
unit to be designed. gasoline.
Octgain is very similar to conventional hydrotreating.
The first bed is a conventional hydrotreater in which the BARKER:
sulphur goes to H2S, all olefins and some minor aromatics In a CARB environment, the focus is control of olefins
are saturated. The second bed is based on ZSM-5 which in FCC gasoline. The front end portion of the FCC
cracks normal and lowly branched paraffins. gasoline (butane through C6) is very high in olefin con-
The same table above can be generated for material run tent, approximately 45 vol% to 60 vol.%, whereas the
through the Octagain process. Confidentiality agreements total full range FCC gasoline typically contains 25 vol%
do not allow me to present any data here, but if you contact to 30 vol% olefins.

94 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX
Options from low capital cost to higher capital cost are
as follows:
1. Change catalysts to produce a lower olefin content
gasoline. This option usually results in other FCC
yield shifts. Therefore, a complete FCC yield bal-
ance must be done to understand the total effect.
Catalyst options can vary olefinicity of the FCC
gasoline by 15% to 25%.
We use high hydrogen transfer catalyst which has
an expensive high rare earth metals content. Rare
earths also help our catalyst maintain its activity
while processing our typical high nitrogen gas oils.
So we realize a dual benefit.
2 . Hydrotreat FCC gasoline in an existing hydro-
treater. Options include hydrotreating either the
front end portion only or the full range FCC
gasoline. Hydrotreating does consume significant
volumes of hydrogen and produces a lower octane
blend component that may require isomerization
or reforming to recover the octane loss. Also, hy-
drotreating will not reduce vapor pressure.
3 . Fractionate out the C 5 portion from the FCC
gasoline. Since this stream is 55 vol% to 60 vol%
olefins, an alternative is to alkylate this stream to
C5 alkylate. Alternately, the C5 stream can be used
to produce an oxygenate like TAME which can be
used to supplement RFG oxygen requirements. An
octane balance needs to be done to accurately
describe the final blending situation.
4. The FCC naphtha can be hydrotreated in a new
hydrotreater. The hydrotreater product can either
go directly to blending or get routed to a reformer
for octane upgrade. A new hydrotreater allows for
optimizing olefin saturation versus sulfur removal.
In other words, the new hydrotreater might be
allowed to operate at lower pressures than other-
wise required for sulfur removal.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
Normally, pentasil/ZSM-5 additives do not increase or
decrease total barrels of olefins in gasoline. However, there
are documented cases where total barrels of olefins in the
gasoline have been reduced with the use of pentasil addi-
tives. These occur at specific operating conditions that are
producing specific gasoline components prior to the use
of the pentasil additives. Therefore, some thought may
need to be given to total operations in trying to reduce
barrels of olefins in the gasoline stream.
JEAN-LUC NOCCA (HRI, Inc./lFP):
If you want to control olefin, obviously you have to
process the C5s. You can also hydrotreat the FCC gasoline
in a way where you control the olefin saturation and that
is a very effective way to control the olefin depending on
the operation of your FCCU. We have a number of units
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
that we have retrofitted in order to saturate selectively the
olefin to a controlled level and at the same time achieve a
high desulfurization rate. This is done in California and
other places in the U.S.
COLLIN A. GREGORY (BP Oil Company):
What type of analyzers do other refineries use to run
their FCC units, and where do they put them? Second,
does anyone use on-line color analyzers for atmospheric
gas oils, heavy FCC gas oils or light FCC gas oils?
LEMMON:
As part of a distributed control system, we added gas
chromatographs on all of the FCC gasoline and lighter
products. They function reliably and are used for closed-
loop control. We do not use color analyzers on the light
cycle oil products or on atmospheric gas oil. We have used
them in the past. They tend to foul. We rely on visual
observations by the operators of the receiving units.
ERNEST L. LEUENBERGER (ARC0 Products Company):
I would like to provide additional detail on Mr. Kim-
brell’s discussion of ARCO’s FCC gasoline olefin control
practices. When we first began using a catalyst that maxi-
mizes hydrogen transfer, it increased the delta coke make.
We had to minimize the reduction in catalyst-to-oil ratio
that is the normal effect of using high delta coke make
catalysts to get the maximum olefin reduction from this
type of catalyst. In our refinery, increasing the severity of
FCC feed hydrotreat was the most effective way to use
these catalysts. We find that our feed hydrotreat severity,
as measured by the sulfur content of the feed hydrotreater
product, has the highest correlation with our FCC gaso-
line olefin content.
HUNKUS:
I want to elaborate a little bit on Mr. Smith’s comment
too. We are constrained by the olefin content in our
gasoline. This is something we watch very carefully. A lot
95
TOC/INDEX

The catalyst MAT and total surface area began to

increase a few weeks into the trial. At that point, the fresh
catalyst addition rate was cut back slowly over time while
keeping an eye on Ecat properties. Sixty days later, catalyst
additions had been reduced by 20% with no detriment in
catalyst properties relative to the start of the trial. Unit
performance remained unchanged with the reduced cata-
lyst makeup, even with a slight deterioration in feed
quality.
In addition, one other significant benefit was observed.
During the course of the trial, a feed sodium excursion was
experienced with the Ecat sodium content jumping from
0.40 wt% to 0.60 wt%, an addition of 2000 ppm. Ordi-
narily, this would have destroyed catalyst activity and
resulted in a heavy flush with fresh catalyst. This unit was
able to weather the excursion almost without notice.
of people think you undercut FCC gasoline, but the tail
end of our FCC gasoline is actually below the national JACKSON:
standard. When you take into account the fact that it All the catalyst and additives suppliers have vanadium
blends in with a negative vapor pressure, and you are traps within their portfolio. The following is a list of
blending in saturate butane, this could be an important available products.
tool.
Also, we use bottoms cracking additive, ZSM-5 and riser Supplier Product Separate Particle/ Used by
temperature in combination to affect olefin make. I really Incorporated in Cat BP
did not hear anybody talk about that, but they are not Grace RV-systems Separate Particle 3 sites
separate strategies. You really need to work it all together.
Engelhard No name Separate Particle 1 site
Millenium In’d in Cat 1 site
Catalyst (parent Catalyst)
Betz Liquid Liquid Lab tests
Question 21.
V Trap in feed
What advances have been made in the various vana-
dium control technologies, and what are the commer- Akzo In’d in Cat (Two types) 2 sites
cial results available from these technologies? CCIC Hamorex In’d in Cat 2 sites
(parent Catalyst)
FEARNSIDE: lntercat No name Separate Particle 1 site
We have commercialized a new vanadium control tech-
nology in conjunction with Refining Process Services. The Nalco Liquid V Trap Liquid in feed Lab tests
technology is a metals passivation additive called MVP for (MVP)
Maximum Vanadium Protection. The MVP passivator is
a liquid feed additive which has shown the ability to reduce BP suspects that all the vanadium traps are made less
the impact of vanadium on catalyst activity by up to 50% effective by sulphur in the feed and this has been reported
and to reduce vanadium induced dehydrogenation by up by others.
to 75%. These are both significant improvements relative BP has relied on retrospective runs in association with
to tin-based programs. the catalyst and additive suppliers; basically the methods
MVP has been used in 10 commercial FCCs with are an adaptation of tests used by the suppliers. We have
several other applications pending. We have commercially undertaken commercial trials at all sites that have run a
demonstrated economic payouts of 3 to 1 for catalyst constant parent catalyst with and without the associated
savings alone, and in excess of 10 to 1 due to improved vanadium trap. Typically, we have targeted 90 day trials
product yields and selectivity. and worked with the supplier in determining if the trap
To give you a commercial performance example: a should be front loaded or not, etc., and the expected
processor of resid was searching for ways to reduce high pickup factors and protocol to the circulating Ecat before,
fresh catalyst addition rates. The catalyst was added pri- during, and after the trial. It has been a recent decision by
marily to flush out vanadium, with feed vanadium con- our BP catalyst experts to also now look at benchmarking
centrations of 3 ppm or higher on average. the traps in the laboratory; assessing pickup rates in dif-

96 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX
ferent environments; vanadium migration; density sepa-
ration; microscopy: etc.
We believe, and have seen, that the commercially avail-
able vanadium traps preferentially pickup more vanadium
from the feed than the Ecat. Whether the use of the trap
is commercially viable is dependent on the cost of the fresh
catalyst and addition rate; the cost of the trap and addition
rate; unit operating conditions; sulfur content of feed and
traps resilience to sulfur; Ecat activity maintenance and
amount of fresh catalyst addition saved.
PARI B. SHETH (Petrolite Corporation):
We have seen that the most commonly used technol-
ogy for vanadium passivation and FCC catalyst is tin.
Pettolite has a new commercially available program which
compares very favorably to a tin program in an FCC pilot
unit. Overall conversion and transportation fuel selectiv-
ity in pilot studies were significantly better than results
with tin.
K. RAJ RAJAGOPALAN (Grace Davison):
I just wanted to talk about the catalyst side of handling
vanadium. There are three approaches that can be used:
separate particle vanadium traps, which Mr. Jackson
talked about; use of zeolites that are designed for vanadium
passivation; and vanadium tolerant matrices.
In terms of commercial experience, separate particle
vanadium traps have been tried in many units and traps
like RV4+ have demonstrated up to a seven-fold prefer-
ential vanadium pick. This translates into passivating up
to 25% of the vanadium that is on the equilibrium
catalyst.
We also have commercial data on the designed vana-
dium tolerant zeolites like Z-17 in high vanadium FCC
units. A catalyst containing Z-17 zeolite has recently been
used by a North American refiner. Vanadium on Ecat for
this refiner ranged from 3200 ppm to 5300 ppm. Data
from the commercial unit indicates that the catalyst con-
taining Z-17 provided 2 liquid vol% higher gasoline and
0.5 liquid vol% lower slurry +HCO at constant conver-
sion relative to a competitive catalyst.
Question 22.
Has anyone looked at the economics of Molten Metal
or other recent new technologies for treatment and
disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste FCC
catalysts?
GENTRY:
The Magna Cat process, developed by Ashland Oil and
licensed by Kellogg, can be used to reduce the catalyst
disposal requirement from FCCUs processing metals con-
taining feedstocks. The Magna Cat process is not a catalyst
treatment process per se. It does not remove metals from
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
the catalyst. Instead, Magna Cat allows selective rejection
of the catalyst with the highest metals content.
Equilibrium catalyst is withdrawn from the regenera-
tor, then cooled and passed over a unique roller magnetic
system which has been developed and patented by Ash-
land. The most magnetic portion of the catalyst, which is
highest in metals, is sent to disposal. The less magnetic
fraction, which is lower in metals and has higher activity,
is returned to the regenerator.
By purging catalyst with metals content higher than the
equilibrium catalyst, less fresh catalyst makeup is required
to keep a constant metals level on equilibrium catalyst
than what is required without Magna Cat. Since less fresh
catalyst makeup is needed, the net amount of catalyst
withdrawn for disposal is also reduced.
A typical number for the reduction of fresh catalyst
makeup using Magna Cat is 20% for units processing resid
feeds. The first commercial Magna Cat unit was started
up in February of this year on the FCCU at Ashland’s
Canton, Ohio Refinery. The economic results from this
first unit have been highly encouraging. Catalyst makeup
and withdrawal are lower and catalyst activity, conversion,
and gasoline yield are higher.
HUNKUS:
We have used as much as 35 tons of catalyst a day in
the past, with a 100-ton unit capacity, even though our
recent usage is considerably less. Presently, we have con-
tracted with a cement plant to buy our catalyst stream on
a ratable basis.
In the past 3 years, we have looked at the DeMet
process, including physical layout, project scoping, and
cost studies. We also conducted a 200-ton trial on DeMet
reprocessed catalyst and we feel we saw very acceptable
performance. Our current economics will not justify the
capital expenditure, but we believe this may be a realistic
option for us in the future.
We have also had our catalyst profiled and processed
with a magnetic separation process which rejects, in our
97
TOC/INDEX

case, the worst 20%. Our catalyst was rated as being in Spent and Demetallized Catalyst —
the most responsive class to this process system. Again, Metal Removal Detail
we feel this process could have real benefits for us but our Element analyzed Spent dcat demet
project economics cannot carry the capital investment by XRF, sorted by Ecat base element removal
required yet. element ppm ppm % base
Both processes have some real potential to minimize Antimony 1130.0 201.0 82.6%
net spent catalyst if you run nickel above 2000 ppm and Barium 196.0 129.0 34.2%
vanadium above 3500 ppm.
Cadmium 1.4 bdl ~100% bdl
We have talked to people about molten metal, which
seems to currently be at the extreme of catalyst dis- Caesium 44.7 24.9 44.3%
posal/minimization technology as far as we know. I know Calcium 454.0 401.0 11.7%
of no one who is practicing this technology, but again it Cerium 3490.0 2340.0 33.0%
sounds like it may hold potential for the future.
Chromium 99.4 54.2 45.5%
STEPHEN K. PAVEL (Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc.): Cobalt 233.0 45.9 80.3%
Our thanks to the panelist for the comment on DE- Copper 21.7 9.6 55.8%
MET processing providing very acceptable performance 56.7 32.8 42.2%
Gallium
in a 200 ton trial. In addition to that trial, over 15,000
tons of spent FCCU catalyst were demetallized and re- Germanium 1.1 bdl ~100%
turned to one refinery. The successful performance at that Iodine 27.7 18.5 33.2%
location has been previously published: fresh catalyst Iron 4990.0 825.0 83.5%
additions were reduced from over 15 tons per day to
Lanthanum 8510.0 6150.0 27.7%
under 6.5 tons per day by demetallizing and returning
around 8.5 tons per day, the capacity of the off-site Lead 38.4 14.3 62.8%
demetallization facility; disposal and losses were reduced Molybdenum 16.1 2.3 85.7%
commensurate with the reduction in fresh catalyst pur- 3670.0 2440.0 33.5%
Neodymium
chases while maintaining Ni+V at roughly pre-DEMET
levels. Further benefits are available by demetallizing Nickel 4610.0 237.0 94.9%
additional volumes to further reduce fresh catalyst re- Niobium 26.5 10.5 60.4%
quirements, and/or to reduce the metals levels of the Phosphorus 738.0 612.0 17.1%
circulating catalyst.
Potassium 516.0 409.0 20.7%
DEMET technology has been significantly enhanced
in the last year. New pyro-metallurgical and hydro-metal- Praseodymium 1470.0 917.0 37.6%
lurgical technologies provide improved initial activity and Rubidium 2.7 1.9 29.6%
a significantly improved hydrothermal stability, e.g., resis- 70.4 61.3 12.9%
Strontium
tance to steam deactivation (which is catalyzed by vana-
dium, sodium, potassium, and lithium), compared to the Thorium 20.0 17.4 13.0%
base spent, a.k.a. equilibrium, catalyst. The early develop- Tin 12.0 bdl ~100% bdl
ments were published at the 1996 NPRA Annual Meeting Titanium 7880.0 3470.0 56.0%
(NPRA paper #AM-96-45). At this point, any experience,
Uranium 3.7 2.4 35.1%
familiarity, or opinion regarding the previous DEMET is
far outdated by the new generation systems. Vanadium 5790.0 952.0 83.6%
It would have been appropriate to provide separate Yttrium 33.2 28.6 13.9%
comments to the several previous questions that have Zinc 80.5 37.0 54.0%
touched on a common problem, contamination of fresh
Zirconium 131.0 104.0 20.6%
FCCU catalyst, and methods to reduce the impact of that
contamination. Many elements have also been shown by TOTAL, elements 50164.2 19539.9 61.1%
others as detrimental to the catalytic performance and/or
TOTAL, oxide est. 70062.1 26264.7 62.5%
structural integrity of the zeolites, matrices, binders used
in FCCU catalysts. The following tables provide elemental Note: bdl = below detection limit. Elements are rigorously analyzed, as con-
analyses of a spent and demetallized spent catalyst and taminants cannot be assumed inconsequential until proven otherwise. Ele-
ments tested, but below ICP detection limits for this sample set: Ag, As, Bi,
detailed MAT results prior to and after 100% steam for 4 Br, Hg, In, Mn, Se, Ta, Te, Tl. Elements often present but not tested by the
and 16 hours. XRF, or reported above: Be, B, C, Li, Mg, N, Pt, Na.

98 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX

Spent and Demetallized Catalyst — MAT Yields & base Ecat dcat wt% delta Ecat delta
Performance wt% wt% relative
MAT Yield & Performance Variables Variables %Ecat
MAT Yields & base Ecat dcat wt% delta Ecat delta After 16 hrs steam
Performance wt% wt% relative Conversion 35.86% 46.39% 10.52% 29%
Variables %Ecat
Hydrogen 0.64% 0.23% -0.41% -64%
No Steam
Dry Gas (C1+C2s) 1.67% 1.55% -0.12% -7%
Conversion 55.55% 68.29% 12.70% 23%
LPG total 5.10% 11.65% 6.55% 128%
Hydrogen 0.46% 0.35% -0.11% -25%
Gasoline 20.18% 31.36% 11.19% 55%
Dry Gas 6.22% 1.93% 1.88% -0.1%
Light Cycle Oil 20.89% 22.11% 1.22% 6%
LPG total 9.67% 22.14% 12.47% 129%
Bottoms 43.25% 31.51% -11.75% -27%
Gasoline 34.98% 39.72% 4.74% 14%
Coke 8.28% 1.59% -6.68% -81%
Light Cycle Oil 22.94% 18.61% -4.33% -19%
Gasoline+LCO 41.06% 53.47% 12.41% 30%
Bottoms 21.51% 13.10% -8.41% -39%
Delta Coke 1.69% 0.32% -1.37% -81%
Coke 8.51% 4.23% -4.28% -50%
Isobutylene 0.63% 1.86% 1.23% 195%
Gasoline+LCO 57.92% 58.33% 0.42% 1%
Gasoline/Conv. 0.5623 0.6762 0.1135 20%
Delta Coke 1.67% 0.84% -0.83% -49%
Gasoline/Coke 2.4378 19.6856 17.2479 708%
Isobutylene 0.93% 4.52% 0.59% 63%
LCO/Bottoms 0.4829 0.7018 0.2189 45%
Gasoline/Conv. 0.6297 0.5817 -0.0480 -8%
H2/Kin. Cnv. 1.1407 0.2647 -0.8760 -77%
Gasoline/Coke 4.1105 9.3901 5.2796 128%
Coke/Kin. Cnv. 14.8021 1.8416 -12.9610 -88%
LCO/Bottoms 1.0066 1.4211 0.3547 33%
H2/C1 1.2410 0.3580 -0.8830 -71%
H2/Kin. Cnv. 0.3675 0.1603 -0.2072 -56%
C2/IC4 3.1079 1.0235 -2.0844 -67%
Coke/Kin. Cnv. 6.8091 1.9641 -4.8450 -71%
H2/C1 0.7583 0.3302 -0.4281 -56%
With demetallization of spent catalyst for base recycle
C2/IC4 0.8460 0.2746 -0.5713 -68%
1) operating costs of fresh catalyst purchases are reduced,
After 4 hrs steam 2) high valued products (LPG, gasoline, LCO) are in-
48.73% 53.37% 4.65% 10%
creased, while 3) low valued products (650+F bottoms,
Conversion
coke, hydrogen, fuel gas) are decreased, and 4) process
Hydrogen 0.74% 0.20% -0.53% -72% waste is minimized.
Dry Gas (C1+C2s) 1.77% 1.49% -0.28% -16% The Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
LPG total 8.19% 14.52% 6.34% 77% for the disposition of the 14 elements listed in the Land
Disposal Restrictions — Phase II (LDR-II) proposed
Gasoline 29.60% 34.43% 4.83% 16%
rules, Sept., 1994, is, for the most part, High Temperature
Light Cycle Oil 23.61% 20.98% -2.63% -11% Metal Recovery (HTMR). There are many companies that
Bottoms 28.07% 25.64% -2.42% -9% can provide that service in addition to the one specified in
the above question, but the feedstock has to meet HTMR
Coke 8.05% 2.73% -5.33% -66%
standards.
Gasoline+LCO 53.21% 55.41% 2.21% 4% Spent FCCU catalyst has been rejected after HTMR
Delta Coke 1.61% 0.54% -1.07% -66% companies’ laboratory evaluation; the metal content is too
1.19% 1.94% 0.74% 62%
low and the silica and alumina content is too high to be
Isobutylene
an acceptable feedstock for HTMR technologies. The
Gasoline/Conv. 0.6074 0.6451 0.0377 6% spent catalyst would create too much slag and reduce the
Gasoline/Coke 3.6754 12.6351 8.9597 244% throughput of these processes. It should also be noted
LCO/Bottoms 0.8412 0.8182 -0.0230 -3% that the presence of certain elements, such as antimony,
also makes materials unacceptable for certain HTMR
H2/Kin. Cnv. 0.7767 0.1790 -0.5977 -77% processes.
Coke/Kin. Cnv. 8.4737 2.8036 -6.0931 -72% After contaminant elements are removed from the
H2/C1 1.1733 0.2848 -0.8885 -75% FCCU catalyst by DEMET, they are precipitated to metal
hydroxides, a BDAT procedure for removing metals from
C2/IC4 1.3775 0.5200 -0.8575 -62%
aqueous solutions. Depending on the metal contamination

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 99

TOC/INDEX

level of the base spent catalyst, the metal hydroxides could Element UTS TCLP Spent TCLP Dcat TCLP
analyzed by ICP ppm ppm ppm
be from 1% to 6% of the DEMET feedstock. As this is a
derived from material, it could be routed to the same Lead 0.37 bdl bdl
disposal as spent catalyst itself, or the hydroxides could be Lithium — 0.431 0.385
routed to the HTMR recyclers because the metals level is
acceptable for those BDAT technologies. Magnesium — 0.827 0.844
Demetallization has been used to reduce fresh catalyst Manganese — 0.052 0.036
purchases, and could also be used to reduce the leachable
Mercury 0.02 bdl bdl
elements in spent catalyst prior to disposal. This might be
significant should the material be classified for disposal Molybdenum — 0.227 0.058
based on leachability as proposed as in the LDR-II Uni- 20.987 31.298
Neodymium —
versal Treatment Standards (UTS). The following tables
show the effect of demetallization on spent catalyst leach- Nickel 5 1.868 1.745
ability. Potassium — 1.205 0.097
The first table provides the elemental analyses of the
Praseodymium — 6.347 9.512
spent and demetallized catalyst leachates showing the
elements which were leachable by the Toxicity Charac- Selenium 0.16 0.040 bdl
terization Leaching Procedure (TCLP) in LDR-II UTS. 50.384 55.571
Silicon —
The next table provides the analyses of the spent and
demetallized catalyst leachates from simple 20:1 de-ion- Silver 0.3 bdl bdl
ized water flushing (dif ) at 20°C (dif020) and 100°C Sodium — 26.993 16.367
(dif100). Every demetallized catalyst leachate sample has
been below the proposed UTS TCLP limits, while even Thallium 0.078 0.867 bdl
low metal spent catalysts appear to exceed at least one Tin — bdl bdl
limit. When metals are removed by the pyro-metallurgical
Titanium — 0.016 0.264
and hydro-metallurgical methods of demetallization, the
remaining elements are far less leachable than prior to Vanadium 0.23 48.437 0.123
demetallization. Zinc 5.3 0.162 1.360

Spent and Demetallized Catalysts’ Note: bdl = below detection limit

TCLP Leachates by ICP
Element UTS TCLP Spent TCLP Dcat TCLP Demetallization removes the wide range of contami-
analyzed by ICP ppm ppm ppm nant elements found on FCCU catalyst and identified in
Aluminum — 114.813 34.010 LDR-II UTS. There are more elements which appear on
spent FCCU catalyst which are not identified by the
Antimony 2.1 1.766 bdl
LDR-II UTS, and are detrimental to catalyst performance
Arsenic 5 1.495 1.480 by reducing conversion and selectivity to high valued
7.6 0.667 0.329
products.
Barium
The performance of the FCCU catalyst system is di-
Beryllium 0.014 0.368 0.012 minished due to deposition of 1) all contaminants as they
Bismuth — 0.319 bdl restrict or block access to acidic reaction sites either on the
surface micropores, mesopores, or macropores; 2) all con-
Boron — 0.109 0.067
taminants and extraneous materials as they dilute the
Cadmium 0.19 bdl bdl circulating active site inventory; 3) contaminants (K, Li,
Calcium — 1.889 4.061 Na, V, etc.) which catalyze the steam destruction of active
sites; 4) contaminants (Ca, Cu, Cr, Fe, Na, Ni, V, Zn etc.)
Cerium — 14.915 26.627
which cause non-selective yields of lower valued secondary
Chromium 0.86 bdl bdl reaction products, e.g., coke, hydrogen, methane, etc.; 5)
0.183 0.142
contaminants (Ca, Co, Cr, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na,
Cobalt —
V, W, Zn, etc.) which reduce the structural strength of the
Copper — 0.103 0.120 catalyst components, either zeolite or matrix, or both; and,
Iron — 0.328 2.320 6) contaminants that deposit on surfaces within the regen-
erator (Al, Ba, C, Ca, Cr, Fe, K, Mg, P, S, Si, Zn etc.) that
Lanthanum — 46.975 57.195
cause mechanical plugging and unit shutdowns.

100 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX

Spent and Demetallized Catalyst — Passivation additives developed, tested and targeted for
DI-Flush (20°C and 100°C) Leachates by ICP one element, e.g., nickel or vanadium, cannot be assumed
effective when allowing other contaminants to increase on
Element Spent Dcat Spent Dcat
analyzed by ICP dif020 dif020 dif100 dif100 the circulating catalyst inventory exposed to feedstock with
ppm ppm ppm ppm a wide range of contaminant elements. All products must
be reported to determine the impact of higher metals rather
Aluminum 1.574 6.589 2.961 4.720
than just hydrogen and coke. The literature does not show
Antimony 3.207 bdl 9.491 bdl the impact of passivation additives when the targeted ele-
Arsenic bdl 0.113 bdl 0.205 ment is co-deposited with the multitude of other elements
found in FCCU feedstock. Demetallization removes the
Barium 0.008 0.042 0.014 0.060 wide range of contaminants based on thermodynamics.
Beryllium 0.309 0.003 0.509 0.004 These elements could have been deposited on the catalysts
irrespective of those with magnetic susceptibility.
Bismuth 0.011 bdl 0.015 bdl
DEMET removes mobile, reducible contaminants. A
Boron 0.116 0.043 0.094 0.037 portion of contaminant elements remain on the spent
Cadmium bdl bdl bdl bdl FCCU catalyst. Demetallization will not remove those
elements which are integral to the zeolite, matrix, or
Calcium 0.269 1.087 0.283 1.084 binder. Demetallization will remove trace contaminants
Cerium bdl 1.984 0.065 3.481 remaining after fresh manufacture which were not com-
pletely washed out prior to shipment. Tests performed by
Chromium bdl bdl bdl bdl
a catalyst manufacturer on another spent and demetallized
Cobalt 0.007 0.040 0.013 0.052 spent catalyst showed that the vanadium remaining on the
0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001
demetallized catalyst was not mobile. Another manufac-
Copper
turer tests for reducibility of nickel and vanadium resulted
Iron 0.152 0.690 0.301 0.053 in the observation that the metals left after demetallization
Lanthanum 0.162 5.492 0.246 8.928 were not reducible. Demetallization provides a very effec-
tive sequence of oxidation/reduction reactions, converting
Lead bdl bdl bdl bdl contaminant oxides to sulfides to chlorides for vapor phase
Lithium 0.155 0.223 0.314 0.285 and/or aqueous removal; leachability is reduced. From
these analyses, it appears that the contaminant elements
Magnesium 0.079 0.323 0.094 0.333
which remain after demetallization are most likely not
Manganese bdl 0.008 0.001 0.012 catalytically active.
Mercury bdl bdl bdl bdl Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) research has pro-
vided an insight that has shifted researchers from theories
Molybdenum 0.263 bdl 0.474 bdl that deactivation is entirely due to vanadium poisoning.
Neodymium 0.046 1.783 0.192 3.293 Researchers have stated that the industry has basically
overlooked pore blockage shown by AFM and detailed
Nickel 0.148 0.378 0.269 0.547
pore structure analysis. The conclusions reiterated those
Potassium 0.242 0.010 0.224 0.012 derived from AFM research published in 1994: “It is
bdl 0.535 bdl 1.071
believed the gain in cracking activity exhibited by spent
Praseodymium
equilibrium FCC after reactivation with the DEMET
Selenium bdl bdl bdl bdl process is probably due to the removal of impurities from
Silicon 3.828 2.001 32.506 8.440 the catalysts microporous system.”
The DEMET technologies are marketed and licensed
Silver bdl bdl bdl bdl by Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc.
Sodium 8.416 10.051 16.473 12.147
Question 23.
Thallium 1.838 bdl 0.353 bdl
How have refiners used process and/or catalyst vari-
Tin bdl bdl bdl bdl ables to meet lower gasoline sulfur standards? What
0.064 0.039 0.165 0.016 sulfur reductions have been obtained and have octane
Titanium
numbers been affected by these changes?
Vanadium 41.162 0.226 68.498 0.187
Zinc bdl 0.036 bdl 0.098 HUNKUS:
We know of a refiner with a hydrotreated feedstock who
Note: bdl = below detection limit saw a substantial reduction in gasoline sulfur when using

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 101

TOC/INDEX
a bottoms cracking additive. At absolute levels of 0.025
wt% sulfur in combined FCC gasoline, a reduction of
some 25% was seen, nearly all of it in the heavy cut.
We saw about the same total reduction in sulfur in our
FCC gasoline while processing long resid when adding
bottoms cracking additive, but it was in both the heavy
and mid-heavy ranges. This was particularly important to
us as sulfur became a key compliance issue with our
gasoline pool as it grew from less than 30,000 bbl/d to
50,000 bbl/d after our baseline was established on sweet
crude. Our expansion has come mostly on the FCCU,
along with a move to some moderately sour crudes in the
last few years. Again, these results will probably vary
depending on the kind of base catalyst that is in your
system.
No real effects were seen on the octanes in the hydro-
treated feed case. However, in our commercial experience,
we feel we have seen some octane increases starting with a
base octane of 92; but this has been hard to quantify even
though our blender seems to feel the impact. In addition
to significant incremental charge and a reduction in olefin,
yield was considerably improved for us while using this
bottoms cracking additive.
KIMBRELL:
We use both FCC feed hydrotreating and fractiona-
tion of the end point of the FCC gasoline to control
sulfur. Both of these seem to lower the gasoline octane.
We think that we have lost approximately 0.5 road octane
number. Our current FCC gasoline pool is about 50 ppm
sulfur.
JOHN T. HALEY (Grace Davison):
Several commercial evaluations of Grace Davison’s
gasoline sulfur reduction additive GSR have been com-
pleted. So far results have been encouraging. Gasoline
sulfur reductions in the range of 10% to 30% have been
observed.
PHILIP LANE (Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.):
Akzo Nobel has been offering a new catalyst option for
lowering gasoline sulfur. This option can be applied to any
of Akzo Nobel’s catalysts. The option involves employ-
ment of a unique active selective matrix component with
controlled acidity and accessibility. Testing has shown up
to 30% reduction is possible with this technology. Com-
mercial experience on non-hydrotreated high sulfur feeds
have resulted in 10% to 24% reduction in gasoline sulfurs.
The following graph shows the results of some testing on
the Resolve option which was done in Akzo Nobel’s pilot
riser unit. This component is also an active matrix and
improved bottoms reduction has been seen in commercial
application of this option.
102 Heavy Oil Processing
Question 24.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of separate
FCC catalyst additive addition and blending systems,
versus impregnation/incorporation within the bulk
catalyst?
HUNKUS:
Separate systems allow quicker optimization and better
cost control, especially with continuous or near continu-
ous injections. For small volumes of additives, the same
system can be used with alternating timer additions, mini-
mizing the systems required.
Operating variables which have the most effect on host
catalyst deactivation in the FCC regenerator are tempera-
ture, steam, partial pressure and vanadium concentration,
not to mention sodium excursions. For units like ours
where there is a lot ofvanadium in the feed, this is a factor.
For ZSM-5 additives, however, vanadium does not
contribute significantly to the additive deactivation rate.
In addition, ZSM-5 is more resistant to hydrothermal
deactivation than are most zeolites. To maintain a constant
ZSM-5 additive activity level in the unit, all that is re-
quired in most units is a constant additive rate even if you
vary your base catalyst addition rate to control metals.
The net result of this difference in deactivation mecha-
nisms becomes most apparent in a unit where the vana-
dium level in feed fluctuates on a regular basis like ours.
If the additive is blended in with fresh catalyst at a fixed
percentage, then as the fresh catalyst addition rate is
varied (for example, from 8 to 15 tons a day) to maintain
a steady activity and desired yield profile in the unit, the
effective ZSM-5 activity level in the unit will fluctuate in
proportion to the fresh catalyst addition rate, i.e., no fine
tuning allowed. The resultant large fluctuations in LPG
yield and gasoline octane are not desirable and make a
very clear case for using separate additive loaders. The
same thing can be said for CO2 promoter, although we
do not use any in our unit.
TOC/INDEX
We have a system of one 280 ton spent hopper we can
load back from; two 100 ton equilibrium hoppers, one for
activity maintenance and one for metals control grades of
equilibrium; a 75 ton fresh hopper; a 30 ton hopper for
bottoms cracking additive; and two small bin package
additive loaders for ZSM-5 additives. With this system
flexibility, we can custom adjust our catalyst strategy on a
shift by shift basis as feedstock or crude blend recipes
change, and we can easily continue to optimize FCC
performance while running different loads of catalyst,
equilibrium catalysts, quality shifts and batches of crude
received. This is a key area in our operational excellence
program.
Our Operations and Shift foremen see unexpected
changes or planned changes occur. We can then adjust our
catalyst system to attack bottoms conversion, volume
expansion, olefin yield, octane, offgas, or distillate produc-
tion. As you can tell, we are big fans of separate particle
optimization and helped write a paper on this topic titled,
“Optimizing FCC operations and Economics by Ex-
changing Bottoms for Higher Value Products with BCA-
105". Our FCCU has grown from 28,000 bbl/d to 50,000
bbl/d in the last 5 years, in part because of this flexibility.
JACKSON:
I agree with Mr. Hunkus. BP’s FCCUs use additives
around the group. The refineries use these additives for
different reasons, but the benefits and incentives are clear.
Advantages:
• For FCC/RCCs which run different crude cam-
paigns, the parent/bulk catalyst is selected and opti-
mized for a given operation and feedstock. If the
feedstock changes substantially, then additives can
be used to re-optimize the catalyst very quickly. This
is particularly important for remote refineries.
• To take maximum advantage of product value vari-
ations. For example, as the propylene (C3=) rises and
falls, additives can be added and stopped as required.
• For unplanned operations; tanker delays, running
portion of Vacuum Residue to an RCCU.
• Running distressed cargos.
• Better control over afterburning in changing opera-
tions. For example, afterburning increasing due to
feedstock change or equipment deterioration (air
distributors, etc.).
Disadvantages:
• Additional loading system needed.
• Additional complexity for unit Process Engineer to
account for.
• Single catalyst system most effective for constant
diet of feedstock; end of pipeline and running VGO,
for instance.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
The disadvantages of using separate particles are mini-
mal as the additive company we use supplies an additive
system with their products; none of our refineries (even
those at the end of a pipeline) have very steady feedstocks.
Overall, BP sees a need for separate particle systems and
uses them at a number of its refineries.
KIMBRELL:
I agree with both of the previous comments. The main
advantage is system flexibility and it allows you to fine tune
your operation and adjust to market conditions. And
again, the only real disadvantage is cost.
FEARNSIDE:
In relation to mitigating vanadium’s effect, adding a
solid vanadium trap within the bulk catalyst acts like a
diluent. The question of how long it takes to turn over the
internal catalyst inventory before the solid vanadium traps
start to work has to be asked. With a liquid feed passivator,
neither of these concerns is present.
JOHN T. HALEY (Grace Davison):
Although many FCC additive users benefit from sepa-
rate additions of FCC additives, some large scale users are
benefitting from preblended additive additions via re-
duced handling costs and reduced capital expenditures for
large scale injection equipment.
Many large scale additive users have observed more
consistent, reliable additive performance with preblended
additives. In these cases, the refiners usually maintain
smaller scale equipment, for trim additions.
JACKSON:
To come back on that, in principle, I do not disagree.
But the whole point of having the additive system is for
complete flexibility. By preblending you are taking away
some degree of flexibility. We prefer to have the ability to
be able to turn up and turn down our additive systems as
we see fit.
LLOYD WINGER (Conoco Inc.):
Is anyone changing their FCC catalyst to compensate
for deactivation of the FCC feed hydrotreaters through its
run length?
JOSEPH B. McLEAN (Engelhard Corporation):
We have done that with some people. The philosophy
basically is to start with a higher matrix catalyst when the
hydrotreating catalyst is fresh and the feed is better qual-
ity. This allows the highest level of bottoms cracking and
also maintains the delta coke needed for heat balance.
Then as the hydrotreater catalyst deteriorates and reduced
delta coke becomes more important, the catalyst formu-
lation is adjusted to a higher Z to M ratio, more coke
selective catalyst, toward the end of the cycle. We have
103
TOC/INDEX
done it through several cycles with at least one refiner that
I know of.
LEMMON:
We have a 600 ton catalyst inventory in our FCC unit
that charges hydrotreated feed. So we do not chase short
term feed changes. We would make a modification in our
FCC catalyst if we saw a long-term trend in our FCC feed
hydrotreater. If the activity of the FCC feed hydrotreater
went down and nitrogen went up, we would increase our
MAT activity and make other moves to try to compensate.
G. ANDREW SMITH (INTERCAT, Inc.):
Unlike liquid metal passivators that can deposit metals
within the FCC unit, solid particles are added with the
catalyst stream and leave the unit in the same manner
without being included in the liquid product streams,
except to the extent that catalyst is entrained in these
streams. There have been cases where certain liquid addi-
tives have produced undesirable levels of metals in liquid
product streams.
With the proper addition of solid additives through the
patented INTERCAT Additive Feed System, the unit can
be prepared in anticipation of unusual operations or feed.
If a problem already exists, the unit can be made to
respond within a few days through the proper addition of
the additive.
In regards to the question of dilution from solid addi-
tive additions, certain additives have shown the ability to
allow the unit activity to increase. This results in lower
catalyst additions or higher catalyst activities just the
opposite of what would be expected if they were diluting
the catalyst activity. Also, units running as high as 12%
pentasil additives have not seen any decrease in unit
activity or catalyst MAT results.
JONAH SMITH (TRIADD FCC Additives):
The effect of encapsulation of platinum by silica and
the detrimental effects of nickel, vanadium and soda can
cause a refiner to pay for more platinum than actually
winds up being effective in the unit. On the other hand,
having promoter blended into the fresh catalyst could be
costing a large premium, and so refiners should check this
out very carefully with their catalyst suppliers. Other
considerations of prepromotion are the loss ofcontrol over
NO, emissions, as well as the greater potential for SO3
emissions, like in Question 7, and the resulting effects on
PM and opacity. Once the unit is overpromoted, only time
and/or catalyst changeouts will get these emissions down,
and, of course, if your hopper is full of promoted catalyst,
you are left with only time.
New-generation promoters, like the kind currently be-
ing developed and tested by Triadd, will eventually miti-
gate some of these concerns by promoting CO
combustion and nothing else. In the meantime though,
104 Heavy Oil Processing
separate particle addition, as advocated by the panel, when
accompanied by a definite plan that is communicated
clearly to all the shift supervisors and operators (which is
no easy task) remains the most cost-effective and control-
lable strategy.
PHILIP LANE (Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.):
Akzo Nobel has recently introduced CO promoter im-
pregnated directly on its FCC catalysts. This new technol-
ogy, called INSITUPRO, has resulted in substantial
improvement in promotion efficiency. In some commercial
trials platinum levels have been reduced 50% by use of
INSITUPRO. In other trials with problem promotion, the
effectiveness ofpromotion has been substantially improved
at equal levels of platinum in the inventory. The following
graph shows the results obtained when a refiner with
promotion problems began to employ INSITUPRO and
then returned back to additive type promoter. This shows
the advantages ofimpregnation versus additive addition for
promoter. The flexibility to start and stop additions or
adjust levels is hindered by impregnation, but this is not
critical for promoter as it is with Functions such as ZSM-5.
Question 25.
Refiners are continuing to seek ways to increase
production of petrochemical feedstucks. What proc-
ess or catalyst technologies significantly increase
ethylene production from an FCCU?
JACKSON:
BP already produces light olefins for the chemical in-
dustry from the FCCU, but predominantly produces pro-
pylene (C3 =). We have considered the production of
ethylene (C2 =) on numerous occasions and studied the
potential and the economics associated with this operation.
It should first be understood that C2= is produced from
thermal reactions, whereas C3 = and higher olefins are
produced catalytically in the FCCU.
TOC/INDEX
We have to look at each operating variable in isolation
to determine the magnitude of each variables’ effect on
C2= production. The major variables considered were:
riser outlet temperature; reactor pressure; catalyst-to-oil
ratio; catalyst variables, ZSM-5 and rare earth; feed qual-
ity; and short contact time operation.
The only variable that has any real effect on the C2=
yield is riser outlet temperature. Reactor operating pres-
sure has a small, but negligible, effect, too. The rest are
insignificant.
A typical C2= yield from an FCCU runs at 0.6 wt% to
1.0 wt% maximum, depending on the operation. Consid-
ering a sensible maximum riser outlet temperature of
610°C, the maximum C2= production can be increased to
around 5 wt%. The associated dry gas production (H2,
C1, C2 and C2=) is approaching 15 wt% with approxi-
mately equal C1 to C2= by weight. This is assuming a
commercially sensible conversion of 85 wt%.
There are two commercially available processes operat-
ing in China that have been specifically designed for
maximum olefins production — Deep Catalytic Crack-
ing (DCC) and Maximum Liquified Gas plus Gasoline
(MGG). A third process is being developed which is called
Maximum Iso-Olefins (MIO). The quoted yields from a
DCC are between 3.5 wt% and 6 wt% in maximum C3=
made. The MGG process is obviously a lot lower for C2=
due to the objective of this process.
In summary, the maximum C2= is achieved by maxi-
mum riser outlet temperature and reactor operating pres-
sure and minimum catalyst-to-oil in an FCCU. This
ensures that, for a given conversion, the maximum
amount of conversion is from thermal reactions and not
catalytically.
BARKER:
I agree with Mr. Jackson’s comments and note that it
gets back to the basics of the kinetics of the reaction. The
cracking mechanism in an FCCU is beta carbodium ion
cracking. Therefore, catalytically cracked products must
be propylene and heavier. Ethylene is produced by thermal
cracking side reactions, and is not controlled catalytically.
Thermal cracking will occur in the reactor if the catalyti-
cally cracked vapors are allowed a long residence time. This
results in a large loss in gasoline to LPG. So I agree that it
is a very inefficient way to generate ethylene.
Fractionation
Question 26.
Discuss experiences in installing a heavy naphtha
draw pumparound as a means of unloading the main
column overhead condensers.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
JOHNSON:
Most new units have as a standard feature the naphtha
pumparound loop to increase heat recovery from the main
column. One aspect of the design to be careful of is the
dew point of NH4Cl and NH4HS salts compared to the
top tower temperature. Units processing resid and high
salt content feeds have seen increased salting of the top of
the main column as the salt dew point increases and the
top tray operating temperature decreases. Some of our
licensees have used an on-line water wash procedure de-
veloped by UOP to remove these salts, with a minimum
disruption to the operation.
HUNKUS:
Our pumparound stream supplies heat to our boiler
feedwater deaerator, and then to our FCC deaerator
makeup. Use of this system significantly reduces overhead
condensing requirements, especially during maximum
gasoline operation. During maximum diesel season, the
reduced naphtha draw temperature reduces the effect, and
the LCO and HCO systems not used in summer are used
to reduce overhead condensing requirements.
We tied in a heavy naphtha draw to bypass net naphtha
to the Gas Conservation debutanizer and saw a further
dramatic reduction in overhead condensing duty. We also
gained control of our Gas Conservation stripper, which
had been liquid flooding. We experienced a slight loss in
primary absorber recovery, but we run our offgas through
a cryogenic unit anyway.
We added a second bypass to further increase gasoline
yield and FCC charge rate. We found that we could even
bypass around the debutanizer straight into the FCC
Merox unit. We recently reworked the Gas Conservation
unit this last turnaround and have not had to use this
system since, but we gained 15% to 20% apparent con-
densing duty by using this heavy naphtha pumparound
bypass of the main column overhead system. As we further
expand our FCCU, we plan on using this technique to
provide additional apparent condensing capacity during
summer gasoline season if required.
One note, we do have to wash our main column on-line
periodically, and we have run our main column overhead
anywhere from about 325°F down to about 215°F.
JACKSON:
BP has installed heavy naphtha (HCCG) draws from
their FCCU main fractionators around the world either
in new or revamped columns. The most recent one was
installed as part of a new main fractionator column instal-
lation on the back of an existing FCCU. Obviously the
pumparound, heat removal, overhead, etc., systems were
all reviewed, but the inclusion of the heavy FCC gasoline
draw meant that no modifications were necessary to the
wet gas compressor and minimum modifications to the
other systems listed above.
105
TOC/INDEX
From this installation and others, we have seen the
following benefits and are aware of other less obvious
effects.
Benefits:
• Unload the main fractionator overhead system and
condensers.
• Unloading the condensers gives a low reflux drum
temperature.
• Lower overhead system pressure drop which can be
used by either:
— Lower reactor pressure operation and hence bet-
ter yield selectivity.
— Higher reflux drum operating pressure to relieve
wet gas compressor constraints.
• Heavy FCC gasoline available for recycling to the
reactor riser for higher catalyst-to-oil effects.
• Heavy FCC gasoline available as a separate blend
component and/or separate treatments.
• The debutanizer (DeC4) will be debottlenecked.
Considerations:
• Heavy FCC gasoline may require stripping.
• Reduces the fractionation between the gasoline and
LCO draw.
• Equilibrium in reflux drum changes and molecular
weight to the wet gas compressor is lower.
• Lower flow rate through condensers reduces the
duty requirement, but the lower temperatures in the
reflux drum lead to a lower temperature difference
driving force.
• Tower top temperature will drop, such that water fall
out and salting may occur.
• Absence of heavy FCC gasoline in the absorbers may
reduce the LPG recovery.
A number of these considerations can be addressed and
overcome by operating changes.
In summary, the inclusion of a heavy FCC gasoline
draw in the main fractionator design is a good idea and
has a lot if merit, but the overall effect needs to be thought
through and studied in detail.
GENTRY:
As usual, Mr. Jackson has done a very thorough job with
all the variables. I wanted to give an example of a recent
Kellogg design to revamp an FCCU from 40,000 bbl/d to
60,000 bbl/d where we added a heavy naphtha pum-
paround to reduce overhead duty to avoid incremental
cooling water usage in the unit revamp. The original
fractionator design had a 1.4 overhead reflux ratio. Origi-
nal design heat removal on the overhead condenser was
about 170 million BTU/hr. The revamp design was for 60
million BTU/hr in the new heavy naphtha pumparound,
and 140.7 million BTU/hr in the overhead condenser.
106 Heavy Oil Processing
The heavy naphtha pumparound heat reboiled the
absorber-stripper and depropanizer columns. Heavy
naphtha replaced LCO as the lean sponge oil source for
improved sponge absorber operation. Fractionator modi-
fications to add the heavy naphtha pumparound entailed
replacing 4 trays with 1300 cu ft of dumped packing,
adding a spray type branch distributor, replacing the tray
below the packed bed with a chimney tray, and adding
necessary nozzles.
FEARNSIDE:
Relative to the comments about salting up the tower,
our experience has shown that the salt is predominately
ammonium chloride. We have been able to unplug towers
on-line without resorting to water washers. What we have
done is used a very high detergent filmer and a high dosage
and to get around that problem.
ANDREW W. SLOLEY (Process Consulting Services, Inc.):
Adding a heavy naphtha pumparound can be used to
unload the overhead condenser system. Choosing the best
location for this depends on the heat sinks available, types
and qualities of heavy naphtha cuts, and desired gasoline
end point. If the pumparound heat is exchanged against
air or water, then the pumparound system should be added
in the top two or three trays in the column. This maximizes
gasoline/LCO fractionation while allowing maximum
condenser thermal load reduction. If the heat is to be
recovered in the FCC gas plant to reboil the C3/C4 splitter
or stripper, then the pumparound draw temperature and
circulation rate must be taken into consideration.
Typical top and heavy naphtha pumparound draw tray
temperatures are 280°F to 300°F and 340°F to 365°F,
respectively. The actual temperatures will vary depending
on whether a heavy naphtha side cut is produced, the
quality of side cut, and gasoline end point. For instance,
meeting CARB T90 gasoline specifications or reducing
gasoline end point from 445°F to 430°F affects main
fractionator pumparound draw temperatures. Minimum
actual plant operating temperature on the top of the main
fractionator is about 200oF. This occurs at 20% to 25% of
total FCC gasoline produced as heavy naphtha. Minimum
overhead condenser duty implies maximum sidecut. Op-
erating at 200°F requires that the system by designed with
provisions for on-line water washing to remove potential
salt formation on the top tray.
Some refiners operate highly heat integrated main frac-
tionator/gas plants with five main fractionator pum-
parounds. This includes both a top and a heavy naphtha
pumparound. The benefit of having two pumparounds is
heat recovery. Top pumparounds can be used to reboil the
C3 splitter and part of the stripper reboiler heat. The heavy
naphtha pumparound can then be used on the C3/C4
splitter, and possibly, as debutanizer feed preheat. As FCC
conversion increases, the available low temperature heat
TOC/INDEX
in the main fractionator increases while the required gas
plant reboiler/feed preheat requirements increase (with
gasoline/LCO reflux ratio approximately constant, in-
creased gasoline is increased reflux). Main fractionator/gas
plant heat integration becomes a significant issue as FCC
conversions approach 78%+ vol%.
MICHAEL BRAHN (Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.):
Mr. Jackson and Ms. Barker, in the analysis that you
took on ethylene production on the FCCU, could you
provide us in the transcript some information on the
feedstocks that were considered and what contaminants
other than the typical you might have seen such as acety-
lene, methyl acetylene and propadiene that you saw when
you were trying to push the ethylene values up. A second
question to Mr. Jackson, how well did your model predict
these trace components in these streams?
JACKSON:
The feedstocks we looked at were North Sea crudes. We
looked at hydrogen, methane, ethylene, ethane, H2S,
nothing more complex than that unfortunately. How
accurate did it look at those? We are very confident that
the model will cover and step out quite a way, including
up to 600°C from data we have looked at and pilot plant
data. It does not cover some of the other trace components
you suggested.
B. Coking
Mechanical Reliability
Question 27.
What is the experience with complete automation of
the coke drum unheading operation, such as opening
and closing of the top and bottom heads, automated
disengagement of the feed line, automated operation
of the telescopic chute, etc.? What has been the
experience with combination drill bits to help in this
automation effort?
KIMBRELL:
ARCO has gone a long way toward automating this
entire process. While the bolt removal from the top head
is still a manual operation, opening the top head is done
from a remote location for safety. The bottom heads have
bolt removal, bottom head removal, feed line disengage-
ment and, in one of our refineries, the telescopic skirt
operation is all done automatically from a remote location.
We have used combination drill bits and have them in
both of our facilities. This is a style that requires a manual
change from boring to cutting. We have experimented
with the style of drill bit that does not need the manual
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
change from one style to the other, but we do not think
that that has significant benefits.
JACKSON:
BP likes the concept of automated unheading/heading
devices, and this became best practice when the cokers
moved to heavier feeds where the formation of shot coke
was most likely, potentially enabling a flowing drum of
shot coke to be closed. We have been very pleased with the
operation of the unheading/heading systems, although we
have not had to use the automatic closure against a free
flowing shot coke drum.
The following pictures are schematics of an automatic
unheading and chute system. The other pictures are the
same automatic systems on a commercial unit.
BP also recommends using combination bits. We used
poor quality water which contained high levels of particu-
lates in the early days, which caused the cutter to stick.
This was easily rectified by using better quality water. The
basic advantages we see are the bits do not have to be
changed and the risk of dropping a drill bit into the drum
is removed. We have used Pacific Pump (Ingersol/Dressor)
drills.
BP has reviewed in detail and talked with a number of
non-BP U.S. coking refiners. One company in particular
employs fully enclosed and highly automated coke han-
dling systems to great effect and we would consider it “Best
in Class”.
BALDASSARI:
Generally, we have had good operating experience on
units we have designed with automatic unheading sys-
tems. The industry trend is that all new cokers will have
this feature. Also, many refiners with existing cokers are
looking into installing this system to reduce cycle time. To
date, Lummus has utilized the unheading feature for the
bottom flange only. In cases where we have done this, the
feed pipe disengagement or detachment has been done
manually. We believe that a 30 to 45 minute savings in
cycle time can be realized by putting a system like this into
an existing unit. Essentially all new units that we have
designed recently, or are in the process of designing, have
unheading systems.
One minor problem that has been experienced is re-
alignment of the feed piping on these systems due to some
warping of the piping as it is cycled. But this is not a major
problem to overcome.
GENTRY:
Our experience has been similar with regard to auto-
mation of coke drum unheading operations. Kellogg has
had experience with a number of the devices offered
commercially. We have also contributed heavily to the
joint development of a completely automated head re-
moval device offered by Vetco-Gray. By the end of 1996,
107
TOC/INDEX

108 Heavy Oil Processing

TOC/INDEX
about 60 coke drum automatic and semi-automatic un-
heading devices will have been installed.
As for the second part of the question, combination
drill bits for coke drum hydraulic decoking are widely used
in the industry. Separate cutting and drilling heads have
been replaced by combination heads on most existing
cokers. Combination heads have been used on most new
cokers for at least the last 15 to 20 years.
The combination head allows the operator to switch
from the drilling to the cutting operation without replac-
ing the head. Switching is accomplished by changing the
position of an internal valve inside the head, and it is
necessary to remove the drill head from the drum for this
switch. The combination head is designed and manufac-
tured by Ingersoll Dresser Company, Huntington Beach,
California.
The advent of larger diameter coke drums has brought
about a design change in the combination drill head. The
spring used in the valve switching mechanism has been
eliminated because this spring mechanism was subject to
vibration from increased flows and pressures of cutting
water for the larger drums.
GARY HUGHES (Conoco Inc.):
Last October, Conoco installed a Hadon-Clay auto-
mated coke drum unheading system on our bottom heads
of 4 coke drums at our Lake Charles Refinery. An auto-
mated telescopic shoe was not included. We feel these
changes have been very successful from an ergonomic and
a safety point of view. This system has shown good reli-
ability when properly maintained. The feed line coupling
system has been much easier to center and make back up
when compared to our preinstallation operation. In refer-
ence to the combination bit, Conoco is utilizing the
combination bits at all of our cokers. A number of our
licensees also use the combination bits. The few minutes
which we save during the drilling step due to the use of
the combination bit has been extremely important in our
coker units which run 11 hour coke drum cycles.
Optimization
Question 28.
What techniques can be used to decrease coke drum
cycle time? What is the shortest cycle time experi-
enced? What are the operational and safety issues
relating to reducing cycle time? What is the effect on
coke drum life when operating on reduce cycle?
HUNKUS:
Assuming you really want to run more feed and/or run
heavier feed, then your first step is to make less coke. You
should look at cutting recycle, raising heater temperatures,
running lower pressure (1 psig to 2 psig) in the overhead
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
receiver, better feed preparation, deeper cut vacuum unit
operation to pull more gas oil out of the coker feed, filling
drums as full as possible using antifoam (about 18 ft
outage is pushing it), drum level indicators, and minimiz-
ing pressure swings on drum switches allowing higher rates
and fuller drums. All this reduces the number of cycles,
which feels like cutting cycle time.
Now, how can we turn around drums quicker? The “do
stuff faster syndrome safety optimization program” con-
sists of putting a lot of effort into understanding existing
techniques and soak times, and learning what accepted
industry practice is. This is very unit specific in detail. The
coker is an operator optimized unit, not an “engineer in
an office” optimized unit. Around the clock interactive
optimization is required.
Generally, you shorten cool down times, quench
harder, convert to automatic unheading devices for speed
and safety, run for shot-coke, drill hot, shorten heat up
time, and cut right into rail cars or other pull away devices.
If you really want to make more coke, you may want to
consider an additional drum to preserve high value coke
quality while processing more feed.
What is the shortest cycle time experienced? The short-
est reliable full cycle time that we know of is 14 to 16
hours, depending on unit layout.
Obviously, existing procedures are built around real
concerns and any variation must be thoroughly consid-
ered from an operability, maintenance, and safety point
of view. Internal and procedural modifications, as well as
feedstock adjustments, may let you safely produce shot
coke which may dump more quickly. These improve-
ments include automatic unheading devices, nozzle
guards, cross bracing, etc.
Drum life will go down. Use minimum design philoso-
phy planning to reduce localized stress cracking. Good
insulation is very key, keep it on and in good shape. Do
not wait until daylight or Monday or you will never finish
fixing cracks. Minimal metal thickness designs may actu-
ally result in better life, or at least will tolerate faster cycle
times.
JACKSON:
The cycle time will depend on a number of issues and
can be altered by a number of factors. For new designs of
cokers, the type of coke being produced will affect the
cycle time, typically between 16 hours and 20 hours across
the coke type range. BP cokers predominantly make anode
coke and hence have cycle times in the range of 17 hours
to 18 hours. Obviously, cokers that have produced shot
coke will have a shorter cycle time due to the minimal time
needed to remove the coke from the drum.
We would recommend that newly designed drums be
designed for 20 hour cycle times (traditionally designed
for 24 hours) and then look to reduce the actual cycle times
to around 16 hours to 18 hours by shortening the drum
109
TOC/INDEX
emptying step. We have seen pacesetter U.S. coking refin-
ers reduce a 20 hour cycle time designed drum to 16 hours
by better use of technology and operating skills. The
refiners we speak with have managed 14 hours on a fairly
frequent basis.
The coking process can be sensibly broken down in to
7 decoking steps:
Operation 24 hr Cycle
1) Steaming 2.0
2) Quenching 6.0
3) Draining 2.0
4) Unheading 1.0
5) Cutting 5.0
6) Reheading & Testing 2.0
7) Heating 6.0
As you can see, the quench, cut and heating steps take
up more than 70% of the cycle time.
Shortening the steaming stage leaves minimal shorten-
ing of the cycle to be gained.
Quench time reduction can be targeted to reduce cycle
time. The higher the quench rate, the higher the tempera-
ture shocks experienced by the coke drum, and hence the
shorter the drum life. The stepped quench water rates are
important due to the steam generation and disposal rates
as well as the controlled impact on the drum skin tempera-
ture (minimizing shocking the vessel). Foster Wheeler
Engineering Corporation has considered this aspect of the
cycle so critical to the coke drums life that they simulate
the quenching and thermal gradients in the drum. The
resulting reviews, and quench control logic and skin ther-
mocouples (on the support skirt/drum wall critical junc-
tion) feedback loop all target a minimum stressing of the
drum and a longer life.
Reducing the drain downtime is a function of the
experience of the units operation and feedstocks. The
temptation is to rush this exercise, but this can be hazard-
ous, especially if the unheading is not automatic. Hot
water spillage on the unheading deck and below could be
hazardous.
The unheading of the coke drum can be quickened by
automating the operation as well as automatically decou-
pling the feed line and having an automatic chute.
Cutting time is minimized if the water jet pump is
designed correctly and can deliver a large enough water
rate at a high enough pressure. As stated above, formation
of shot coke will minimize this action further.
Reheading, like unheading, is shortened when auto-
mated systems are applied.
Heating time can be minimized, according to Foster
Wheeler Engineering Corporation, by lining the coke
condensate vapor line to the blowdown system during the
110 Heavy Oil Processing
heating of the system. The higher driving force ensures an
increased rate of hot vapors, and hence heating, than if the
unit was lined out to the main fractionator.
Hence, the reduction in drum emptying cycle can be
reduced as follows:
Operation 24 Hr Cycle 18 Hr Cycle
Steaming 2.0 1.5
Quenching 6.0 6.0
Draining 2.0 2.0
Unheading 1.0 0.5
Cutting 5.0 3.0
Reheading & Testing 2.0 1.0
Heating 6.0 4.0
To reduce the cycle time further, the quench time is
greatly reduced with the associated impact on drum life.
Shorter cycles will always result in short drum life. A
competitor claims to have lost 25% of his coke drum life
by reducing the cycle time by 3 hours down to 18 hours.
We would expect a drum life of realistically between 15
and 20 years.
From an operational point of view, shorter cycle time
also increases the likelihood of producing soft coke or very
wet coke, due to insufficient heat being put into the feed
by the feed heater. The products do not completely con-
vert to vapor and solid coke.
The shorter cycle time has been seen to result in hot
spots in the drum which result in the impressive eruptions
of steam and coke particles, during coke cutting. The
uneven cooling leading to hot spots can sometimes be seen
when the coke drum at the top deck has moved more to
one side; the “banana effect.”
KIMBRELL:
Both of our refineries are operating on a 15 hour coke
drum cycle. We have used a 14 hour cycle on a temporary
basis. Reducing the coke drum drilling time has been the
biggest change we have used to shorten the cycle. Mini-
mizing the amount of time that you steam to the fractiona-
tor or steam to blow down is another area where we have
been able to cut time. I agree with Mr. Jackson, do not
skimp on the time it takes to quench the coke because that
is probably the biggest thing you can do to damage coke
drums. We also would not skimp too much on heating
drums up because that is another way to shorten coke
drum life.
The automated drum unheading systems will help
improve safety regardless of coke drum cycle. It does help
a little on time. Shorter cycles will cause the drums to
accumulate cycles faster and coke drums are going to have
problems eventually; that is the nature of the business.
On short cycles there is a temptation to quench fast and
TOC/INDEX
warm up fast. You really need to look at that hard before
you do, because it is going to wear your drums faster than
you expect.
BARKER:
For many years we have operated a 4 drum delayed
coker on a 10 hour drum cycle and on occasion as short
as 8.5 hours. The drums were small, 16 ft diameter by 50
ft tangent to tangent and relatively thick walled with a 75
psi design pressure. The drums were equipped with ring
lines and were cooled by overflowing water which contrib-
uted to the rapid cooling. They were also heated rapidly
by routing nearly the entire vapor production of the two
on-line drums to the drum being heated. The drums
suffered only very minor and infrequent cracking prob-
lems and were finally replaced by larger drums after 42
years of service.
BALDASSARI:
This question has been covered quite extensively by the
other panelists. To reiterate, coke drum cycle time can be
reduced by:
• Adding automatic coke drum unheading systems
• Reducing coke cutting time by using high pressure
water
• Reducing warm-up time by limiting preheat before
feed is introduced
• Reducing coke drum cooling time by controlling
this operation from the control room rather than
manually in the field
We are aware of refiners who have operated with cycle
times as low as 12 to 14 hours. Although in some cases
reported coke drum life has been quite good, in other cases
coke drum life has been reduced by as much as three times,
from 15 to 20 years down to as low as 5 years, as a result
of quenching and reheating the coke drum too rapidly.
Question 29.
What advances have helped keep delayed coking
technology at the forefront of processing options in an
industry with severe competitiveness?
GENTRY:
Although the basic configuration for delayed coking
has not changed dramatically, numerous process and me-
chanical advances have helped it maintain a key role in the
industry over the last 60 years. We have already talked
about a number of these, but I will just run down the list.
1. Product yield improvements have been accom-
plished through very simple and cost-effective
changes in operating conditions such as low coke
drum pressure and low recycle.
2. Shortened coke drum cycle times which have im-
proved cost-effectiveness by making it possible to
process more and heavier feeds with proportion-
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
ately lower investment in drums and drilling
equipment.
3. Use of double fired furnaces has provided increased
ability to handle very heavy feedstocks without
impacting on stream efficiency. On-line spalling
has also provided refiners with longer furnace runs
between steam air decoking.
4. Design improvements to closed blowdown systems
have essentially eliminated any continuous emis-
sions from cokers.
5. Improvements in slops processing, refinery sludge
disposal and coke drum relief disposition have
helped make the coker less offensive to the refiner.
6. Improvements in the mechanical design aspects of
delayed coker, such as automated bottom and top
drum unheading devices, hydraulic decoking, and
coke and water handling systems, have improved
safety, working environment, maintainability and
operability of cokers.
7. Design improvements in the coker gas plant have
led to higher LPG recovery and better process
economics.
8. Advanced process control methods have resulted in
improved ability to handle the cyclical nature of
the process with minimal loss of product yield and
quality.
This is a partial list, but it hits most of the high points.
JOHNSON:
I agree with all of the previous comments. I might make
one other comment: the Foster Wheeler double fired coker
heater design allows for longer run lengths in the processing
of heavier sour crudes, and also has application or benefit
in processing some of the more unstable feedstocks.
H. DAVID SLOAN (The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company):
Mr. Gentry provided the Kellogg straight answer to this
question. Now I would like to discuss an alternative. While
history and the perception of coking as being a low cost
option make it a good comparison case for resid upgrading
solutions, the lowest cost option for upgrading is not
coking. Several recent publications have shown that sol-
vent deasphalting such as Kellogg’s ROSE Technology
coupled with gas oil conversion processes, like FCCU and
hydrocracking, produce higher yields of valuable liquid
fuels at substantially lower capital costs than coking. Cok-
ing makes a good base case for refinery upgrading studies,
but we should really be looking at stand alone coking as
yesterday’s answer and look to other more cost and energy
efficient technologies for the future, taking advantage of
processing synergies that may exist. Literature references
include: “Options for Heavy Oil Processing,” Houde,
Edward J., and Phillips, Graham, Hydrocarbon Technology
International, Spring, 1995; “Refinery Technology Selec-
tion to Improve Profitability,” Ragsdale, R., Ewy, G.L.,
111
TOC/INDEX
Barnwell, J., Pan Asian Conference, Phuket, Thailand,
October, 1995; “Integration of FCC, MAK Hydrockrack-
ing, and ROSETM for Improved Bottoms Upgrading and
Distillate Yields,” Johnson, T.E., Sloan, H.D., and Gentry,
A.R., European Refining Technology Conference, Lon-
don, England, November, 1996.
Question 30.
Are there any standard technologies for coke drum
quench automation? If so, what reduction in quench
time was observed, and were there any adverse ef-
fects on the unit pressure balance?
JOHNSON:
There are several automated coke drum quench systems
available, including Foster Wheeler’s patented system for
quenching the coke while limiting the coke drum stresses
associated with cooling and heating of the drum.
The cooling time of the drum can be reduced only if
the blow down system has been sized correctly to allow for
the increased steam rates to the system. If the blow down
system is unable to handle the increased steam rates, the
coke drums could then possibly overpressure if the relief
valves also discharged to the blow down system.
KIMBRELL:
I am not aware of anyone who has automated the valves
and the line up of the quench water into the quench drum.
We do have a control scheme that does change the rate of
the quench water as you quench the coke by monitoring
the coke drum pressure and increasing the quench water
rate. As the pressure increases, hold the quench rate at the
same level, and as the pressure decreases you can increase
quench water rate. It will help shorten your quench time,
but not significantly.
ARNDT:
We quench manually. We recently participated in a
Joint Industry project to test actual drum stresses through
the quenching cycle. The testing was done at our Pas-
cagoula coker. Due to the tests, we have shortened our
quench times and lowered drum stresses.
BALDASSARI:
We have gone to the extent of automating this opera-
tion such that the operator can perform it from the central
control panel. Basically, we target for pressuring the coke
drum to about 80% of design. As the pressure declines
below this level, the panel operator will increase the
quench rate to maintain the coke drum pressure at about
80% of design. We believe this can reduce the cycle time
about 15 to 30 minutes overall, without significantly
increasing the stresses on the vessel.
If desired, the cooling cycle can be further automated
through the use of DCS programmable controls.
112 Heavy Oil Processing
PETER DIXON (VECO Engineering, Inc.):
On decreasing coke drum cycle time, we talked about
not skimping on various areas of quenching. Another area
that I believe should not be reduced is the heating back up
of the coke drum. If you do not allow enough time to get
the coke drum hot enough before you introduce feed into
it, the feed will give up its’ heat to the drum and liquid
products, including any recycle, will tend to stay in the
drum. This can cause operating problems for the frac-
tionator since these materials establish operating levels.
The other thing I would like to mention is the use of
neutron back scatter level detectors that are fairly common
these days. It certainly helps in the understanding and
monitoring of the operation. Because it works on hydro-
gen ion concentration, it accurately shows what is passing
a particular gas level; gas foam, liquid, coke and so on. This
can allow you to operate a little nearer to the edge.
STEVE PASPEK (BP Oil Company):
One of the advantages of automatic cooling is that you
can get a more reliable, more repeatable cooling of a drum
versus manual cooling. That is one of the reasons that we
are looking at installing that in one of our cokers. It
eliminates the operator bias of how often do I go out and
open the utility valve, especially in the wintertime.
Question 31.
What is the lowest acceptable recycle ratio observed,
with respect to furnace fouling rates and heavy coker
gas oil Concarbon content, while charging resid from
deep cut vacuum operation?
JOHNSON:
Foster Wheeler has designed units which can operate
at recycle ratios of 1.0. These units tend to make a high
Concarbon/metals content heavy coker gas oil which
could be fed to an FCC unit. Alternately, the extra heavy
coker gas oil stream can be withdrawn and blended off in
the fuel oil pool to control the coker gas oil end point.
KIMBRELL:
The lowest we have operated the recycle ratio at our
facilities is about a 1.05. At this level, the Concarbon of
the heavy gas oils range between 0.5% and 0.7%. In terms
of coking the heater, there are lots of things that affect
heater coking. Desalter performance in the upstream
crude unit plays a role. The deeper you cut the gas oil from
the resid at the vacuum unit, the more coking tendencies
you will have in the coker heater.
HUNKUS:
We believe 1.05 is a typical ratio with 1.03 a realistic
minimum. This ratio is limited by Concarbon in the
HGO and really depends on what your FCCU can toler-
ate. To combat heater fouling as the ratio is dropped, water
TOC/INDEX
injection to the heater can be increased. We know of an
operation that ran deep cut West Texas Intermediate with
almost no recycle. They injected 3 gpm to 4 gpm per pass
in order to keep coil velocities and turbulence high. If your
heater is a limitation, very high pressure steam can be
substituted for water injection.
We would recommend that you consult your licensor
to ensure a good baseline operation, review your safety
situation, and then map out a plan to explore lower recycle
rates. Do not forget that there is some natural recycle even
after you try to go to 1.0 recycle.
GARY HUGHES (Conoco Inc.):
With the incorporation of Conoco’s patented distillate
recycle technology, Conoco has shown you can reduce the
national recycle to zero while lowering the furnace fouling
rates. This increases the furnace run lengths in the on
stream factor of the coker units. Maybe more importantly,
however, is that we have found with our distillate recycle
technology we can reduce the coke production by 7% to
8% and increase the yield of the higher value liquid and
gas products.
Question 32.
What are the limits on coke drum vapor velocity in a
delayed coking unit? What are the negative impacts
which result when the velocity gets too high?
JACKSON:
The maximum velocity that limits the coker operation
depends on the particle size retention you are trying to
keep in the coke drum, and hence on Stokes law.
As with all other refiners, we push our cokers, and hence
this velocity, hard. The velocity is usually well over 0.5 fps
(0.15 m/s). This, according to Stoke’s Law, corresponds to
lifting a 75 micron particle. Ideally we would prefer to run
lower velocities.
The licensors realize we are going to push our units hard
and so the likes of Foster Wheeler Engineering Corpora-
tion have taken this into account in their designs:
• Minimum overhead piping length and contortions,
to minimize coke formation and laydown in the line.
• Use of quench oil in the overhead line for the same
reason.
• A recirculation system that removes coke fines car-
ried over in to the main fractionator, from the bot-
tom of the main fractionator system.
• Very tall coke catchers that allow the coke fines to
accumulate in the main fractionator base, but allow
them to be removed by the recirculation system.
A number of refiners show the calculated overhead line
velocity on the control system. Clearly, it is important not
to surge the coke drum or the carryover will be very high.
One of our refiners claims that good level instrument
maintenance is important, as knowing where the level is
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
will also prevent excessive fines carryover. Care should be
taken towards the end of a cycle.
KIMBRELL:
High coke drum vapor velocities do increase the
amount of fines that are carried over into the fractionator
and you could have a potential foam over. It will help
increase coking of the overhead vapor line. High coke
drum outages also contribute to this potential problem.
The exact limit is dependent on the type of coke you are
making and the crude it is being made from. I would defer
to licensors of coking technology for more general guide-
lines.
HUNKUS:
Again, we believe that typical ranges are 0.5 fps to 0.6
fps with antifoam, and 0.35 fps to 0.38 fps without
antifoam. To avoid carryover, it is probably more impor-
tant to minimize pressure swings during switching. Use
antifoam, be aware of drum level, and have adequate drum
preheat so that you do not kill unit pressure when you
switch into the fresh drum.
The obvious problem is carryover of the drum into the
fractionator, causing pluggage. Another problem, one of
less severity, is repeated carryover events causing acceler-
ated coking of heater passes. Again, many carryovers result
from poor heat up of the new drum, large pressure swings
during switching operation, unsuitable operating parame-
ters (including poor feed preparation), and filling drums
too full for your current operating conditions.
BALDASSARI:
The maximum coke drum velocity is basically inversely
proportional to the vapor density of the vapor flowing
through the drum. For low pressure designs, where the
coke drum is operating at about 15 psig, Lummus will
design for up to 0.7 fps to 0.8 fps superficial velocity.
Above that limit, it is possible for the coke drum to foam
over. Many refiners operate up to this limit to maximize
throughput and risk the possibility of coke foam over.
LUIS E. MARQUEZ (Maraven):
Has anyone experienced frequent plugging of the
bottom circulation suction nozzle of the fractionator? If so,
what has been done to minimize or eliminate this problem?
J. L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation):
Operating around 0.8 can create problems or provide
certain advantages. We have tried operating at 0.8 without
any disadvantage. I would like the panel to comment on
this. Second is we have a general problem of coke fines
getting carried over, particularly to the effluent systems. Is
there any special trick to reduce those fines choking the
whole effluent system?
113
TOC/INDEX
JOHNSON:
Let me make a couple of comments on some of the
Foster Wheeler design features in the bottom of the frac-
tionator that I think may address both questions. This is
a recirculation system to remove coke fines from the
bottom of the fractionator. In this system, a fractionated
bottom stream is recirculated through a strainer and then
returned back to the bottom of the tower. One of the other
features is a tall slotted standpipe in the bottom of the
fractionator that will permit the accumulation of coke
fines while maintaining suction to the bottom pump. The
fines are removed with the recirculation strainer.
STEVE PASPEK (BP Oil Company):
In regard to the filter strainers in the bottom of a coke
bubble tower to remove coke fines, either from a carryover
or from a foam over, does anybody use these kinds of
devices on very heavy, say 5° or less, API vacuum bottoms
or do they clog up too badly?
JACKSON:
We use them in the bottom of the main fractionator in
one of our Australian refineries that runs very heavy
material, very paraffinic material too. I installed a couple
of very tall coke catchers in 1994. What we have done
there is install two very tall coke catchers on two separate
takeoffs to the bottom pumps. While one is being used,
the other one is being back flushed to make sure it keeps
clean, and that seems to work very well to date.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
In answer to the question from the floor about using
the strainers in the bottom of the fractionator and how
heavy you get with respect to the feed gravity, our feed
gravity is between 3.5° and 5° API to the unit and with
the recycle it is about 6° to 6.5° to the heater charge pump.
Residual Feeds
Question 33.
When processing poor quality residues in a delayed
coker, it is usually economically desirable to mini-
mize coke production and maximize liquid and gas
yields. What steps are being taken to reduce coke
production in both the design of new units and the
revamp of existing units?
GENTRY:
The following steps are typically taken to reduce coke
production and improve liquid yield in the design of a new
coker or revamp of an existing unit.
Operating at a low coke drum pressure, as determined
by an economic optimum, is one method. To achieve this,
the pressure drop between the wet gas compressor inlet
114 Heavy Oil Processing
and the coke drum overhead is minimized by reducing the
equipment pressure drops in the overhead system. Use of
packing in the main fractionator, adding parallel condens-
ers, and adding larger piping are examples of several
revamp measures applied to reduce the overall system
pressure drop. Coke drum pressures of about 15 psig are
being commonly employed in the design and operation of
new cooking units.
Minimizing recycle rate in the combined feed to the
coker furnace is another method. Like drum pressure, low
recycle rate also reduces the coke make, resulting in an
increase in the liquid yield. The low recycle operation
requires the fractionator bottom to run at a higher tem-
perature. Also, modifications to the tower internals may
be required to handle low liquid rates resulting from the
low wash rates. Recycle rates of 2% to 3% are being
achieved in commercial plants, as well as recommended
for design of new units.
BALDASSARI:
Mr. Gentry has answered this question fairly com-
pletely. I will add that the combination of reducing the
operating pressure to about 15 psig and reducing the
recycle rate to about 0.05 barrels of recycle oil to barrel of
fresh feed, compared to 0.1 to 0.15 in older units, will
result in an increase of about 3% to 5% in the liquid yield
from the coker.
KIMBRELL:
I agree with the previous comments. Lowering the coke
drum pressure and raising the coke drum temperature will
both help reduce coke make.
CHARLES J. KRUSE (Bechtel Corporation):
When talking about ways to reduce coke production,
as a panelist mentioned, reducing coke drum operating
pressure and reducing natural recycle are two good ways.
But there is proprietary technology available (from the
Conoco/Bechtel Coking Alliance) to totally eliminate the
natural recycle and to use distillate recycle, which not only
has quite beneficial effects in reducing coke production,
but also has good effects in adjusting product distribution.
You have some options in selecting the type of distillate
recycle to best affect your product distribution. This is
important both for new and existing facilities, but particu-
larly when retrofitting a coker. This product distribution
can be manipulated somewhat to best fit into your existing
refinery operation and can have a lot of impact on your
refinery revenue.
Question 34.
Are there any constraints in processing heavy feed-
stocks, such as visbreaker vacuum flash residue or
solvent deasphalting tar, in a coker?
TOC/INDEX
JOHNSON:
These materials typically have a higher Concarbon
residue content and viscosity than most vacuum residue
feeds making them more susceptible to premature coking
in the fired heater. The relative coking rates for many of
these materials have been measured in Foster Wheeler’s
laboratory. This testing has indicated that these materials
can be processed in a delayed coker as long as the unit
design includes special features to handle these materials.
These features can include the double fired heater design,
on-line spalling, on-line steam air decoking, modular
heater design and use of cutter stocks such as slurry, heavy
cycle oil or light cycle oil.
Solvent deasphalter bottoms having a Conradson carb-
on content as high as 39 wt% have been successfully
processed in the pilot plant without the use of cutter stock.
Units that have a very long heater transfer line will have
problems processing some of these very heavy feeds.
BALDASSARI:
As was mentioned, the constraints are on fouling of the
feed preheat system and coking in the furnace tubes. With
on-line spalling, we have been able to extend the heater
run length to about 8 to 9 months, based on processing a
25 Concarbon feed. Normally with such a feed, we would
expect a heater run length of only 3 to 4 months. Our
experience, therefore, is that on-line spalling will definitely
help in being able to process heavier, higher asphaltenic,
and higher Concarbon feeds.
GENTRY:
Several of our ROSE licensees and other clients feed
solvent deasphalting bottoms to delayed cokers. Several of
the comments already made have covered the considera-
tions for design of the coker furnace. I am not going to
repeat those.
One thing that is very interesting is that most of these
comments are related to the effect on the heater furnace.
It should be noted that a fluid coker can also be installed
downstream of a unit, such as a ROSE unit, with excellent
results. The absence of a fired heater and the need to cut
coke from a coke drum makes this process very attractive
for heavier feedstocks.
Question 35.
What parameters are used to estimate the shot coke
forming tendencies of different resids?
BALDASSARI:
The tendency to produce shot coke can be measured
by the CCR and asphaltene content of the feed, the feeds’
viscosity, and its carbon-to-hydrogen ratio. Typically, feeds
having CCR contents greater than 22% or asphaltene
contents greater than 15% are prone to form shot coke.
Specifically, vacuum resids derived from Arabian heavy,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Maya, heavy Venezuelan (e.g., BCF-17), and high nitro-
gen heavy California crudes will form shot coke.
JACKSON:
To quote a coker expert of ours, “Shot coke formation
is a function of coker feed quality and coker operation”.
In short, we feel that shot coke formation is predomi-
nantly determined by the asphaltene content in the feed,
hence the Heptane Insoluble (HI) test is a direct way of
measuring the asphaltene content in a feed. Other parame-
ters relate back to the asphaltene content too; for example,
sulfur content of the feed is a parameter that affects shot
coke formation, but can be related to asphaltene content,
as can Conradson carbon, metals content (V and Ni), as
well as the residues’ crude origin (experience). Foster
Wheeler Engineering Corporation states that the Mexi-
can, Venezuelan and Californian crudes are particularly
susceptible to shot coke formation.
A simple rule used by Foster Wheeler Engineering
Corporation is that the residues having an asphaltene
content greater than or equal to the feeds Conradson
carbon and a highly viscous material have a tendency to
form shot coke. This interaction between the asphaltene
content and the viscosity of the material is believed to be
due to the heating of this asphaltenic type of material. As
the material vaporizes, the liquid begins to cook and the
asphaltenes precipitate out. The asphaltenic liquid contin-
ues to react and crack and form coke precursors which
eventually go to coke. The coke precursor liquid has a huge
surface tension and plastic characteristics which lead to the
spherical shape of the resultant coke in the coke drum.
This is further substantiated by the fact that adding FCC
slurry oil to the coker feed reduces the tendency and
amount of shot coke produced. The slurry oil is believed
to act as a solvent to these asphaltenic shot coke forming
precursors.
Basically, conditions that favor low vaporization, low
reaction rates suppress shot coke formation.
Operating conditions that minimize the formation of
shot coke are:
• Lower operating temperatures.
• Increased operating pressures.
• Increased recycle.
• Increased FCC slurry in feed.
The latter three will all have the effect of diluting coke
precursor material. The lower temperature will effectively
slow down the reaction kinetics that drive the shot coking
reaction. It will obviously affect the overall coking reaction
which really could be a problem.
Shot coke suppression strategy obviously affects the
overall coking reaction and hence negatively affects the
coker yields and capacity. The following picture shows
shot coke.
115
TOC/INDEX
KIMBRELL:
We think shot coke prediction is difficult to do. It kind
of depends on how the coker is being operated at the time.
Concarbon of the feed to the coker and its asphaltenes and
the ratio of the two can be used as a guideline. I think it
is somewhat unit specific. Low gravity feeds, typically less
than 6° API, have a tendency to make shot coke most of
the time, and higher gravity feeds, in the range of 8° API
and above, typically do not make shot coke.
PAUL ELLIS (Great Lakes Carbon Corporation):
I agree with what the panel said but I would like to
elaborate further and refer to a paper entitled “Shot Coke”
given by Dr. John D. Bacha, Chevron Research and Tech-
nology Company, and myself at the AIME-TMS meeting
in February 1996 and published in the “Light Metals 1996”
TMS, pages 477 through 484. Shot coke can only be
produced in a dynamic system that is present in most
delayed coker drums which have sufficient velocities, a high
enough temperature, and a high enough concentration of
asphaltenes. The asphaltene content in the resid as deter-
mined by the n-heptane insoluble fraction must be greater
than 50% of the Conradson carbon content to produce
shot coke. Shot coke cannot be produced in a static condi-
tion (laboratory pot coker and in most pilot delayed cokers
with low drum velocities). The microscopic structure is
present in laboratory coke, but the shot spheres are absent.
Electron microscopic examination of shot balls shows that
the spheres were formed very rapidly. The theory is that
shot coke is formed in the vapor phase, while sponge and
needle coke is formed from the liquid phase. In the high
velocity channels in the coke drum, the light hydrocarbons
are flashed off leaving sprouting droplets of heavy oil with
high concentrations of asphaltenes. The asphaltenes rap-
idly polymerize with an exothermic heat release which
“sets” or cokes the spheres, which then fall back into the
coke drum as discreet balls. The large balls are made up of
the small spheres which are glued together and are rolled
around in the high velocity channels in the drum.
116 Heavy Oil Processing
Question 36.
What are the proven benefits of preparatory treatment
of sludges, via a centrifuge for example, prior to being
injected into the coking unit?
JACKSON:
The obvious objectives of this operation are to dispose
of refinery solids that would otherwise have to be treated
separately and then disposed of, and to maximize the
amount of solids into the coker for disposal. Consequently,
the water content of the sludge is important, and the
maximum amount should be removed prior to pumping
without compromising the ability to pump the slurry or
limiting the slurry’s ability to distribute itself in the coke
bed. The water content limits the amount of sludge you
can ultimately process, since the water must be vaporized
by the hot coke during the initial stages of the cooling cycle.
One of our coking refineries puts the “dewatered”
sludge into the delayed coker coke drum during the cool-
ing cycle. Typical solids loading of the sludge slurry is 30
wt%. This is achieved by tank settling and belt pressing.
A centrifuge would be a suitable option. The injecting of
sludge into the feed line will have disastrous results in the
rapid fouling of the feed furnace. We do not process sludge
when producing anode grade coke.
JOHNSON:
A current proprietary procedure injects the watery
sludge onto the coke at the beginning of the coke drum
cooling. The water is evaporated, and the sludge is depos-
ited on the exterior of the coke and sent out with the coke
product.
LEMMON:
Removal of the water will also remove any chlorides
that could be present. I would be concerned that any
chlorides that remain in the coke drum could vaporize and
end up damaging the fractionator.
EUGENE ROUNDTREE (Exxon Research & Engineering Company):
I want to add to what Mr. Gentry said about FLUID-
COKING and FLEXICOKING. The absence of a fired
preheater basically removes any limitations we would have
on feed quality for typical visbroken tars or deasphalter
bottom tars. We can process any material which is a
pumpable liquid at or about 500°F.
LUIS E. MARQUEZ (Maraven):
Based on what Mr. Jackson was saying, I would like to
know what his experience is with processing FCC slurry
oil as part of the DCU feedstock, and the impact on the
heater run length? What is a recommended slurry-to-resid
feed ratio?
TOC/INDEX
STEVE PASPEK (BP Oil Company):
As Mr. Jackson said earlier, slurry helps you to keep the
asphaltenes in suspension. It provides a replacement, in a
sense, for some of the maltenes and the resins that get
cracked in the furnace. Typical values are in the 5% range.
If you are making shot coke, if you have very heavy sour
type resids then it does help you to extend your furnace run
length, and it can minimize the formation of shot coke.
JAMES D. WEITH (Unocal Corp. — 76 Products):
The gentleman from Maraven had asked about slurry
in the coker feed. This was covered in an NPRA Q&A
session maybe 10 years ago, but it is worth repeating again.
If you happen to be running your coker gas oils back to
the catalytic cracker, and you are putting slurry into the
coker, you must then turn the severity of the coker up.
This is to prevent a refractory recycle loop from developing
between the FCCU and the coker, which ultimately may
lead to limitations on the FCCU slurry production. How-
ever, an increase in the coker severity may limit the heater
cycles that you are trying to improve.
C. Visbreaking
Question 37.
What are the advantages of having a vacuum flash
downstream of the visbreaker fractionator to recover
additional gas oil from visbroken tar? Does the vis-
breaker tar then require special handling?
JACKSON:
With the assumption that visbroken bottoms will
ultimately be blended into fuel oil, the decision to place
a vacuum flash column downstream of the visbreaker
fractionator will depend heavily on the following consid-
erations.
• How much of the vacuum flash distillate can be
recovered?
• Is there any overall commercial incentive and use
for the recovered vacuum flashed distillate in the
refinery?
• Can the vacuum flashed distillate be replaced with a
cheaper cutterstock for the tar in the fuel oil pool?
This is very refinery specific and simply commercially
driven.
Uses of the vacuum flashed distillate depend on the
source of the visbreaker feed. If the visbreaker feed is
atmospheric residue, then there is usually sufficient vac-
uum flash distillate to consider a vacuum column. The
vacuum flashed distillate can then be passed through a
thermal cracker and more distillates produced. For a high
sulfur Middle East crude, the recoverable vacuum flashed
distillate, 660°F to 950°F (350°C to 510°C), would be
somewhere from 10% to 20% for vacuum residue and
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
40% to 50% for atmospheric residues. On our vacuum
flasher column, we run with a vacuum of 1.7 in. to 2 in.
water (43 mm to 50 mm).
For vacuum residue to the visbreaker, there are nor-
mally insufficient distillates to warrant feeding them to a
thermal cracker. These have been recycled to the FCCU,
much the same as is done with coker gas oil, with the
associated penalties to the VGO FCC operation and coke
make. A warning if the vacuum flashed distillate is to be
sent to the FCCU, do not do this if a large portion of the
slurry from the FCCU is to be sent to the visbreaker as
feed. BP tried this with a very large portion of the slurry
make feeding the visbreaker and the flash distillate recy-
cling back to the FCCU. The effect on the FCCU opera-
tion was severe; coke make and yield selectivity suffered
and the operation ceased.
The visbroken flashed tar will obviously be viscous. We
have seen viscosities of between 200 cSt to 700 cSt at
300°F (150°C). This will require cutting back with an
aromatic cutter in the run down line. Cutters like LCO,
HCO or even slurry from the FCCU are used. We cut back
to a rundown viscosity of 100 cSt at 300°F (150°C). This
cut backed tar can then usually be blended directly into
fuel oil and even used in marine fuel oil blends.
HUNKUS:
As usual, it is kind of tough following Mr. Jackson.
When you put visbreaker tar to a coker, you produce lots
of coke and really do not want to consider this option if
you are drum limited. If you go beyond typical high
conversion operation of the visbreaker, approximately
50% depending on feed, you get into solids precipitation
and serious plugging handling problems. So, one way to
further improve plant yield and optimize economic per-
formance is by adding a vacuum flash downstream of the
visbreaker to yield some additional coke gas oil out of the
tar and replace it with slurry oil to maintain stability and
handling properties. The quality of the gas oil is not the
best, but it is a better option than recycling slurry to the
FCCU or running too high a conversion on the visbreaker.
There are also some licensed new processes that add
catalyst into a visbreaker type operation that may be of
interest to you.
Again, this will be highly crude dependent, but we
would think you will have to cut the flashed tar with slurry
or some other slurry-like aggressive solvent. The key issues
will be plugging and handling problems, as well as an
aggressive tendency to form solids.
R.E. (ED) PALMER (Mustang Engineering):
The vacuum flasher offers the advantage of recovering
additional heavy gas oil at lower temperatures, thus reduc-
ing the potential for coking in the recovery equipment.
For a Soaker Visbreaker, a vacuum flasher is the only way
to obtain any significant yield of heavy gas oil. For a new
117
TOC/INDEX
design, the capital investment would increase on the order
of 20%. As an addition to an existing unit, the investment
would be $8 MM to $10 MM for a 30,000 to 40,000
BPSD unit.
For a coil design Visbreaker, gas oil yields similar to that
attainable with a Soaker/Vacuum Flasher design can be
achieved with proper design of the coil transfer line and
fractionator internals, while achieving acceptable run
lengths.
The vacuum flasher tar is diluted with cutterstock at an
appropriate location in the heat exchange circuit to main-
tain acceptable heat transfer characteristics.
STEVE PASPEK (BP Oil Company):
I have two questions on heavy resid type materials and
cokers. One, what is the maximum bubble tower bottoms
temperature that people are comfortable running with
very heavy materials such that they do not get coking in
the bottom of the bubble tower? And two, with the high
viscosity of these materials, the tendency is to run more
steam to try to keep velocity up in the furnace tubes to
minimize fouling. Do people ever experience annular
flow? Can you put in too much steam?
JOHNSON:
We have on occasion added about 1.5% to 2% steam
to the heater coil to increase the tube velocities. There is
no evidence that any annular flow occurred. I would
hypothesize if there was annular flow, the heater would
have tended to coke prematurely, which did not happen.
So the answer to that is no, we have not seen that.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals):
You will find coker fractionator units operating at
maximum temperatures at the bottom of the unit any-
where from 575°F to 700°F and some even lower. You do
not want to get too high, because you start premature
vaporization in the convection section of the coker heater
and you can experience excessive pressure drop. So each
unit has a specific temperature in the bottom of the
fractionator, based on heater design.
On the second question regarding too much steam, the
idea here is to raise the mass velocity. If your feed is high
enough, you can cut that steam off or the water injection
to the heaters. Past a certain level, probably about 400
lb/sec/sq ft, you can cut velocity steam off and not see any
negative effect on the heater run length. Excessive steam
can alter the flow regime in the heater tubes, but for cokers
being pushed to run maximum feed, this is not an issue.
JON C. MORETTA (The M.W. Kellogg Technology Company):
I heard the panel mention fuel oil disposition and
delayed coking as options. We are familiar with a case
where the visbreaker tar is being fed to an integrated
gasification combined cycle power plant or an IGCC.
118 Heavy Oil Processing
Three projects of this type are being proposed in Italy, and
the main advantage of having a vacuum tower on the
visbreaker tar is to reduce the size of the gasification unit.
Only one of these projects has achieved financial sanc-
tion, and that is one that incorporated a ROSETM unit as
well as a vacuum tower to process the visbreaker tar. The
ROSE unit significantly reduces the size of the gasifier.
To summarize, the addition of the ROSE unit, which
cost roughly $31 million, reduced the total cost of the
project by about $200 million due to a reduction in size
of the gasifier.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
My question is on visbreaker operation. We have a
visbreaker processing 100% vacuum residue. This vacuum
residue is from a crude which has very high naphthenic
acids. We are having problems controlling the overhead
fractionator pH. We tried ammonia injection, but it did
not help. Finally, we could control the pH only by inject-
ing caustic solution in the overhead. If others face similar
type problems, what actions are being taken?
JOHNSON:
We observed a similar problem on a thermal cracker
some years ago. The difference was that the thermal cracker
was processing a VGO material. If you look at the
naphthenic acid content of your crude, that will lead you
to some conclusions about what the acids are. These acids
are cracked naphthenic acids, which are basically light,
organic acids and are corrosive in the fractionator overhead.
One of the problems in chemical treating of these acids is
that there is usually a lot of H2S in the top of the tower. So
there is some competition for neutralization between the
H2S and the organic acids with the H2S wanting to be
neutralized first. Caustic is a solution. The key is to keep
the caustic out of the tower itself so it does not salt up.
DANIEL RAMIREZ L. (Refineria de Petroleo Concon S.A. (RPC)):
We have been running a Kellogg visbreaker since the
mid-1980s with a vacuum tower. We are very happy with
the results. We are feeding the visbreaker vacuum gas oil
to the FCCU together with other better quality feedstock.
The visbreaker tar goes to the fuel oil pool.
The important thing is not to be too ambitious with
the lift. A good target is about 900°F end point in the gas
oil to keep the severity of the visbreaker tar okay. Even if
you use slurry as cutter, if you pull the vacuum too much,
you will have severity problems.
JACKSON:
How much FCC slurry have you put down to the
visbreaker? Have you put any FCC slurry down to the
visbreaker when you recycle back to the FCC with the
flash distillates?
TOC/INDEX

DANIEL RAMIREZ L. (Refineria de Petroleo Concon S.A. (RPC)):

No, the slurry from the catalytic cracker goes to the
visbreaker tar as cutter stock.

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 119

TOC/INDEX
III. HYDROGEN PROCESSING
A. Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Manufacturing
Question 1.
What is the highest reforming pressure (catalyst-tube
outlet pressure) in commercial practice today for hy-
drogen manufacture at 95+% purity hydrogen? What
is the corresponding heater outlet temperature? How
are tube temperatures measured? What operating
philosophy is used to balance individual cell outlet
temperatures?
SMITH:
Riyadh Refinery produces a 97% pure hydrogen by
processing naphtha reformer offgas containing 79% hy-
drogen. Processing occurs at 312 pounds and 878°F inlet
and a 1508°F outlet.
In general, the steam reforming reaction is favored by
low pressure and high temperature. Operating pressure for
the hydrogen plant is normally an economic decision. The
equilibrium temperatures are also governed by steam-to-
gas ratio for a given operating pressure. To produce a 95%
product hydrogen purity requires a steam-to-gas ratio of
3.5. The Riyadh refinery believes they can produce a
minimum 95% purity hydrogen with up to 420 pounds
pressure with an outlet temperature between 1580°F and
1590°F.
On the other part of the question, the infrared base
optical pyrometers are used to accurately measure the tube
skin temperatures. To balance the cell outlet temperatures,
furnace manifolds are fitted with thermocouples. These
are regularly monitored to ensure that they are all within
10°F of their average and bear a constant differential with
the combined reformer outlet temperature. Furnace firing
and burners should be adjusted to balance the outlet
temperature. It is advisable to run a constant reformer
outlet temperature; this way, the methane content of the
reformer effluent indicates the aging of the catalyst.
HUNKUS:
The highest reformer outlet pressure typically used for
commercial plants that we know of is about 400 psig. The
corresponding outlet temperatures are in the 1600° range.
Tubes in this range of temperature are operating in creep
failure modes of a limited service life. I wanted to recom-
mend that people newly assigned in this area become
120 Hydrogen Processing
familiar with all their heater details because they are a bit
different from the rest of the industry.
For tube temperature measurements, a portable optical
pyrometer is probably the best tool. I have also done a lot
of work with thermocouples welded onto the tubes,
shielded and unshielded, with and without cooling
purges, and mounted in the firebox for many different
types of services. These can provide valuable information
and help develop both instrument calibration and a cali-
brated eye for weekly visual inspections after dark when
you can really see. The burner type, geometry, tip arrange-
ment, angle of inclusion of gas ports, their primary angle,
and induced swirl angles are some of the most important
facts to understand.
I have an old pamphlet that I cherish and I feel this is
another area of lost knowledge among plant process engi-
neers and a lost opportunity for many designs especially
for smaller revamp projects. The pamphlet is out of print,
but I will see if NPRA can make it available.
KOOIMAN:
Our reformers run about 240 psig. We target 1460°F
at start-of-run and 1500°F at end-of-run. We use a hand
held laser pyrometer calibrated in the 1370°F to 2800°F
range to measure tube wall temperatures. We will then
adjust cell outlet temperatures by adding or removing
burners as needed.
ARNDT:
We operate six large, well-aged hydrogen plants. Their
tube outlet conditions are roughly 300 psi and 1550°F. As
Mr. Smith said, high pressure is unfavorable for the re-
forming reaction equilibrium. In addition the higher the
pressure, the thicker and more expensive the tubes will be.
That is an expense that will occur roughly every 10 years
(or whatever tube life is). So high pressure is not necessarily
good.
The second part of the question deals with temperature
measurement. Like everyone else, our prime indicator is
the portable infrared pyrometers. However, we are experi-
menting with skin temperatures again. There have been
quite a few improvements in skin temperature indication
(TI’s). We put in 5 skin TI’s 3 years ago in one of our
reformers and they did well. We recently retubed that
furnace and went back in with 32 skin TI’s. They are type
K thermocouples. They have beefy leads, housed in
Hoskins 2300 sheathing. We are using GAYESCO Re-
tracto pads for the tube attachment. These pads allow you
TOC/INDEX
to pull the thermocouple out for replacement. All 32 TI’s
have been reading accurately since mid-summer.
BARKER:
We have several steam-methane reformers within our
company; they operate in the 250 psig to 400 psig range,
not a particularly high pressure, but the guidelines for
temperature measurement and control are the same.
We use a few different types of pyrometers at our
various units and locations: Minolta Cyclops, Land Cy-
clops, and Quantum Logic. The frequency of readings
ranges from once a shift to once a week. Operators manu-
ally adjust burners to balance individual cell outlet tem-
peratures to within 50°F to 75°F of each other.
In one of our Selas side fired heaters, we have installed
thermocouples to assist in finding more subtle problems
that could result in hot tubes. We have found a direct and
relatively constant correlation between the tube tempera-
ture and the subheader temperature directly below the
tube. Since the subheader is in an enclosed trough out of
the fire zone, thermocouples were installed without worry
about them being burned off. The thermocouples are on
2 ft centers along all of the subheaders and are tied into
the DCS with alarms. Each of these thermocouples and
alarms allow the operators to know when a group of three
tubes is deviating from the norm (from a variety of possible
causes) and alerts them to conduct a detailed investigation
of the process problem.
In a different Selas furnace which has two cells, there
are four outlet header temperatures per cell. The highest
temperature is selected for control. The controller output
is fed to a duty controller which outputs to the fuel gas
control valve for that cell. The four temperatures in each
cell are manually balanced within the cell by the burner
firing pattern, specifically, the number and location of
firing burners.
In our more modern, downfired reformer, the com-
bined outlet temperature at the waste heat boiler inlet is
measured and this controls the flue gas temperature at the
outlet of the firebox, which in turn, controls the fuel flow.
There is little balancing needed with this style of furnace
— all burners fire all the time.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
Haldor Topsoe built two hydrogen plants with reform-
ers operating at 40 kg/cm2, 570 psig, as early as 1966. One
of these plants is still in operation, producing 98% hydro-
gen. The original tube material was HK40. With the tube
materials available today such as microalloy HP, much
higher reforming pressures are technically possible. But
only in unusual circumstances would it be economical to
use such pressures.
The tube outlet temperature was 820°C (1508°F). We
have measured tube skin temperatures in a number of
different ways in order to find a useful method for easy
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
industrial use. In our full size reforming pilot plant, we
have used infrared pyrometers correlating the readings
with measurements obtained from thermocouples embed-
ded into the tube material and from a PYROLASER®. We
have found that reliable measurements can be obtained
with an infrared pyrometer provided corrections are made
to reflect radiation from the furnace walls. This may be a
little more difficult in some configurations.
To balance outlet temperatures, it is essential that the
catalyst loading has been performed properly, ensuring
equal pressure drop in all of the tubes, which mean that
in many cases you may have to empty out tubes after filling
and reload them to get the pressure drop in line.
ROSS BRUNSON (United Catalysts, Inc.):
On the comment on the pressures for the hydrogen
plants, I think we have to also recognize the newer genera-
tion plants that have PSA for cleanup. Where the conven-
tional plants will run at a lower pressure, as has been stated
around 400 pounds, with a much higher steam-to-carbon
or steam-to-gas ratio, the new PSA plants run up in the
500 pound range and steam-to-carbon ratio is down to
2.5 to 3 and with outlet temperatures up to 1600°F. There
are really 2 generational types of plants when you look at
the allowable pressures.
RAGHU MENON (BOC Group):
In terms of the infrared temperature measurements,
there are new methods that minimize interference by
mounting black-body type objects on the tubes. A Cali-
fornia company that provides this type of technology is E2
Technology Corporation in Ventura. Of course, for outer
walls of secondary reformers, there are also fiber-optic
cable-based options, which assist one to avoid hot spots
by providing a complete temperature scan.
STEVE CATCHPOLE (ICI Katalco):
As with all chemical plants, part of the economics of
both the capital and operating cost of the plant can depend
very much on the chosen operating pressure. Much of the
refinery hydrogen need is for a hydrogen supply at a
considerably higher pressure than that normally encoun-
tered in a typical hydrogen manufacturing unit (HMU).
If the HMU is feeding directly to units operating at higher
pressures, then there does exist an option to consider a
higher HMU process pressure and thus decrease the size
and operating cost of the hydrogen compressor. Alterna-
tively, the HMU may feed the product into a collective
hydrogen main that may be at a pressure which avoids the
need for compression of the product hydrogen.
Traditionally, HMUs have pressures in the 145 psig to
290 psig range or 10 kg/cm2g to 20 kg/cm2g. The choice
of this modest pressure is based on a number of compli-
cated and interactive variables. The key issue is the effect
that pressure has on the methane-steam equilibrium exiting
121
TOC/INDEX
the steam reformer on the HMU. This needs to be reviewed
for both types of HMU commonly encountered as follows:
1. CO2 liquid wash removal/methanation hydrogen plants
At higher pressure, due to methane-steam equilibrium
considerations, the hydrocarbon conversion is reduced
(increased methane slip). This can result in an unsatisfac-
tory product purity (i.e. less than 95% H2) unless the
HMU significantly increases the steam-to-carbon ratio in
the steam reformer. However, if the steam ratio is increased
then this will reduce the plant efficiency and reduce the
amount of steam export.
2. PSA type hydrogen plants
At higher pressure, the PSA system will need sizing to
cope with increased methane slip from the steam reformer
as mentioned in 1), but the key point is that the HMU
will then be operating with an excess of fuel (recycled PSA
offgas) and so will be forced to export low-grade fuel which
is an inefficient use of higher value fuel, offgases and
hydrocarbons used as the HMU feedstock. As in 1), higher
steam-to-carbon ratios will offset this problem but with
the corresponding decrease in steam export and overall
plant efficiency.
The obvious solution would be to increase the steam
reforming exit temperature for either plant type. Histori-
cally, this idea has been limited by the metallurgy of steam
reformer tube materials, leading to a trade-off between
process pressure and steam ratio. Modern tube materials
have challenged this limitation and now, HMUs can be
constructed with a higher pressure and higher operating
temperature.
In reality, many steam reformers have been built with
pressures as high as 522 psig (36 kg/cm2g). These units
have supplied hydrogen rich gas for manufacture of am-
monia and methanol. Both these processes have a stage
of compression required for synthesis reaction and thus
the front-end pressure is kept high so as to minimize
compressor size and operating cost. In the case of ammo-
nia, the drawback of higher methane slip is of little
consequence with a secondary reforming stage converting
most of the slipped methane. In methanol manufacture,
the exit methane is more critical, and steam reformer exit
temperatures (1544°F to 1580°F or 840°C to 860°C)
have generally been higher than those seen in the CO2
liquid wash/methanation type of HMU. Modern HMUs
are now being built with steam reformer exit tempera-
tures as high as 1724°F (940°C), although 1580°F
(860°C) would appear to be the more typical. Pressures
have increased to over 290 psig (20 kg/cm2g) but this is
not the limit. Advances in tube metal mean that the
historical limit of high pressure and temperatures has
been removed and that true optimization of the process
conditions will take place. Thus it is highly likely that
newly constructed hydrogen plants that are to be truly
integrated to a high pressure hydrogen consumer will be
designed with higher operating pressures, possibly to
122 Hydrogen Processing
catch-up or overtake those traditionally adopted by the
ammonia and methanol producers.
As HMU steam reformer operation severity increases,
the detailed observation of the steam reformer tube tem-
peratures becomes essential. By far the most common
technique is to use an infrared pyrometer. Modern designs
help ensure that the accuracy is improving, but fundamen-
tally, these devices read high (up to +50°C or + 90°F) in
most cases. This error is due to:
1. The infrared pyrometer reading being not just the
thermal emission from the steam reformer target
tube but also the background radiation;
2. The incorrect or estimated emissivity of the steam
reformer target tube.
There is a variety of techniques that can be used to
overcome these problems. ICI Katalco has developed a
practical technique for measuring absolute tube tempera-
tures using a “Gold-Cup” device. This is then used to
calibrate the infrared pyrometer. Also, there are some
simpler, but less accurate, techniques that can be used to
“correct” the infrared pyrometer reading. These methods,
as well as the theory of infrared pyrometry, are described
in ICI’s paper presented at the 1992 AIChE Ammonia
Safety Symposium “Tube Wall Temperature Measurement
in Steam Reformers”.
With respect to twin or multiple cell reformers, ICI
Katalco would like to comment on the principles of why
we should achieve similar cell outlet temperatures. The
hydrocarbon conversion that occurs at one single tempera-
ture (i.e., all cells the same) is more than that achieved by
two cells with the operating temperature in one cell higher
than in the other,for example, even though the “average”
temperature is the same. The same principle applies with
efficiency (fuel use) with a single temperature having a
better efficiency compared with the average. As furnace
monitoring and catalyst performance assessment can also
be important in the HMU daily operation, a consistency
of operation from one cell to the other allows for simple
comparison and diagnostics of problems.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
The highest reformer outlet pressure typically used for
commercial plants is 410 psig, corresponding to a product
pressure of 375 psig from the PSA unit. The correspond-
ing outlet temperature is 1550°F. However, Howe-Baker
has the capability to design for up to 490 psig outlet
pressure, corresponding to a product pressure of 450 psig.
The outlet temperature can be as high as 1600°F.
For tube temperature measurements, we recommend a
portable optical pyrometer. We use the Minolta/Land
Cyclops 152 model manufactured by Land Infrared, Bris-
tol, Pennsylvania.
Our box reformer is a single-cell design. The burners
are arranged such that uniform firing can be achieved
across the furnace. We believe achievement of uniform
TOC/INDEX
tube wall temperatures is a more accurate indication of
good distribution than measurement of individual header
or cell outlet temperatures.
Question 2.
Explain the role of a prereformer in enhancing oper-
ating capacity of existing hydrogen units.
LEMMON:
Prereforming catalysts are capable of initiating the re-
forming reaction at substantially lower temperatures than
commercial high activity reforming catalysts. The 400°F
lower operating temperature of the adiabatic prereformer
allows the designer to maximize hydrogen production at
the expense of waste steam generation. This can be of
significant benefit to a hydrogen plant that is furnace
firing limited by metallurgical or environmental con-
straints. These are the reasons that the Tosco Avon refinery
added a prereformer 10 years ago. The prereformer also
allows heavier feedstocks to be processed with less fear of
coking as the prereformer converts these hydrocarbons
easily to methane.
The prereformer also performs as a very efficient, al-
though costly, guard bed for sulfur and other contami-
nants. It has been effective at our site in this application
also. We have used prereforming catalysts from several
manufacturers each with good success. Recently, trace
amounts of boiler water carryover appear to be dramati-
cally reducing our prereformer’s catalyst’s life. All of the
catalysts we have used seem to be deactivated by boiler
salts.
KOOIMAN:
In a prereformer, steam hydrocarbon reforming occurs
outside the fired reformer. Heat required for the prere-
forming reaction is supplied by hot flue gas from the
convection section of the fired reformer. The prereformer
contains a highly active nickel catalyst and operates in
series upstream of the fired reformer. The prereformer
effluent is reheated using heat from the fired reformer’s
convection section. Because the feed to the fired reformer
is now partially reformed, the fired reformer is unloaded.
Addition of a prereformer to an existing plant impacted
our plant in a number of ways. First, hydrogen production
was increased 8% to10%. In our case, the reformer was
the only bottleneck. Second, steam production was de-
creased by 10% to 15%. Third, fuel consumption stayed
about the same and then the feed rate increased propor-
tionately.
STEVE CATCHPOLE (ICI Katalco):
Prereforming is an adiabatic steam reforming step
which takes place upstream of the steam reformer. Their
application is quite varied, but there are three specific
applications that are worth considering.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
1. Light gas feeds with supplemental heavy gas or LPG
The most commonly used method for supplementary
hydrogen production is through the steam reforming of
light hydrocarbons streams (e.g., methane, catalytic re-
former offgases, etc.) in a Hydrogen Manufacturing Unit
(HMU). This means that the steam reformer operation is
relatively simple and gas steam reforming catalysts can be
used with little risk of carbon formation at typical steam-
to-carbon ratios. Some refineries are now finding that there
are cheaper hydrocarbon streams available which make the
gas feed “heavier”. This can take the steam reforming
operation closer to the problem of coke formation.
By installing a prereformer, the heavy components of
the feedstock gas can be steam reformed, leaving a gas feed
to the existing steam reformer which is methane rich.
Thus, the steam reforming operation remains as before
with the use of gas steam reforming catalyst without coke
formation.
It is worthwhile to note that there is a wide range of
commercially available steam reforming catalysts. Pro-
moted heavy gas-type steam reforming catalysts can yield
coke-free conditions, even with feeds containing signifi-
cant amounts of C4s and C5s, while still performing in a
manner similar to unpromoted gas steam reforming cata-
lyst. A comparison of the economics will make clear which
is the best option to adopt.
2. Conversions of gas or heavy gas feeds and reheat
During the process of prereforming of light hydrocar-
bon feeds, there is an overall endotherm across the catalyst
bed. This means that it is possible to reheat the effluent of
the prereformer before the steam reformer. In fact, with
the absence of any C2+ components in the steam reformer
effluent, it is also possible to reheat to significantly higher
temperatures without the concern of coke formation in
the mixed reactants convection section coil. In either case,
this takes heat load away from the radiant section, reduc-
ing the amount of fuel. It also takes some additional heat
away from the convection section. Coupled with de-
creased flue gas flow, the total amount of heat available
means that steam raising is significantly reduced.
This application has a particular benefit in plant uprat-
ing. An existing plant that has one or more of the following
limitations:
• Burner limit in the steam reformer (no additional
fuel can be fired),
• ID/FD fan limit, or
• Pre-heat convection section coil temperature limita-
tion (or coke formation limitation),
could potentially overcome these problems with the
incorporation of a prereformer. There will be less fuel fired
per unit volume of hydrogen and reduction in the tube
skin temperature of the preheat coil.
3. Prereforming of Heavy Feeds
Prereformers convert naphtha and LPG feeds to meth-
ane rich streams. In many ways, the benefits are broadly
123
TOC/INDEX
similar to those discussed in 1). Some degree of flexibility
exists with the option of having the steam reformer oper-
ating as a methane steam reformer with the prereformer
converting all feed types to methane. For new plants, there
is a clear benefit where heavy feeds can be converted to
methane and then reheated to temperatures as high as
650°C (1202°F) and so reducing the steam reformer heat
load and hence capital costs and operating plant costs (less
export steam). It also gives the plant some degree of
flexibility in using different types of hydrocarbon feeds
without changing the type of steam reforming catalyst.
However, there are some commercially available steam
reforming products that can also offer the same flexibility
in use of feedstock; these should be considered as an
alternate option, particularly if the energy saving aspects
of the prereformer are not required (i.e., there is a high
steam export requirement).
For existing plants, prereformers may contribute to
plant uprating, and this is usually achieved by decreasing
the steam-to-carbon ratio since the steam reformer is now
only handling methane. For PSA based hydrogen plants,
having a lower process steam rate reduces steam reformer
heatload and overall plant pressure drop. This gives the
plant some margin for uprating, provided the steam re-
former exit temperature can be increased to offset the
methane slip increase resulting from reduced steam addi-
tion, or provided that the methane slip increase can be
tolerated by the downstream processes (e.g. PSA). For wet
CO2/methanation hydrogen plants, the heat load of the
CO2 system normally restricts any significant steam-to-
carbon ratio reduction unless some low-energy revamp of
the CO2 system is also undertaken.
Prereforming schemes should be compared with direct
steam reforming catalyst options to compare the benefits
of capital costs, operating costs, and uprate effectiveness.
Further information can be found in ICI Katalco’s paper
presented at the 1996 NPRA conference “New (Steam)
Reforming Technology for the Hydrogen Industry”.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
Prereforming shifts some of the reforming load from
the reformer radiant section to the convection section.
Therefore, a prereformer can provide an incremental in-
crease in the capacity of existing hydrogen units, provided
that the capacity is limited by reformer tube wall tempera-
ture or reformer fan capacity. In the cases we have studied,
the potential capacity improvement is usually about 5%.
While a prereformer may be justified for existing plants,
our studies indicate that it cannot typically be justified for
new plants.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
Operating capacity of an existing hydrogen plant can
be enhanced in several ways by installation of prereformer
depending on limitations of the existing reformer and on
124 Hydrogen Processing
the feed. We agree with what Mr. Lemmon said that you
avoid problems with carbon formation on the reforming
catalyst and development of what is often referred to as
hot banding on tubes. This is because all higher hydrocar-
bons present in the feed are converted and, as mentioned,
all residual sulfur is removed. By installing a prereformer,
the preheat temperature to the tubular reformer can be
increased without risk of carbon formation, thus allowing
for a higher throughput with the same heat input to the
tubular reformer. An additional preheat coil and modifi-
cation of the reformer inlet system are required. We see a
10% to 15% increase in capacity as the normal goal for
steam reforming of natural gas. In steam reforming of
naphtha, one can increase capacity by one-third.
We disagree with a previous statement saying that one
would not incorporate a prereformer in a new unit. I think
that depends very much on the feed composition.
Question 3.
Compare the performance of the latest reformer tube
materials with HP modified tubes.
ARNDT:
We have retubed 3 of our 6 reformers with the new
micro-alloy HP material. They replaced HP modified
tubes. Our first micro-alloy HP tubes were installed in
1992. The principle justification for 2 of the 3 retubes was
increased tube life. We feel we are going to get 20% more
life. The tube dimensions were kept the same. On the third
reformer, we reduced the tube wall to get more catalyst
volume and less delta P at the same tube life. The materials
we used were Manaurite XM and Paralloy H39WM.
BARKER:
I agree with Mr. Arndt’s comments and note that
thinner tubes also allow operating at a lower tube wall
temperature, which reduces fuel consumption.
KOOIMAN:
The HP 40 modified centrifugally cast reformer tube
is a blend of 25 chrome/35 nickel plus niobium. In
general, HP 40 modified tubes have an 18% to 19%
strength increase in the critical temperature region over
the HK 40 tubes. Average lifetimes of 100,000 hours or
11 years are common.
The newest micro-alloys are blends of 25 chrome, 35
nickel, niobium and titanium. They are roughly twice as
strong as the original HK 40 tubes. They are cost-effective,
in other words not quite the cost of HK 40, and offer many
options including higher heat fluxes, increased catalyst
volume, fewer tubes, and longer tube life. Fabrication of
micro-alloys is much more difficult, which has limited the
attraction of these tubes. Most recently built plants are
using HP 40 modified metallurgy, except in Europe where
TOC/INDEX
the HP-BST metallurgy is preferred, due to better fabrica-
tion techniques. At Koch we use the HP 40 modified tubes.
SMITH:
We have similar experience. Previous experience with
the HK 40 materials in a reformer heater in the Riyadh
refinery was poor. As a result, there were frequent creep
rupture problems. The tube metallurgy was upgraded with
the HP modified materials in 1994. To date, the perform-
ance has been excellent. The furnace has operated at
conditions similar to those for HK 40 service, yet no
significant creep was observed when the tubes were
checked during this year’s turnaround.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
Haldor Topsoe has well over 10 years of experience in
specifying the micro-alloyed HP reformer tubes. The ex-
perience has been an unqualified success in a large number
of plants, both ammonia and hydrogen units, presently in
operation. Improved strength of the material has allowed
installation of tubes with thinner tube walls making the
tubes less susceptible to thermal shock and permitting
higher heat fluxes without adversely affecting tube life
expectancy. Of course, with thinner tubes more catalyst
can be installed.
VINAY KHURANA (Kinetics Technology international Corp. (KTI)):
The use of micro-alloys in steam reformer service has
been widely accepted in the last decade. KTI has used
micro-alloys in several applications with very good success.
High temperature operation favors the use of micro-alloy
due to its higher strength, about 15% to 25% higher stress
values at same design life.
In retrofit situations in steam reformers, the upgrading
to micro-alloys does benefit. It increases capacity while
retaining the same number of tubes by using larger internal
diameters and thinner wall thickness. I think it is fair to
conclude that use of thinner tubes, as was mentioned by
the panel, reduces the effect of thermocycling which in-
creases the life of the tubes and reduces maintenance costs
of the steam reformers.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
We have used HP modified micro-alloy tubes
(Manaurite XM; Schmidt & Clemens 4852 MOD;
Kubota KHR35CT) for the past 7 years. This micro-ahoy
material is 10% to 15% stronger than the older HP
modified material (Manaurite 36X; Thermax 63; Kobota
KHR35C). The micro-ahoy material allows design for
thinner tube walls in the reformer.
Thinner walls increase tube life since the effect of
secondary stresses associated with thermal cycling (start-
ups, shutdowns, and rate changes) is much less with a
thinner tube. Thinner tubes also operate at a lower tube
wall temperature, thereby reducing fuel consumption.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Question 4.
In hydrogen plants operated at tow steam-to-carbon
ratios, formic acid can be produced in the shift con-
verter and collect in the process condensate. Has
anyone experienced problems in the steam system
from reusing the condensate?
BARKER:
76 Products Company operates one of its newer re-
formers at a 3-to-1 steam-to-carbon ratio and has observed
formation of several different organic oxygen compounds
that are found in the shift condensate. We reuse this shift
condensate after running it through the deaerator. Some
of the oxygen compounds are removed in this deaerator,
but others, notably the organic acids, move on to the boiler
feedwater system. The only effect we have seen so far seems
to be increased consumption of neutralizing amine chemi-
cals. The compounds still show up in trace quantities in
steam, but have not been a problem to date.
DAVIS:
We do not have actual evidence of formic acid produc-
tion, but we have corrosion of 410 stainless steel exchanger
tubes in the raw gas trim cooler and the 410 cladding in
the final condensate drum upstream of the PSA unit.
Studies are currently underway with Foster Wheeler to
identify the chemical responsible, including a coupon rack
installed in the condensate drum.
FEARNSIDE:
Please remember that formic acid is a relatively strong
acidic species, while carbon dioxide is a relatively weak
acid. Carbon dioxide can be stripped in a condensate
stripper and to some extent in the deaerator, but this is not
true for formic acid. The presence of formic acid needs to
be considered in the subsequent neutralization of the
boiler feedwater and its effect on boiler water chemistry.
The presence of formic acid in the condensate radically
125
TOC/INDEX
changes the neutralization curve. We have seen a 5 fold
increase in neutralization requirements.
Since most process condensate systems are stainless
steel to handle the condensate carbonic acid corrosion, the
presence of formic acid should not present a problem,
assuming correct neutralization procedures are followed.
STEVE CATCHPOLE (ICI Katalco):
Formic acid is not normally found in the process gas
leaving the shift section of the Hydrogen Manufacturing
Unit (HMU). A discussion as to why this is the case
follows.
The mechanism for the formation of methanol in the
shift section of the HMU is for hydrogen and CO2 to be
absorbed onto the surface of the catalyst and then react to
give a formate (1). This then further reacts with hydrogen
to give methanol (2).
CO2+ H → HCOO (1)
HCOO + 2H → CH3O + O (2)
CH3O + H → CH3 (3)
In theory, the reaction sequence could be disturbed
after (1) and the addition of a single hydrogen atom could
give formic acid (4).
HCOO + H → HCOOH (4)
The question is not clear as to whether it concerns an
HMU with only a high temperature shift (HTS) vessel or
both an HTS and low temperature shift (LTS) vessel. It is
possible under low steam-to-carbon ratio conditions (say
less than 2.8) that the iron oxide at the top of the bed could
be over-reduced to iron which could catalyze this reaction
preferentially. This happens even with the more modern
copper-promoted HTS catalysts, but is much reduced at
a given steam-to-carbon ratio. It is also known that at
lower steam-to-carbon ratios, the quantity of methanol
produced increases. If it is assumed that formic acid
formation occurs in tandem, then low steam-to-carbon
ratios may favor greater formic acid production. However,
it is likely that formic acid would tend to decompose into
methane and water across an HTS assuming that the
catalyst is not over-reduced. The presence of formic acid
is more often seen in HyCO plants where there is an
absence of shift converters and very low steam-to-carbon
ratios. The formic acid is produced in the steam reformer
and the concentration is only a percentage (say less than
50%) of the equilibrium concentration. HyCO plants also
tend to operate with far higher CO/CO2 partial pressures
which would greatly drive the equilibrium conversion.
At low concentrations, formic acid is difficult to detect
as it is close to the methanol peak in a gas chromatograph.
An alternative possibility would be the partial oxidation
of methanol to formic acid. This would be difficult to do
in such a strongly reducing atmosphere. Perhaps the con-
version of methanol to formic acid takes place after the
shift during condensation or even in the sample line if
oxygen is present.
126 Hydrogen Processing
Acetaldehydes can be produced over shift catalysts but
at very low levels, as can hydrocarbons, particularly olefins.
ICI Katalco’s paper entitled “ICI’s Operating Experience
with Shift Catalysts at Low Steam Ratios” presented at the
1988 AIChE Ammonia Safety Symposium is applicable.
It shows the latest generation of catalysts as being less
susceptible to forming unsaturated hydrocarbons than the
older generation.
The main drive of the question is what happens to the
formic acid when it gets into the steam system. Just like
the decomposition products of any organics present, it
causes corrosion. Any acid will reduce the pH and accel-
erate corrosion. The normal procedure is to increase the
pH by adding an amine such as morpholene or cyclohex-
amine. The higher the steam pressure, the worse the
problem. At 20 kg/cm2g to 30 kg/cm2g (290 psig to 435
psig) the system seems relatively tolerant to organics,
whereas at 60 kg/cm2g to 80 kg/cm2g (870 psig to 1160
psig) there are serious problems. In the 30 kg/cm2g to 60
kg/cm2g (435 psig to 870 psig) region (which is where
most HMUs operate), it all depends. The real problem is
in knowing where the acids will condense out in the steam
system and cause corrosion. Understanding this gives a
clue as to which and how much amine to use to protect
the whole steam and condensate system.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
Our hydrogen plants typically operate at a 3-to-1
steam-to-carbon ratio, and there have been no reports of
formic acid formation in the shift converter. Steam-to-
carbon ratios below this level can present problems if not
properly designed.
ANDERS NIELSEN (Haldor Topsoe A/S):
The problem of formic acid has been enhanced by the
trends towards operating hydrogen plants at lower and
lower steam-to-carbon ratios in order to make the plants
more energy efficient. As a result of this, the amount of
process condensate produced has decreased considerably.
We have seen pH of about 4.8 which is, of course, highly
corrosive. The acids cannot be stripped off as mentioned.
We rectify this by adding an amine in the deaerator.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
We are also facing very serious problems with process
condensate in a hydrogen unit. The pH of the process
condensate is as low as 4. Even after passing through the
deaerator and after using neutralization agents like mor-
phelene and phosphate to the maximum extent possible,
we are not able to maintain the pH of the steam drum. An
increased level of phosphate injection is causing deposits
in the steam generator and seriously affecting the heat
transfer. So naturally, we are not in a position to use this
condensate and we are draining it. Is there any method by
TOC/INDEX
which we can fix this situation or use some other chemi-
cals?
FEARNSIDE:
My answer to that is that acids require a stoichiometric
amount of neutralizer plus 5% to 10% for distribution
inefficiencies. If you do not use enough neutralizer, you
are going to get into the problem that you have described.
What you need to do is analytical testing to find out what
your neutralization requirements are and then get the
equipment in place to utilize that amount of neutralizer.
T. R. (TOM) BACON (Dow Chemical Company):
Another problem encountered when using process con-
densate as makeup water to the amine CO2 removal
system is the buildup of heat stable salts in the amine
caused by any anions produced in the upstream process.
Question 5.
Describe the “sweeps brush” method of loading re-
former catalyst tubes, and how it compares with the
sock method.
DiCAMILLO:
The sweeps brush method of loading is really an old
method that dates back to the 1960s that is again gaining
attention. If done correctly, it results in a denser load than
a sock loading. This implies that you will get an improved
catalyst activity because of the fact that you have more
catalyst in the reactor tubes.
The technique incorporates a series of flexible rubber
disks that let the catalysts fall into the tubes more slowly
and, therefore, to load more uniformly and densely. The
down side is that the loading takes longer.
CatTech feels that a carefully done sock loading is
nearly as effective. No one has approached them yet to do
a sock loading, but they feel confident they can do one if
so asked.
BARKER:
Contractors tell us that this process loads approxi-
mately 8% to 10% more catalyst in the tubes. However,
we have no experience using this method since sock load-
ing provides good loadings for our operation.
KOOIMAN:
Well, I have a little bit different information. According
to my information, the sweeps brush method consists of
lowering a rope with steel spring brushes attached. They
are dropped down into the catalyst tube, then the catalyst
is poured directly from drums into the tube as the rope is
slowly pulled out. As described, this method was devel-
oped by Norsk Hydro and licensed to others. And it is
designed to produce a denser loading than the traditional
sock method. It is not clear if this is the case or if, in fact,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
any operational benefit can be measured since most mod-
ern reforming catalysts have optimized shapes which
would help to enhance the surface area and improve the
heat transfer.
A possible negative would be an increase in pressure
drop, which would be plant dependent, caused by the
denser loading. The major advertised benefit of the sweeps
brush is that it actually provides a quicker loading time
during this operation. Catalyst presocking is eliminated
and the time required to vibrate tubes and check outages
is also reduced.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
The “sweeps brush” method involves loading the cata-
lyst into the tubes through a series of brushes that are
attached to a rope. This method is licensed by Norsk
Hydro.
We have not considered the “sweeps brush” method
since we already obtain excellent results by loading catalyst
pre-socked at a constant weight per sock. This facilitates
loading each tube with an equal weight of catalyst. Based
on field reports, we believe the pre-sock loading method
is as good as the “sweeps brush” method.
BENJAMIN CROMARTY (ICI Katalco Corp.):
Regarding the “sweeps brush” method of loading steam
reformers, there does seem to be a mixed view in the
industry as to whether the claimed benefits from this
method of loading are achieved in practice.
In order to evaluate this method in detail, ICI will be
using this method and comparing it with its own experi-
ence with conventional sock loading when they next
change out the steam reformer catalyst in a few months. I
will give a detailed report when we have completed the
comparison.
Our initial view, based on the experience of several of
our customers, is that if the loading is done by experienced
operators, then the sweeps brush method is quicker, and
results in a more uniform initial pressure drop distribution
between the steam reformer tubes than the sock method
would. The final pressure drop variation though is one that
is no better than a careful sock loading with proper settling
can achieve (typically +2% to 4%). However, there have
also been a few reports that with inexperienced operators,
the sweeps brush method can be problematic.
It has been claimed that the loaded density using the
sweeps brush method is 5% higher than seen with sock
loading. Achieved figures appear to be 2% to 4% higher
than is typically seen with sock loading, though it should
be said that sock loading with proper settling methods will
achieve the same loaded densities as the sweeps brush
method. However, with regard to the claims of improved
reformer performance, these have not as yet been substan-
tiated. Unlike many other processes in the refinery, the
steam reformer is not activity limited, and so extra catalyst
127
TOC/INDEX
(as evidenced by higher loaded densities) will not result in
higher throughputs or lower exit methane slip. There will,
of course, be an increase in pressure drop.
G. DARRELL SCRUGGS (Kinetics Technology Intl. Corp. (KTI)):
In steam reformers with typical 4 in. to 5 in. internal
diameter tubes and fluxes as high as 25,000, performance
is not limited by catalyst volume. The limitation is the
tube material. A reformer generally has 40% to 50% more
catalyst than is needed at these fluxes. Since performance
is not catalyst limited, there is no benefit from having a
denser catalyst loading which imposes more delta P on
the front end. We have seen a reformer in Venezuela at
which the catalyst supplier convinced the operator to
dense load the catalyst. When the unit came back on-line,
it was rate limited because of additional delta P imposed
on the front end.
Question 6.
Maximum steam generation from a hydrogen plant
can be accomplished by integrating an auxiliary boiler
in the reformer furnace convection section. What is
the operating experience with these systems? Is there
any experience operating this design for hydrogen
only (auxiliary boiler shutdown) or steam only (SMR
shutdown)? What turndown is achievable in the aux-
iliary boiler?
FEARNSIDE:
The flue gas convection boiler referred to in the ques-
tion is a typical energy conservation measure in many
steam methane reformer designs. It is usually a forced
boiler feedwater circulation design. These boilers usually
operate without problems if some simple operating prac-
tices are followed.
Usually the flue gas has 3 duties including steam gen-
eration, steam super heating, and process heating. Obvi-
ously, one consideration must be the impact of altering the
heat load and the overall economics of the operation. With
respect to this aspect of the question, we would refer you
to your equipment designer.
Operating without steam generation raises a concern
regarding metallurgy and integrity. Typically we find that
operation without a steam load will eventually result in
failed tubes. Operation at off design point can cause its
own problems. These steam generators are often horizon-
tal tubes and it is imperative that the appropriate mass flux
be maintained to stay in the nucleate boiling regime.
Attempts to reduce circulation rates can result in vapor
pockets or pool boiling which can lead to creep rupture.
LEMMON:
We do not operate our waste boiler independent of our
reformer. Although I do not see why this could not be
accomplished in a new grass roots installation. A source of
128 Hydrogen Processing
fired boiler combustion air and access to shared equipment
would seem to create a major challenge to your mainte-
nance department during turnarounds.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
We have designed plants with an integrated auxiliary
boiler in the convection section, however, our current
position is that a stand-alone auxiliary boiler costs less
overall and simplifies operation. Turndown for either in-
tegrated or stand-alone can be as low as 25%.
RANDY KESSLER (Kinetics Technology International Corp. (KTI)):
KTI has multiple designs which integrate an auxiliary
boiler in parallel with the steam reformer’s convection
section. The operating experience has been quite good.
The SMR can run alone as can the auxiliary boiler. The
designer needs to account for brief temperature excursions
as one or the other integrated unit is taken off-line.
The trade-off is between operating flexibility and the
highest steam production efficiency. Turndowns of 30%
to 35% are reasonable.
Question 7.
What are the current NOx emission limits from new
reformers and the processes used to attain them?
BARKER:
In the California San Francisco Bay area, new reformers
have a NOx emission limit of 9 ppmw. Flue gas NOx is
reduced by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst
installed in the flue gas stack. Vaporized aqueous ammonia
(greater than 25 wt% NH3) is injected upstream of the
SCR catalyst.
The reformers in the California Los Angeles Basin are
limited to 7 ppmw NOx. They also use SCR to achieve
the required NOx levels.
DAVIS:
CENEX started up a Foster Wheeler hydrogen unit in
1993. A guarantee on the burners was 0.05 lb/MMBTU
and that is what we based our permit on.
GENTRY:
We are aware of recently permitted reformers that have
been equipped with selective catalyst reduction (SCR) to
control NOx. Emission rates as low as 0.0112 lb
NOx/MMBTU have been achieved. In existing reformers,
low NOx burner technology is achieving emission rates of
between 0.22 lb and 0.034 lb NOx/MMBTU.
HUNKUS:
NOx limits vary by the attainment status and PSD
status of each site and facility, with new installations
typically requiring low NOx burners. Burners can be
designed for induced recycle of flue gas to control the heat
TOC/INDEX
of combustion, or can use multiple fuel and/or combus-
tion air injection points to both control the excess oxygen
available to form NOx, and to limit the flame temperature
to retard the shift towards NOx production. This is a
staged combustion design. Other technologies incorpo-
rate the addition of a chemical agent to control NOx,
which is an assisted design. Some burners rely on a com-
bination of both assisted and staged technologies. These
burners can often achieve NOx values as low as 0.020 lb
to 0.025 lb NOx/MMBTU, sometimes even less. The
typical guarantee range for any of these systems is in the
0.05 lb range.
In our experience, low NOx burners do not typically
have the operational range that “normal” burners have,
and may go unstable at higher rates of firing or excessive
draft. They may experience bumping where the flame
seems to jump off the burner and then relight, rapid
shuddering or actually go out.
So if you are looking at pushing the original design
numbers on your low NOx burners, review your system
carefully as operators may not foresee this potential.
RONALD BREDEHOFT (Kinetics Technology International Corp. (KTI)):
KTI has installed a number of hydrogen plants in the
U.S. and each hydrogen plant has its own specific NOx
requirements. In California, we have installed SCRs on
these hydrogen plants and they make, as the panel sug-
gested, less than 10 ppm NOx. They meet all the Best
Achievable Control Technology (BACT) guidelines in
California.
Elsewhere in the U.S. the requirements are not as strict
and we have used various technologies. In general, our
experience with burners firing PSA gas at 2% oxygen and
no air preheat is as follows:
Conventional burners produce around 50 ppm of
NO x .
Staged fuel low NO, burners produce 35 ppm to 45
ppm NOx.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Ultra low NOx burners produce about 25 ppm to
35 ppm NOx.
SCRs produce less than 10 ppm NOx.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
NOx limits vary with the site. We typically use low NOx
burners. These burners are designed for induced recycle of
flue gas. For hydrogen plants burning PSA offgas, these
burners can achieve NO x values as low as 0.03 lb
NOx/MM BTU LHV heat release. For such burners, the
typical guarantee is 0.05 lb NOx/MM BTU LHV.
Hydrogen Purification
Question 8.
What are the considerations for installing a hydrocar-
bon recovery unit to recover hydrocarbons from feed
gas to a PSA unit or from tail gas from a PSA unit?
DAVIS:
The following items need to be considered.
1 . The value of the hydrocarbons to be extracted.
Most of the hydrocarbons will be in the C1 to C4
class range, and, unless olefins are to be recovered
for petrochemical production, I would not expect
this to be much above fuel value.
2. The type and cost of the recovery unit. The second
stage of absorption is unlikely to be useful. So this
would probably be a membrane or cryogenic unit.
If the stream is available at very high pressure, a
membrane system could be used up front to re-
move most of the hydrogen leaving a more concen-
trated hydrocarbon stream. This could reduce the
overall cost of the purification system.
3. Lost hydrocarbon value in the tail gas stream. The
typical use for PSA tail gas is to compress it into
the plant fuel system. If the refinery has a hydrogen
plant, use of steam reformer feed or fuel may be
more attractive. PSA tail gas is light and already
contains some hydrogen, so it makes an excellent
steam reformer feed. Alternatively, the tail gas can
be burned at low pressure. The burners in a terrace
wall reformer are well-suited to doing this. This
will usually require new piping and burner tips.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
We have no experience with hydrocarbon recovery
units of this type.
G. DARRELL SCRUGGS (Kinetics Technology Intl. Corp. (KTI)):
We were not sure that this question related to protect-
ing the PSA unit through feed gas purification or design
considerations for hydrocarbon recovery. KTI Fish Cor-
poration designed the Javelina project at Corpus Christi,
129
TOC/INDEX
Texas, which recovers hydrocarbons cryogenically from
multiple refinery feeds. The offgas from the unit is purified
in a PSA unit.
Hydrocarbon recovery should be from the feed to the
PSA unit and not the tail gas. Feed pressures should be
above 400 psig in order to be self-sustaining. Hydrogen
content generally should be between 40% and 70%. Feed
to the cryogenic unit must be dry and CO2-free, and, if
FCC dry gas is part of the feed, the design must consider
the formation of unstable NOx gums.
Overhead gas purity is determined by the flash gas
pressure. If the gas is to go to a PSA unit, the purity is less
of a concern, other than that the high hydrocarbon con-
tent of the raw gas will produce a low pressure, high BTU
purge gas from the PSA unit. Obviously, hydrocarbon
recovery from hydrogen is dependent upon the value of
the hydrocarbons. We know of no application that would
justify cryogenically treating feed gas in order to make it
more suitable to feed a PSA unit.
Question 9.
What is the actual life obtained from PSA adsorbent
material? What precautions should be taken to im-
prove the life cycle of the adsorbents? Does anyone
dump adsorbers before the adsorbent is spent just for
vessel inspection?
DAVIS:
Well, we have only had our unit on-line for 3 years, so
I cannot give you any full experience. We were told that
somewhere on the order of 20 years can be expected if
operated properly. The worst contaminant is water which
can actually physically degrade the sieve that is in the beds.
Because of that, we have never dumped ours.
ARNDT:
For me, the major issue regarding PSA adsorbers is
vessel integrity rather than adsorbent life or material. Since
the question addresses vessel inspection, I am going to
focus on vessel integrity for a minute.
We have a PSA unit in our Richmond refinery that has
been in and out of service for 10 years. We just had
through-wall cracks in 2 of the 5 vessels. The cracks started
at an internal bed support weld. Weld cracks are a serious
issue for these vessels. Crack growth is extremely fast due
to cycling and hydrogen atmosphere. So inspect your
vessels.
After finding these cracks, we started looking at ways
to inspect. Obviously, the tried and true method is to
dump the adsorbent, go inside and look for the cracks. We
have also found that external automatic UT can be effec-
tive in identifying these fatigue faults. Again, you have to
use a highly qualified technician. We are UT monitoring
the other 3 vessels until the next shutdown.
130 Hydrogen Processing
BARKER:
The adsorbent was changed out in the oldest of our 2
PSA units after 81⁄2 years of operation. This was done to
allow a vessel inspection. Post dump testing found that the
adsorbent was still active.
KATHY PICIOCCIO (UOP):
We have experience with multiple PSA units in service
for over 20 years still running on their original charge of
adsorbent with no loss in performance or capacity to
maintain the life of the adsorbent for the life of the unit.
We would recommend you run design feed gas through it
and keep it free from liquid carryover. UOP has seen quite
a number of refiners worldwide dumping their adsorbent
for the purpose of vessel inspection and then placing the
adsorbent back in the vessels when they were finished.
DAVID L. KING (Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc.):
With proper operation, the PSA adsorbent should last
the life of the plant.
However, if the PSA unit is operated such that fluidi-
zation occurs during pressure equalization, then the en-
trained adsorbent will need to be replaced.
Also, if heavy components appear in the feedstock and
are allowed to contaminate the adsorbent bed, it may be
necessary to change the adsorbent.
We are unaware of anyone dumping the adsorbers
before the adsorbent is spent just for vessel inspection.
B. Hydrotreating
Reactor Bed Plugging
Question 10.
Several questions were submitted concerning reactor
bed plugging. Discuss the causes of reactor bed plug-
ging, in your experience, and what has been done to
correct the problem. Considerations include filters,
storage and feed handling, trash baskets, additives,
guard beds, bed skimming, etc.
ARNDT:
This is a chronic Q&A question and a chronic industry
problem. I will go through how I categorize bed plugging
problems and briefly outline some of the solutions. The
panel can then go into more specifics.
• Problem No. 1 is incoming trash. This could be iron
scale, coke fines and upstream catalyst fines. Obvi-
ously, the first thing you do is go upstream and see
if you can eliminate the source, using metallurgy,
corrosion control, improved fractionator perform-
ance, etc. The next step is bed grading. Usually, good
grading is all you need to get out of trouble. How-
ever, in some cases, feed filtration is also needed.
TOC/INDEX
• Problem No. 2 is soluble iron in the feed. This is a
major problem if you run naphthenic crudes (e.g.,
California, Venezuela). It is a tough problem. Filters
do not help. The iron drops out quickly at the top
of your reactor as soon as it hits active catalyst. The
solution here is to carefully grade your catalyst load
using catalyst size, shape, and activity.
• Problem No. 3 is carbonaceous coke scales. The
source is “gum” fouling of the preheat exchangers
and feed furnace. You see this a lot in naphtha
hydrotreaters and light gas oil hydrotreaters feeding
cracked stocks. The secret is to minimize “gum”
formation. Avoid oxygen contamination in storage,
feed hot from the upstream units, and blanket your
feed tanks. Also, avoid feeding “free radical” stocks,
like disulfide float oil from an extractive Merox. The
“free radical” stocks act like oxygen and promote
gums. Good heat exchanger design is also key. Keep
feed on the tube side with high velocities and low
skin temperatures.
• Problem No. 4 is massive catalyst bed coking. This
can be a result of high temperature excursions or
high end point feeds. Use correct catalyst start-up
procedures (sulfiding, titration, feed-in conditions).
Watch your operating procedures and make sure you
have both the facilities and the procedures to mini-
mize temperature excursions. If you do have a tem-
perature excursion, promptly hot strip at high
temperatures for about 8 hours. This has at least a
50/50 chance of recovering from the high delta P.
• Problem No. 5 is in situ formation of catalyst bed
fines. Of course, unmanaged catalyst loading can
lead to fines. However, the tougher problem is mak-
ing sure you correctly install bed internals to avoid
internal catalyst migration. Make sure your screens
are clean and replace them often. If you have any
penetrations through your bed support screens or
your internal distribution trays, make sure these are
well sealed. Fully understand expansion of the reac-
tor internals, especially TI’s, quench pipes and cata-
lyst dump pipes.
BALDASSARI:
I would like to relate one problem specifically on
handling of cracked stocks from fluid catalytic crackers or
cokers. We had one installation where, although not part
of the normal design feed, cycle oil was blended at about
15 vol% with the diesel stock. The cycle oil was drawn off
non-blanketed tankage. Within a short period of time, this
caused fouling of the feed preheat train and caused polym-
erization and fouling at the top of the first bed in the
hydrotreater reactor. The unit had to take a premature
turnaround to clean the feed exchangers. They have since
blanketed the cycle oil storage tank and eliminated the
problem.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Routinely when we are handling cracked stocks, we
would install dual feed filters to remove catalyst or coke
fines in the feed greater than 50 microns. In addition, we
have found the use of graded beds with hollow cylinders
has proven to be very effective in retention of solids and
minimizing bed plugging.
BARKER:
We currently experience reactor bed plugging in most
of our hydrotreating lead reactors. This has been attributed
primarily to iron sulfide deposits and metals. In response,
we have removed the scale baskets from most of the
reactors to make room for more graded bed support media
and catalyst. Units with minor fouling have a few different
sizes of material; units with major fouling have several sizes
of support media and catalyst.
In one of our straight-run jet hydrotreaters, scale bas-
kets are also installed in the top of the catalyst load because
they are usually 1⁄2 to 3⁄4 full when the reactor is opened
for turnaround. The general rule is, “If you find them full
of scale when you open the reactor, put them back in.
Otherwise, they probably are not needed.”
In one of our gas oil hydrocrackers, we have two levels
of feed filtration to remove the bulk of the incoming solids.
This is in addition to graded beds.
A case study: We experienced two different types of bed
plugging in one of our hydrocracker unit lead hydrotreat-
ing reactor top beds in our early years of operation. We
installed a graded bed of support media on top of the first
bed of catalyst. This improved operation to allow us to run
between scheduled turnarounds.
One type of contamination was fine particulate iron
sulfide from upstream corrosion products; the areas of
corrosion were identified and alloyed. Another type of
material plugging the bed was polymerization products
from long-term storage of feed in unblanketed tanks. A
practice was established that feed that had been stored for
more than 4 weeks in an unblanketed tank was to be rerun
through an upstream vacuum tower. The heavier polym-
erization products drop to the vacuum tower bottoms or
are thermally cracked in the heater/vacuum tower system.
We also use a hydrogen blanket on our feed mix drum to
ensure that polymerization does not have a chance to
initiate in the feed preheat section.
We have continued the use of the graded bed of support
media. Recent inspections of the top bed indicate that some
material is still being screened by the graded bed but in far
smaller quantities than were experienced in the early years.
DiCAMILLO:
I agree with Mr. Arndt that determining where the bed
plugging is occurring is the first thing that needs to be
done in diagnosing the problem and determining the
remedies. If you have pressure gages or taps on your
reactor, across beds and other things, that is very helpful.
131
TOC/INDEX
It is hard to isolate the problem if you just have an inlet
and an outlet pressure. It makes it difficult to determine
where the pressure drop is.
One thing that Mr. Arndt did not mention that we have
seen: a case like a low pressure FCC feed hydrotreater
running at very low hydrogen partial pressure, where the
reactor plugs up at the bottom of the reactor rather than
at the top. We attribute that to low hydrogen partial
pressure and accelerated coking in the bottom of the
reactor. I would just like to reiterate that the natural
tendency may be to assume that the plugging is in the top
of the reactor and that is not always the case.
FEARNSIDE:
We have had success in utilizing heavy shock dosages
of disbursing chemistry, and recently have had an 80%+
success rate. The reason we have been successful is that we
better understood how the fouling occurred in the first
place. If you slowly, over time, build up a delta P across
your reactor bed, we cannot touch that. You are going to
have to live with it, shut down, or as Mr. Arndt mentioned
earlier, take care of all the process conditions to mitigate
that from starting in the first place. However, if you have
had a unit upset upstream and a very large pressure
increase in a short period of time, say over a couple of
hours, and if you can inject the shock dosage of dispersant
chemistry within 2 to 3 days of that event, then we have
been able to disburse that material down into the bed and
alleviate the pressure drop to an extent that the planned
run lengths can be obtained.
GENTRY:
Most of the topics have been pretty well covered. I
would like to revisit the topic of iron sulfide scale. Soluble
iron can be present in the feed as a result of corrosion by
naphthenic acids upstream of the hydrotreater. As Mr.
Arndt mentioned, this iron cannot be removed by filtra-
tion. Graded catalyst beds can be partially effective in
minimizing pressure build-up from iron sulfide scaling.
Specialized material for use in this service is available from
Akzo Nobel and is called KG-1. This is a macro-porous
material which is formulated to both capture and retain a
high iron loading without pressure drop increase. For cases
in which the soluble iron content is very high, say greater
than 5 ppm, it may be economical to consider upgrading
metallurgy in your crude unit to prevent naphthenic acid
attack.
HUNKUS:
In our experience, the scale most often comes from
oxygen in the feed which forms a scale in the preheat
exchanger and/or heater tubes. This then sluffs off and
fouls the top of the reactor bed. A feed outage or any
thermal cycling can exacerbate the problem. We have seen
delta P go from 30 psi to about 100 psi in a few weeks,
132 Hydrogen Processing
but mostly it is a slow build-up of deposit and pressure.
We have also gotten a shot of Merox caustic into our
naphtha hydrotreater from our disulfide separator on
several occasions, which does quite a nice job on the
preheat efficiency and catalyst load.
We use very large trash baskets, have bypassed our sour
naphtha feed tank, and installed a bypass on the first
preheat bank. We can use it in sacrificial service and keep
it clean and continue to plate out any material there that
does come through. We also use graded active support and
active rings on both our naphtha and distillate hydro-
treater reactors. We also have a distribution tray/dirt
catcher on the distillate hydrotreater reactor which runs at
very low delta P. The distillate hydrotreater also has sacri-
ficial exchangers, which can be cleaned on-line to keep the
key high pressure exchangers, heater coils, and reactor
clean. I have also used guard beds successfully.
We have skimmed our naphtha hydrotreater at
MAPCO, and other places I have worked, numerous
times. I have also seen tank blanketing with nitrogen, and
a bladder tank where the natural vapors from several tanks
went into a bladder in a separate tank to maintain a pad
and prevent oxygen from getting into the product and
product from getting into the air. I have also used additives
for this service and found this to be a mixed blessing,
especially with adding the material into a fouled system
and shutting down immediately to skim the top of the
bed, and having repeated shutdowns as the system contin-
ued to clean itself.
JOHNSON:
Most of the comments have been covered already. So I
will not go into a lot of detail other than some differences
and some other unique points.
One thing to note is that storage of straight-run prod-
ucts can also cause problems if they are contacted by
oxygen. We saw a lot of problems on a particular unit that
was purchasing naphtha feedstock and running it through
the hydrotreater. Oxygen will absorb into it and cause feed
exchanger fouling very rapidly.
UOP does agree that bed gradings using the various size
supports and the hollow rings are advisable. We have
actually seen problems on one unit that used trash baskets.
This was a unit where the catalyst would have some
cracking activity. Hot spots can develop between the
baskets due to low flow regimes. Essentially all of the flow
goes down through the baskets out the bottom of the
basket leaving a low flow area between the baskets. So there
is some concern about the hot spots, depending on the
service, when trash baskets are used.
SMITH:
Bed plugging is generally due to the accumulation of
scale from the feed as well as from the preheat exchangers
and furnace. Even with feed filters, coke from furnace
TOC/INDEX
tubes and scale from the feed lines and/or filter break-
through will result in pluggage of the catalyst beds. Reduc-
tion in the rate at which pluggage occurs can be achieved
by spreading the particulate matter over a larger volume
of the catalyst and catalyst support. This is usually done
by grading the top catalyst support and/or carefully select-
ing the catalyst shapes and sizes at the top of the reactor.
Support and catalyst grading is done by placing larger
catalyst on top and smaller catalyst below. The large
particles have larger interstitial void space.
The Ras Tanura refinery has achieved good success in
reducing the rate of pluggage by using both graded bed
catalyst support and a tubular type catalyst in the top
portion of the reactor. The graded bed consists of 3⁄4 in.,
1
⁄2 in. and 3⁄8 in. ceramic balls on top of the catalyst.
The presence of iron in the feedstocks is another con-
tributing factor to reactor plugging. Organic iron com-
pounds pass through feed filters and are then converted to
FeS. Part of this FeS will be retained in the void fraction of
the catalyst bed, while the remaining FeS will be deposited.
On the outer surface of the catalyst particles, FeS will not
normally penetrate into the catalyst particles. FeS will lead
to coke formation for high temperature catalyst service.
Reactor fouling is also accelerated if the operating condi-
tions are not controlled within the specified operating
ranges, e.g., hydrogen-to-oil ratio, furnace operation,
steam-to-carbon ratio for steam reformers, etc. Our naph-
tha hydrotreater catalyst has shown accelerated fouling
whenever we have processed a feedstock from storage with-
out proper nitrogen blanketing or oxygen prestripping.
Purchased naphtha previously Merox treated has proven to
be particularly problematic. Tightlined feeds between units
generally do not have problems with oxygen.
UOP has an excellent paper given recently on the use
of graduated beds and tubular catalysts. I am sure licensee’s
could request the paper successfully.
PARI B. SHETH (Petrolite Corporation):
Petrolite has patented additive technology for resolving
some of the problems of reactor bed plugging. Petrolite’s
Petrotech reactor bed conglomerate is a commercially avail-
able program. This program can be used effectively to
combat delta P problems across the reactor bed. In a typical
East Coast refiner delta P problems were eliminated pre-
venting an unscheduled turnaround. The results of the
Petrotech reactor bed conglomerate were obtained in less
than 20 hours in an extremely cost-effective manner.
BRIAN M. MOYSE (Haldor Topsoe, Inc.):
Just one comment to add about the skimming, we
would normally recommend, unless you are just trying to
buy a very short time to a major turnaround, that you do
not do that. If you are going to get the maximum cycle
length, then you really need to take all the catalyst out,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
screen it and reload it. That will give you essentially the
same clean bed void fraction you have with new catalyst.
EVERETTE C. HARRIS (HRI, Inc.):
Our parent company IFP has two commercial HY-
VAHL units that use 25 micron Procon filters to protect
the first stage reactor catalyst. Ssangyong high valve filters
are backflushed automatically when the pressure drop
exceeds about 1.8 kg/cm2. During normal operations,
these filters are backwashed to blowdown once every 45
min. to 90 min. for about 6 seconds at a rate equal to about
10% of the normal unit throughput. To date, there have
been no significant operating problems with the
Ssangyong filters, and the reactor pressure drop was stable
during the first 6 months of operation. IFP’s other com-
mercial HYVAHL unit is located in Total’s Ardmore,Okla-
homa, refinery. Earlier this year Total changed the catalyst
in the first stage reactor, demetallization catalyst, after
processing various mixtures of VGO and Maya vacuum
residue for over 2 years. The catalyst change was conducted
after the reactor pressure drop exceeded about 50 psi. Due
to the unit feed filters, the reactor design, and the unit
operation, no significant reactor plugging was observed
other than the expected pressure drop increase due to the
accumulation of metals on that catalyst.
JEAN-PIERRE PERIES (Acreon Catalysts):
Catalyst plugging by insolubles from the feedstock is
well known. We have several guard bed options to capture
the particles. Today, Acreon focuses on the answer to
plugging by the olefin polymerization and we have catalyst
solutions. We propose several catalysts based on special
neutral alumina carrier to avoid the polymerization phe-
nomenon on the acid side of the catalyst. We have two
catalysts on this job. HR945 catalyst is mainly devoted to
olefin hydrogenation and it is installed as the first catalyst
bed for pyrolysis distillate hydrotreating. The second cata-
lyst is HM841. The catalyst is mainly a demetallization
catalyst with special alumina support. It is used as first bed
for the VGO hydrotreater to prepare feedstock for metal
removal and also for heavy coker gas oil olefin hydrogena-
tion. The part of such catalysts in a catalyst system is
selected mainly as a function of feedstock characteristics
and composition.
STEVEN M. FISCHER (CITGO Petroleum Corp.):
Mr. Fearnside, when using dispersants to try and recover
from either a feed or a process upset, what is the window
of opportunity when it is effective to use these dispersants?
FEARNSIDE:
You have to treat the event within 2 to 3 days of the
event occurring.
133
TOC/INDEX
BILL WITZIG (BetzDearborn):
In the case where there is polymer formation in the feed
preheat and it carries into the bed, it is important to treat
with a polymerization inhibitor. If you are additizing with
a dispersant alone, it will only exacerbate the problem.
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
Pall Corporation has been working to protect fixed bed
catalyst bed filters for several years. In one specific case, as
mentioned before, 1/3 of the catalyst bed, the top third,
was being skimmed every 6 to 9 months. With a retrofit
of the existing system to incorporate a finer media with
greater surface area, we were able to extend the life of the
bed to well over 2 years, with the bed still nowhere near
plugging to this date. However, one must be very careful
of the existing system limitations when retrofitting exist-
ing systems. Many difficulties can be encountered.
MO VADEKAR (CHEM TECH Consulting):
The point about oxygen contamination of feedstocks
to hydrotreaters and the fouling problems it creates has
been made earlier today and cannot be overemphasized.
Almost every year discussion on this subject comes up and
every time the same cautions and comments are made,
namely, do not allow this to happen, if possible. As to how
much oxygen in the feed is too much oxygen, my own
axiom after many, many years of experience in this par-
ticular area is: “2 ppm O2 is 2 ppm too much”.
The other point is that in an extreme case where oxygen
is in fact present by way of imported feedstock, the only
solution is prestripping the oxygen out of the system
before it goes into the hydrotreater. Now, quite often some
vendors claim that antioxidants, inhibitors and so on will
scavenge dissolved oxygen. That is not true. The only true
solution in an extreme case is stripping, or not allowing
oxygen ingress in the feeds in the first place by rank
blanketing or direct unit-to-unit feed lines.
NEIL HOWARD (UOP):
I was interested in Mr. Arndt’s comments about cases
of a temperature excursion where coke built up on the
catalyst bed. He indicated that a hot hydrogen strip for
about 8 hours would perhaps give you a 50/50 chance of
reducing some of the delta P. I was wondering, did you
incorporate a diesel flush prior to the hot hydrogen strip?
Also, have others experienced use of hot hydrogen strip
to alleviate delta P when you have had a situation like
this?
ARNDT:
Most of our temperature excursions occur in our isoc-
rackers which feed light VGO. Therefore, we do not need
a diesel flush, since the difference in boiling range is not
that great. I think if you have a resid unit or a very heavy
VGO unit, it would be good to flush it out with a light
134 Hydrogen Processing
straight-run stock. We do this in a few of our units. Also,
if you feed a high percentage of cracked stock, removing
it from your feed would also help.
HUNKUS:
We had an unusual opportunity where we had prob-
lems in a reformer. The operators bypassed the automatic
trip and left charge going into our distillate unit for about
20 min. with very little hydrogen. We started back up and
the reactor was basically dead. We had a fairly significant
increase in pressure drop. We tried a hot hydrogen strip,
and that was Shell 448 by the way, and recovered a
significant amount of the activity, dropped about a third
of the pressure drop off, and were able to make about
5½ months to turnaround with it.
J.B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Most two phase flow hydrotreaters have a vapor liquid
distribution system at the top of the reactor. If trash
baskets are installed below this distributor tray, the trash
baskets have the effect of separating the phases after
redistribution has occurred on the tray. Mr. Johnson
noted that hot spots have been noticed in and around
trash baskets installed in two phase flow systems. They
have also been noticed below trash baskets in two phase
flow systems.
We recommend that trash baskets not be installed in
two phase flow systems, but rather that graded support be
used. A number of our clients have done that with im-
proved distribution and catalyst performance.
MICHEL ROY (Petro-Canada Products):
We have an HVGO gas oil hydrocracker and we
normally process virgin gas oil from our crude unit. We
once processed non-oxygen stripped material and pres-
sure drop built up rapidly on our unit. We were successful
in recovering some of the pressure drop with the hot cycle
oil wash and the hydrogen sweep. The pressure drop
TOC/INDEX
reduction was mostly in the exchangers and not much
around the reactor itself.
Has anyone done oxygen stripping of gas oil, and, if
so, how?
ARNDT:
We have done it in a few of our middle distillate units,
but have basically eliminated the practice over time. We
could see little, if any, benefit. In one case where we were
stripping with gas, we were putting more oxygen in our
feed than we were taking out. Basically our policy is to feed
hot with blanketed tankage for cold slip streams.
MICHEL ROY (Petro-Canada Products):
The question concerned heavy gas oil.
ARNDT:
We have never stripped heavy feed, only jet fuel or diesel
fuel. We find that the lighter feeds (jet, diesel, naphtha)
plug the most.
Reactor Effluent Systems
Question 11.
How do you protect the reactor effluent/air cooler sys-
tem from corrosion due to ammonium salts? Will the
pressure to reduce wash water rates aggravate this
problem? Considerations include quantity and quality
(percent ammonium bisulfide) of water, flow distribu-
tion, flow velocities, metallurgy, and inspection.
BALDASSARI:
In various of our hydrotreaters and resid hydrocrackers
we have designed for ammonium salt concentrations any-
where from 2% to 10% in the sour water from the effluent
cooler. We have used different types of metallurgy ranging
from carbon steel to Duplex 2206, and in one case we used
Sandvik 3RE60 stainless steel. Carbon steel applications
have been used in cases when the ammonium salt concen-
trations were limited to between 2% and 6% and mixed
phase velocity through the tubes was limited to 20 ft/sec.
In addition, header boxes are used instead of return bends,
and the tube gage thickness is increased for corrosion
allowance. Finally, a film forming inhibitor is injected to
protect the carbon steel air cooler tubes and upstream and
downstream piping.
The air cooler would be designed with symmetrical
inlet piping and with independent water injection into
each bay. The water would be metered independently and
injected through a spray nozzle at the inlet of each bay.
In the case of duplex steel, no specific velocity restric-
tions are applied. Rather the air cooler is designed for a
normal process side pressure drop of 15 psi. We have found
that using upgraded metallurgy is not that much more
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
expensive, considering the design restrictions applied
when using carbon steel construction.
Normally as far as wash water makeup is concerned,
and especially in resid hydrocrackers where the water
quantities are fairly large, we use process condensate from
the atmospheric tower overhead and from the vacuum
tower overhead ejector condenser system. We then add
water, generally from the sour water stripper. The makeup
usually composes about 30% to 50% of the wash water
injection into the air cooler.
The temperature at which you inject the wash water is
a function of the ammonium salts in your system. It is
well-known that a small amount of chloride in the feed to
a hydrocracker or a hydrotreater will result in fairly high
sublimation temperatures in the reactor effluent cooling
train. In these cases, water is injected generally after cool-
ing the process stream to between 450°F to 550°F. For
ammonium bisulfide sublimation, which occurs at lower
temperatures, wash water need not be injected until the
process is cooled to 250°F to 300°F.
In the one instance where we designed for the 10%
salts, we used Duplex 2206 steel. The reason we designed
for 10% salts was to minimize sour water production and
the investment for the sour water stripping system. We
accomplished this by recycling sour water from the unit,
allowing the salts to concentrate. In this application, the
salt concentration was about 4% in the wash water stream
injected upstream of the air cooler and 10% in the sour
water leaving the air cooler.
In the case of resid hydrocracking services where am-
monium chloride sublimation is a definite consideration,
we ensure that we have at least 25% excess water down-
stream of the wash water injection point to assure the tubes
are wetted at the inlet of the air cooler.
DiCAMILLO:
As Mr. Baldassari mentioned, temperature can be criti-
cal. When you are taking temperature measurements, you
need to be sure you are doing it at the right place. I think
one thing he did not mention was gas scrubbing, which
will also help reduce hydrogen sulfide concentrations.
FEARNSIDE:
I agree with what has been said. I would like to give you
some conservative rules of thumb to start with and then
describe a little bit about how people are able to operate
outside of those, and what is critical in determining that.
The first one is salt concentration in the effluent water
of less than 2 wt%; I will get back later to why people can
run higher. The second one, and it is critical, is the makeup
water oxygen content. That must be kept below 50 ppb,
and that must be on the downstream side of your makeup
water pumps. We have run into a number of cases where
the triplex pumps have pushed oxygen into the water
against a pressure gradient. Maximum flow rates are 20 fps
135
TOC/INDEX
carbon steel and less than 30 fps on Incoloy 800. The
maximum stripped sour water in the makeup stream
should be 50%, and also keep the chlorides out. That is a
must.
The reason people are able to operate outside the 2 wt%
salt concentration depends on the inlet header system and
how symmetrical it is. We found, especially on carbon
steel, that people that have unsymmetrical inlet headers
have to operate closer to the conservative rules of thumb.
But as you move toward perfectly symmetrical inlet header
systems, you are able to operate up to 8 wt% salt. That is
utilizing 100% boiler feed water or steam condensate as
your makeup source.
GENTRY:
Many of the points have been covered. I would like to
touch on a couple more. Wash water rate must be suffi-
cient to prevent complete vaporization. Kellogg designs
for a maximum of 60% water vaporization at the hottest
injection point. To ensure adequate mixing and contact-
ing, Kellogg prefers to design for counter-flow injection
into a vertical section of piping. In high nitrogen, high
sulfur applications, Kellogg would also consider installing
individual wash water injection points at the inlet to each
air cooler bundle. Symmetrical piping headers should be
used for flow distribution in the air cooler.
The question of metallurgy for the effluent piping and
exchangers will depend primarily on the corrosivity factor,
or Kp, which is defined as the product of ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide mole percent in the effluent. Much of
the industry experience with respect to piping failures has
been correlated against this factor. Kellogg would specify
killed carbon steel (ASTM A106 Grade B) construction
for Kp values less than 0.2 and would recommend the use
of duplex stainless steel above this level. Duplex alloy 2205
provides excellent resistance to corrosion and erosion
while also showing less susceptibility to stress corrosion
cracking.
Another factor to be considered in the material con-
struction is the ammonium bisulfide content. With killed
carbon steel construction, wash water injection should be
set to limit ammonium bisulfide to 2 wt% to 4 wt%. Up
to 8 wt% ammonium bisulfide could be allowed for alloy
systems, providing the wash water rate meets the vapori-
zation criteria that I mentioned before.
ARNDT:
We have been doing a lot of work in our Chevron
refineries to minimize NH4HS corrosion in our reactor
effluent systems. We have been an aggressive user of
carbon steel in these services, operating many CS systems
at or even above 10 wt% NH4HS. The problem is com-
pounded by the push to reduce water rates coming out of
the refinery.
136 Hydrogen Processing
The question itself mentions six very important con-
siderations regarding NH4HS corrosion. I was here doo-
dling, trying to figure out which was the most important.
If you look at my piece of paper, I have changed my mind
many times. So I am going to cover these considerations,
but not necessarily in any order of priority.
• The quality of the wash water is critical. Injection
water should contain less than 15 ppb oxygen, have
greater than 8 pH, contain less than 1 ppm Fe, and
contain low chlorides (less than 5 ppm to 10 ppm).
Iron and pH are usually paired: low pH results in
high iron. I would like to emphasize very low chlo-
rides. High chlorides can be a major problem due to
underdeposit pitting in distillation section preheat
exchangers when water is carried over from the
separators.
• Enough water must be injected. We like to ensure
that 25% of the injected water is liquid entering the
air cooler. Distribution of the injection water to each
bay is crucial. I was a big proponent of individual
injection points for each bay. However, after looking
at our operations and seeing all the trouble that our
operators have in reliably measuring and controlling
these small streams, I am doubting this philosophy.
The individual injection meters, lines, and nozzles
are easily plugged. In some of these cases, we have
operated a pass dry—Not Good. So I am now a fan
of a single injection point as far upstream of the air
cooler as possible. The piping downstream of the
injection point must be carefully sized to limit ve-
locities especially for carbon steel pipe. Some balance
is needed to keep out of slug flow conditions.
• Metallurgy selection is important. We try to limit
NH4HS concentrations in the sour water to below
7 wt% or 8 wt% for carbon steel air coolers. We are
in the process of achieving this goal by switching
some exchangers to Incoloy or increasing injection
water rates. Note, we bypass the duplex material
option.
• Velocity limits are also vital. The velocity limit for
carbon steel tubes is 20 fps. We see even better
performance in units operating in the 10 fps to 15
fps range. For Incoloy we can go up to 30 fps.
• Another critical feature is your inspection program,
especially for carbon steel systems. For carbon steel
tubes in services above 3 wt% to 4 wt% NH4HS, we
would start with an inspection program that calls for
a tube inspection every catalyst changeout or every
2 years. The exact interval can be adjusted somewhat
by looking at plant history but do not get too
complacent. The inspection should include hy-
droblasting and eddy current testing each and every
tube. For Incoloy tubes, spot checks at much longer
intervals are adequate.
TOC/INDEX
• Process monitoring is a key to air cooler system
reliability. You need to be aware of any increases in
corrosion susceptibility such as high nitrogen-con-
taining feed, higher HDN severity, higher recycle
rates, etc.
KIMBRELL:
I agree with most of the comments. Although we use a
20 ppb oxygen limit rather than 50 or 15, we also would
concentrate ammonium bisulfide up to 8 wt%, no higher.
Back on the oxygen, not only do we try to limit the oxygen
level at 20 ppb, but we have also added oxygen scavengers
to try to keep the oxygen out.
SMITH:
I think this issue has been covered fairly well today and
in previous NPRA sessions. I agree with the numbers
mentioned. They are pretty much what we use. I guess the
only judgment that I would bring to bear is that if it is
close, I would not push too hard for carbon steel. I would
go ahead and spend the extra money for the Incoloy.
MICHAEL J. ZETLMEISL (Petrolite Corporation):
The Shell model which I discussed in the General
Processing Session, question 15, can also be used to model
these systems and predict ammonium chloride and am-
monium bisulfide salt points very exactly. At Petrolite we
look forward to using the model to predict salting in this
type of system, and develop customized solutions to this
type of problem. Keep in mind that this model can be used
throughout the refinery to predict salt points wherever
there is a concern about interactions between ammonia
and other neutralizers with acidic vapors. All of these
species are included in the model.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
We have had a plethora of answers on this subject and
I agree with most of them. But I was a little bit hesitant
about the 10% ammonium bisulfide. That leaves me
wondering a little bit.
One thing mentioned was the box header versus ser-
pentine type exchangers. I think the jury is still out on that
one. We have to recognize that with a box header arrange-
ment the potential number of leak points is increased
dramatically. Regarding metallurgy, we have seen the 300
series stainless, carbon steel, and Incoloy 800. The Incoloy
800 has performed extremely well, and that particular
exchanger is a serpentine exchanger. I have some concerns
about the 3,000 or so plugs that one might expect on a
box header exchanger, since each one is a potential leak-
point. Most of these exchangers are in high pressure
service.
The last point that I wanted to mention concerns the
total dissolved solids (TDS) in the injection water and the
comments that 25% to 50% of the water remains as liquid.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
That TDS is very important and we have seen sidewall
corrosion in some of the exchangers due to excessively high
TDS. With high TDS, you can get deposits and you create
an active site where you can get corrosion. This should be
highlighted as one of the water quality answers.
PATRICIA CHRISTIE (Syncrude Canada Limited):
We are actually running at about 10 wt% ammonium
bisulfide right now in our reactor/effluent piping system.
We have a combination of Hastelloy tubes in our ex-
changer, with a stainless steel tube sheet and carbon steel
in the downstream piping. The places where we have seen
most of the problems so far have been erosion/corrosion
in our letdown valves and in some of the elbows. We were
wondering if anybody else is running at these levels of
ammonium bisulfide, and where they have seen problems?
What sort of metallurgy is recommended? We are also
looking at what to do for the future, because we are going
to be running higher rates. Should we be spending the
money to increase our stripper water capacity, or can we
use metallurgy to look after this problem?
ARNDT:
I will start from the air cooler and work my way
downstream. The air cooler outlet piping, especially the
elbows of your outlet header, should have the same met-
allurgy and velocity limits as the tubes. Failures in the
outlet piping usually result in a much more damaging
incident than failure of an air cooler tube. Note, one of
our units produces 25 wt% NH4HS sour water. For sour
water concentrations above 10 wt% NH4HS, you need to
consider upgrading your sour water let down systems. The
let down valve should have 316 SS trim with stellited seat
and plug, and Incoloy cage. Also, you probably want to
go to stainless steel for all flashing or turbulent areas in the
low pressure sour water piping. If you operate with sour
water concentrations above 15 wt% to 18 wt%, you
should make that whole system stainless steel. We have
also had some problems with really high ammonium
bisulfide levels in our separators themselves. A few of our
high pressure and low pressure separators are stainless steel
lined.
SMITH:
We use a maximum of 8%, instead of your 10%, as a
guideline. Again, as I mentioned on the judgment used on
this part of the piping system, because the corrosion is so
aggressive and the failure can be so catastrophic, this may
not be the place to try to cut this line too much. I think
going to the higher alloy solutions is prudent, because you
may have problems with injection pumps or operations of
that wash water system that will lead to very aggressive
corrosion and failures. This is a good metallurgical solu-
tion area.
137
TOC/INDEX
NEIL HOWARD (UOP):
UOP’s design guidelines for wash water injection are
summarized below.
1. A minimum wash water injection rate of 5 vol%
of the feed is required. This wash water rate may
need to be increased to keep at least 20% of the
wash water liquid at the point of injection, or to
keep the ammonium bisulfide concentration in the
separator sour water less than 8 wt%. The wash
water should be injected into a vertical section of
the main reactor effluent line coming from the
feed-effluent exchangers.
2. For those units with a reactor effluent corrosivity
factor (Kp) greater than 0.4, it is currently our
practice to specify that the air cooler be fabricated
with Incoloy 825. Otherwise, we will normally
specify killed carbon steel. Kpis the product of the
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide concentrations, in
mole percent, in the reactor effluent.
3. We limit the fluid velocities in the air cooler, the
inlet and outlet header piping, and rundown to the
separator, to 20 fps for carbon steel and 30 fps for
Incoloy 825.
4. The inlet and outlet headers should have a bal-
anced configuration, that is, at each place the flow
splits in the header, it will go to only two flow
paths, each of equal length. A balanced arrange-
ment is one in which the number of parallel banks
in the air cooler equals 2n, where n equals a whole
number. The intent is to achieve equal distribution
of oil, water, and vapor phases between banks and
to minimize differences in fluid velocity from one
bank to another.
It should be emphasized that, in addition to the guide-
lines outlined above, we believe it is essential that the
refiner conducts regular and thorough inspections of the
reactor effluent system to continually monitor corrosion.
UOP recently concluded a survey of our licensees of
both hydrotreaters and hydrocrackers. We had about 45
responses from which we were able to correlate the results.
The single most important conclusion from this survey,
that perhaps was not evident from earlier industry surveys,
was the strong correlation between balanced header design
and lower corrosion rates. This should not minimize the
importance of the other guidelines outlined previously,
since the survey also supports the fact that no single design
or operating practice will guarantee safety from corrosion.
However, we consider balanced headers to be an essential
part of the reactor effluent air cooler design.
FEARNSIDE:
Regarding something Mr. Arndt said about his refer-
ence to high nitrogen feeds, I have run across two high
pressure hydrotreaters and three hydrocrackers that have
had cyanide-related corrosion on these air coolers. I
138 Hydrogen Processing
wanted to poll the panel and the floor as to whether
anybody else has seen this type of corrosion.
ARNDT:
We do not speak in terms of cyanide corrosion in
hydroprocessing units. The corrosion seen is more prob-
ably a result of wet H2S and wet NH4HS corrosion
resulting in blistering, cracking, and accelerated corrosion.
Cyanide may promote these mechanisms in a hydroproc-
essing unit but by themselves are not the principle cause.
HUNKUS:
I do not want to offend anyone here because I know
everyone here is smart enough not to do this, but when I
hear so much discussion about one aspect of an operation
and the other part is not brought in, it gives me a little bit
of concern. When you are changing metallurgy or chang-
ing operating conditions, especially things that have hap-
pened or evolved over a long period of industry practice,
you need to look at the whole system and everything that
is going on. If you are trying to reduce water rates and
improve metallurgy and you are worried about corrosion,
do not forget that you might plug off the whole bottom
bank or two of the tubes and induce tremendous mechani-
cal stresses and rip apart a fin fan. I would like to recom-
mend that you think about things like this before you
make changes.
Question 12.
Has anyone improved corrosion tolerance in reactor
feed/effluent exchangers by changing effluent piping
from shell-side to tube-side?
BARKER:
In our systems, the reactor effluent was designed to be
on the tube side of our exchangers in the original design.
This reduces heat losses and allows more flexibility in the
metallurgy. It is less expensive to upgrade tube side com-
pared to upgrading shell metallurgy.
DiCAMILLO:
I agree with Ms. Barker. The exception might be in a
situation where you have a high fouling tendency; the
material that fouls the most should be on the tube side for
ease of cleanup.
FEARNSIDE:
We have helped some refiners get away from any cor-
rosion problems on these feed effluent exchangers, specifi-
cally on the feed side. All we did was have them go back
to the crude unit overhead receiver drum and improve
their level controls on the water boot, thereby stopping
any water carry-out and minimizing the amount of wet
feed that was going to this particular exchanger.
TOC/INDEX
ARNDT:
We like feed on the tube side. It is easier to clean the
tubes. We can maintain high velocities with no low flow
areas.
Question 13.
What is the industry corrosion experience for
fluorided operating environments in high pressure
hydrotreating units?
DiCAMILLO:
To protect my sources, I refuse to reveal who helped me
with this question. But if he is still in the room, he needs
to know that the rest of the panel disagreed with me and
made me go first here.
Maybe contrary to industry rumors or whatever, I have
been told that if the fluoride injection rate is maintained
at the proper dosage rate, there have not been any incidents
of fluoride corrosion in the high pressure units. In units
that have had problems, other things in addition to fluo-
ride dosage rate had been found.
We just discussed controlling corrosion. There are
NACE guidelines in an article written by Bob Piehl, who
is well known in the industry. That would be a good
reference article. What that article says, in summary, is that
corrosion is a function of linear velocity and ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide concentrations, and halogens which
would include fluoride, have a small impact on corrosion.
The best way to avoid the problem at all is to use a
non-fluorided system. Criterion produces both fluoride
promoted and non-fluoride promoted lube catalysts that
can be used in these applications.
ARNDT:
I am not a fan of fluorided catalysts. Fluoride is a very
active ion, like chloride. You are essentially injecting chlo-
ride-like material into your unit. When we merged with
Gulf, we had the opportunity to follow up on some
licensed fluorided lube oil hydrocrackers. They certainly
kept our materials and corrosion engineers busy.
We encountered two very serious corrosion problems;
two plants really got eaten up. The culprit was fluorides.
One of the problem areas was the reactor effluent coolers
with their associated inlet and outlet piping. One of the
units corroded Incoloy 800 tubes, and that is tough to do.
But the biggest problem to me is in the distillation
preheat exchangers. Small amounts of sour water are al-
ways carried out in the hydrocarbon stream from the
separators. They are never perfect. The “wet” hydrocarbon
stream is flashed at low pressure and heated up in the
distillation preheat exchangers. The water is vaporized out
leaving behind a very, very corrosive salt, which can and
has caused rapid equipment failure.
Coupling this increased failure risk with the knowledge
that there are catalysts in the market place, both amor-
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
phous and zeolitic, that can out-perform fluorided cata-
lysts, clearly says to me — avoid fluorided catalysts.
ARTHUR J. SUCHANEK (Criterion Catalyst Company):
I want to compliment Mr. Arndt for his safety point on
fluoride addition with catalysts. Being one of the guys who
goes all the way back to the Gulf days and the development
of the fluorided catalysts, we were always anxious about
fluoride. Fluorides achieve acidity but can cause corrosion
problems.
Mr. DiCamillo mentioned that Criterion offers
fluorided and non-fluorided catalysts. It is interesting,
because we developed a non-fluorided catalytic system
which is actually less dense than the fluoride version. We
thus sell less pounds and probably make less money on it.
But from a safety standpoint, I want to reiterate again that
what Mr. Arndt said is absolutely correct and I back him
up 100%.
Catalysts and Catalyst Sulfiding
Question 14.
How do refiners monitor purchased hydroprocessing
catalyst quality?
HUNKUS:
We look at fresh specifications and the regeneration
actuals, or, in one case, projected values. In every case, we
have seen better than projected performance from our
purchased catalyst and have come to rely on Criterion and
CRI as our partners. We have spot checked their analysis
on occasion and always found them conservative. We, of
course, independently verify platinum content and have
spot checked active metals and most importantly called
around to people we know in the business. People know
if they have received bad catalysts, and good catalyst
companies are the ones who stay in business.
There have been no problems with start-of-run tem-
peratures, delta P or stability. We have found the vendor
data to be quite reliable, including the data on presulfided
hydrotreating catalysts. For clarity, I wanted to add that
FCC equilibrium catalyst is a separate issue and much
more quality, in-house effort is required to properly opti-
mize an FCC fresh equilibrium/additive program. I also
wanted to state that my point of view is as an independent
refiner who does not have a lot of in-house technical effort
to spend in this area.
KIMBRELL:
We have retained the ability to do catalyst testing in our
own pilot plants. Catalysts from commercial production
runs are tested in our pilot plants prior to having a catalyst
installed in a unit. When we load it into our operating
facilities, we monitor catalyst loading procedures very
139
TOC/INDEX
carefully. We test any regenerated catalyst that is being
considered for reuse prior to it being used. Even after we
tested the regenerated materials, we would inspect each
individual container as it came in.
LEMMON:
We believe that only reputable, high quality catalyst
companies have the ability to survive in the competitive
catalyst marketplace. We trust in the manufacturer’s repu-
tation and do not perform “as received” quality tests.
SMITH:
Post-delivery quality control that we do is typically
visual and quantity checks.
BARKER:
I concur with Mr. Hunkus and Mr Lemmon’s com-
ments. In the area of regenerated catalysts, we have speci-
fications that have been developed based on experience. We
also insist on knowing the previous service of the catalyst,
the run length, the type of feed, etc. Only second cycle
material is considered; we do not buy third cycle material.
DiCAMILLO:
I would like to thank you for saving the best for last on
this question. Criterion, and I am sure other major catalyst
vendors, have strict internal quality control programs. Our
program includes SPC monitoring, regular physical and
chemical analyses and activity testing of the catalysts we
make. We reject material that falls outside of our manu-
facturing specifications. We also supply certificates of
analyses, upon request, to our customers.
I polled our customers and most of them do not follow
up with their own analyses. Some of the things they do are
to observe the loading, which would include looking into
the drums and making sure it is the catalyst they actually
purchased, and they look for excessive dust or something
that might give them problems.
Several customers keep retainer samples of the material
in case something develops at a future date. We also
maintain retainers of the material we ship to customers. If
all else fails, the customer is familiar with how his unit
operates. If he starts up a fresh catalyst and the perform-
ance seems different than what he is used to, he is usually
on the phone quickly.
RONALD E. MARRELLI (Phillips Petroleum Company):
I have a question for those on the panel who said they
did not test the purchased catalyst. Can you tell me how
you evaluate the performance of one catalyst versus an-
other or different companies?
LEMMON:
We have used Pittsburg Applied Research Laboratory
(PARC) to do our catalyst evaluation pilot plant work. We
140 Hydrogen Processing
also use references from refiners who are using the same
catalyst in similar service.
Question 15.
What environmentally friendly (non-toxic, low odor)
presulfiding chemicals are currently available for in
situ presulfiding applications, and what has the expe-
rience been with these chemicals? How do you dis-
pose of excess volumes of sulfiding chemical?
DiCAMILLO:
I know of four vendors that make environmentally
friendly presulfiding chemicals, and they all promised me
dinner if I mentioned their names. The original environ-
mentally friendly chemical is TNPS. It is available from
Elf Atochem. That was joined several years ago by DMSO
which is made by GAYLORD. More recently, Phillips and
Lubrizol have introduced non-odorous chemicals that are
similar to TNPS. I personally have started up units with
TNPS and DMSO and have not had any problems. I have
not started units that have used the Phillips and Lubrizol
material, but they can supply you references of happy
customers that have used those materials.
The second part of the question is: what do you do with
the excess material? It is most common to buy just enough
for that one particular sulfiding. If you have excess, you
usually run it through the reactor to get rid of it. In some
cases vendors will take it back. In other cases, customers
might have storage tanks, and they buy enough chemicals
for several start-ups, using what they need and keeping the
rest in storage.
ARNDT:
We have a refinery in the middle of a high rent district
and odor abatement is essential. They sulfide with either
TNPS or Sulfrizol 40. The rest of the Chevron refining
system uses the old war horse, DMDS. As far as disposing
of sulfiding chemicals, our bigger refineries have separate
storage, so we can usually use it in the next unit that has
to be sulfided. In the smaller refineries, we keep injecting
it until it is used up.
DAVIS:
CENEX is located out on the prairie, so we have some
advantages. We have been using DMDS for the last 3 to
4 years with success. Large volumes are delivered to the
refinery via a semi and trailer equipped with pressuring gas
connections and flow meters to assist with the presulfid-
ing. Any excess leaves with the truck. Small quantities are
delivered in 200 lb cylinders, and we make sure to inject
the entire quantity rather than have any excess.
KOOIMAN:
We use the TNPS, the ditertiary nonyl polysulfide,
again for the odor issues. It is not too difficult to handle.
TOC/INDEX
One problem in the northern refineries is that it must be
kept above 40°F or it will separate. We had it delivered in
a steam jacketed truck and it went in all right.
My experience on disposal has been to just pump it into
the unit to get rid of it.
SMITH:
The Ras Tanura refinery has successfully used TNPS as
a sulfiding agent for naphtha reforming catalysts. As men-
tioned, it has little odor, low toxicity and low vapor
pressure. However, it is the most expensive of the presul-
fiding agents per pound of sulfur, about 4 times more
expensive than dimethyl sulfide and 2 times as expensive
as DMDS per pound of sulfur. We 100% recycle the
TNPS for next usage.
DAVID ROBERTS (Lubrizol Corporation):
We offer, as was mentioned, the SulfrZol® catalyst
presulfiding agents which are indeed low odor, easy to
transport and handle, and have excellent safety charac-
teristics. Refineries around the world have reported high
satisfaction with these materials. As far as any excess
chemical is concerned, we will take it back and give credit
as long as it is not contaminated.
MICHAEL DONAHUE (GAYLORD CHEMICAL):
One of the advantages of DMSO is that it is probably
cheaper per pound of sulfur than most of your non-smelly,
non-toxic materials. Another strong issue about it is that
it can be used for both liquid phase sulfiding and gas phase
quite efficiently. Any material that is normally left over, if
not contaminated, will be taken back at the request of the
refiner.
MARC NAGELE (Phillips Chemical Company):
Phillips manufactures two polysulfides, not only the
tertiary nonyl polysulfide which is 37% sulfur, but also a
tertiary butyl polysulfide. This material is a 54% con-
tained sulfur basis, and we had developed it to address
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
some of the comments that have arisen about tertiary
nonyl polysulfide. With the higher contained sulfur, it
offers a lower cost on a contained sulfur basis, and it also
offers easier handling at the low temperatures. Tertiary
butyl polysulfide offers all of the advantages of tertiary
nonyl polysulfide with none of the drawbacks.
Question 16.
Discuss your experience using ex situ presulfided
catalysts? Was there a real time savings on start-up?
Were there any safety and handling considerations?
Were there any side effects? Was the SOR activity
better than in situ method?
KIMBRELL:
We have used presulfided catalysts several times with
very good results. The time to start up was about the same
using presulfided catalysts as with in situ sulfiding. We
approach the activation temperature relatively slowly be-
cause there is a good size exotherm, and that is part of the
reason that the times were about the same.
We tend to use presulfided catalysts when we are con-
cerned about odors, using disulfides or mercaptans as
presulfiding agents. The vapor phase system is where we
have our best luck. We have used presulfided catalyst in a
gas oil hydrotreater, but the activity there was not as good
as we would have liked it to be. Our pilot plant testing
showed that presulfided materials did not have as high an
activity as in situ sulfiding.
KOOIMAN:
Well, in a smaller unit, maybe under 50,000 pounds or
so, I think our preference would be to go with the ex situ.
As a word of caution though, the ex situ presulfiding seems
to be a little bit more sensitive to conditions in the plant.
In other words, you have to make sure you have the
hydrogen. The activation seems to happen a little bit more
quickly and is a lot less forgiving for any lapses in the
hydrogen rates. As far as time savings, I am not sure that
there is a lot, or at least that we could find. But it is a lot
easier with the ex situ. We have had good luck with it.
SMITH:
We recommend purchasing presulfided hydrotreating
catalysts when practical and economical to avoid handling
sulfiding chemicals and to ensure uniform dispersion of
sulfur compounds. One refinery has switched from an in
situ sulfiding to ex situ sulfiding and received almost
immediate benefits from slightly shorter start-up times to
longer catalyst lives. Start-up time savings were in the
range of 4 hours to 6 hours by eliminating temperature
hold steps, eliminating addition of sulfiding chemical, and
eliminating the need to wait for proper H2S level in the
effluent gas. Run length increase averaged approximately
10% to 15% with 5°F to 10°F lower temperature. Better
141
TOC/INDEX
performance is believed to result from the more uniform
sulfiding at start-up which results from less initial catalyst
coking.
Presulfided catalyst also avoids the potential tempera-
ture runaway during start-up from overactive catalyst. In
addition to safety considerations, temperature excursions
at start-up result in excessive coke build up on catalysts,
resulting in a little shorter life.
HUNKUS:
I agree with what has already been said, especially the
part about minimizing or eliminating steps that can go
wrong. That is a real hidden advantage to using presulfi-
ded catalyst. MAPCO has used a presulfided process with
hydrotreating catalysts in both naphtha and distillate
hydrotreaters with both fresh and regenerated catalysts.
No significant difference in start-of-run activity was ob-
served when fresh or regenerated catalyst was used, indi-
cating that the use of this technology still provided us
with fresh catalyst start-of-run activity on high quality
regenerated catalyst, both MAPCO’s own regenerated
catalyst and high quality merchant resale catalyst. The
larger distillate unit, 200,000 lb plus, was fully on stream
in about 24 hours. This compared to a significantly longer
period, including a 48 hour delay on the introduction of
light cycle oil from our long resid processing FCCU,
when using a standard in situ sulfiding procedure utiliz-
ing spiking agents. The use of this process also provides
additional benefit by eliminating the handling of the
spiking agents and the health, safety and environmental
concerns associated with their use and storage. As men-
tioned above, we also introduced cracked feed soon after
start-up and saw the additional benefits of well-distrib-
uted sulfiding agent by running an 80°F exotherm with-
out any problems on the second day. Our naphtha
hydrotreater start-ups with presulfided catalysts are al-
most a non-event.
In summary, there is no real time savings, but we feel
we can come up harder and faster, and our cracked charge
can be slowly introduced after about 24 hours if required.
You also get the extra benefit of keeping the operators
focused on the unit and the start-up and not an unusual
procedure.
BARKER:
At one of our diesel hydrotreaters, ex situ presulfiding
was used twice on Ni/Mo (HC-K type) treating catalyst.
This unit processes straight-run diesel, jet and jet-range
coker stocks. The first presulfiding went very well. A gas
phase activation was used and catalyst activity was equal
to previous cycles.
The second ex situ catalyst start-up had problems. We
switched to a liquid phase activation. During the initial
heat-up we experienced a heat exchanger failure unrelated
to the sulfiding. The activation also took longer than
142 Hydrogen Processing
expected due to heat-up delays. The net result was that the
unit started up at end of run temperature and the catalyst
had extremely poor activity.
We do not feel that the ex situ process was at fault, but
this experience points out an inherent danger. There is a
limited amount of sulfur present on ex situ presulfided
catalyst. In a liquid phase activation, problems can develop
if too much sulfur is lost, due to the recycle gas purge that
takes place in the H2S stripper for example. Additionally,
if any equipment failures or delays occur, the system could
become sulfur deficient. A back-up sulfur source should
be available. In addition, feed should be introduced as
soon as possible in the activation to provide a secondary
source of sulfur.
DiCAMILLO:
I agree that using ex situ sulfided catalyst normally
results in a time savings for start-up. I would like to discuss
the safety and handling issues in a little bit more detail.
Safety is better because you are not handling sulfiding
chemicals. That is one less thing you have to deal with.
Presulfided catalyst, however, is defined as a U.N. self-
heating material. So it must be transported in approved
drums, flow bins or other types of containers. The catalyst
can be safely loaded in air. However, you should take care
to avoid heating the catalyst prematurely. In some cases, if
you get the catalyst too warm, you can start to activate it
prematurely.
CRI has a large data base comparing initial pilot plant
activity of ex situ sulfided catalysts versus catalysts started
up in the traditional pilot plant method; in this case, that
would be a gas phase start-up with hydrogen/5% hydro-
gen sulfide. The data indicate that the ex situ sulfided
catalyst is generally more active. That is a little more
difficult to pin down in a commercial unit.
SALAH H. DARDEER (Saudi Aramco):
In our hydrocracker, we perform catalyst sulfiding in
situ by blending flushing oil, which is straight-run gas oil,
with the DMDS. The in situ sulfiding is okay with restor-
ing catalyst activity. However, timing is our concern.
Normally we take 1.5 to 2 days to sulfide the catalyst.
We would like to know from others their experience,
from a time point of view, if there is any other method
available by which we can expedite in situ sulfiding.
Question 17.
For hydrocracking catalyst start-ups, there are three
possible routes to follow for catalyst activation: a) in
situ gas phase presulfiding; b) in situ liquid phase
presulfiding; and c) activation of ex situ presulfided
catalyst. Comment on your experience with any or all
of these methods?
TOC/INDEX
ARNDT:
We use very active zeolitic catalysts in our isocrackers.
They are much more reactive than the older amorphous
catalysts. Therefore, we view catalyst conditioning and
start-up as an extremely important procedure.
We start up (condition) the catalyst in three steps. First,
we sulfide the catalytic metals (unless you have a nobel
metal catalyst). Then we pretitrate the zeolitic material to
tone down the super active sites to avoid overcracking
when feed is introduced. The last step is to very carefully
liquid wet the catalyst. We use gas phase sulfiding followed
by gas phase titration with ammonia. Feed is then intro-
duced at very low temperatures. All cracked stocks are
removed from the feed. We bring these catalysts on-line
very successfully. However, whenever we have tried to
short cut these procedures, we have reached some really
exciting temperatures.
DiCAMILLO:
As Mr. Arndt mentioned, the choice of gas or liquid
phase or ex situ sulfided catalyst depends on what kind of
hydrocracking catalyst you are starting up. Let me briefly
discuss some start-up work we have done with CRI Acti-
Cat ex situ sulfided catalyst. We used this technique twice
in 1995, and in one case we started up both the hy-
drocracker pretreat reactor and the hydrocracker. In that
case, we used ex situ sulfided catalyst and a liquid phase
start-up. The entire process, from start-up feed in to
introduction of normal feed, was completed in less than
24 hours. That compares quite favorably with the previous
method used in that refinery which was a gas phase
start-up and took 3 to 4 days.
GENTRY:
Kellogg’s hydrocracking partners, Mobil and Akzo No-
bel, recommend either in situ liquid phase presulfiding or
using ex situ presulfided catalyst. The decision to use ex
situ presulfided catalyst is based on economics. The rec-
ommended sulfiding oil for liquid phase in situ is a light
straight gas oil with the following range of properties:
sulfur of 0.5 wt% to 1.5 wt%, nitrogen of less than 200
ppmw, and D-86 end point of 600°F to 750°F.
In Mobil’s moderate pressure hydrocrackers, which
utilize Akzo Nobel denitrogenation and zeolite cracking
catalyst systems, presulfiding is accomplished with either
native sulfur only or utilizing chemical injection with once
through liquid feed. The preferred sulfiding chemical is
dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). Injecting sulfiding chemical
increases the rate at which sulfur can be delivered to the
catalyst and can, in many cases, substantially shorten the
start-up time. Mobil has developed an efficient start-up
and presulfiding procedure using the in situ liquid phase
method which allows for the heat up to on-line conversion
operation in as little as 48 to 72 hours.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
JOHNSON:
We have a lot of experience with both in situ gas phase
sulfiding and in situ liquid phase sulfiding. Our gas phase
procedures have been used for the high zeolite and nobel
metal catalyst systems where stable temperature is more
critical. Our liquid phase procedures have typically been
used for amorphous and low zeolite catalyst systems. Both
methods provide reliable catalyst performance. In general,
the liquid phase procedures allow the start-up to be com-
pleted about 50 hours faster than the gas phase procedures.
STEVEN M. FISCHER (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
Mr. DiCamillo, would Criterion agree with Mr.
Hunkus’ comment that you could introduce cracked
stocks immediately after start-up into systems that had
been presulfided ex situ versus in situ?
DiCAMILLO:
We would not recommend introducing cracked mate-
rials immediately after sulfiding regardless of the presul-
fiding method used.
STEVEN M. FISCHER (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
The question was, could you introduce cracked stocks
sooner? In gas oil service, Criterion has typically recom-
mended that refiners wait 3 days before introducing
cracked stocks. I was wondering if Criterion would change
their recommendation if the catalyst had been pre-sulfided
ex situ?
DiCAMILLO:
We would not change our recommendation. Three
days is a conservative recommendation. We use that be-
cause we believe with a soft start-up, you can maximize
the activity and cycle length of the catalyst. In practice, we
compromise and sometimes will go less than 3 days. In
certain cases, where the only feed you are using is 100%
cracked stocks, all the cracked stocks might be in maybe
12 hours after start of feed. In those cases, we would try
to add it in gradually rather than all at once though.
J.B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Service, Inc.):
When ex situ sulfided catalyst is used, the definition is
ambiguous. A sulfur compound is added to the catalyst,
but the catalyst is not really in the sulfided state. When
the sulfur compound breaks down the sulfiding occurs.
There have been instances where SO2 has been liber-
ated from the impregnated catalyst. When SO2 comes off
the catalyst, it inhibits the ability of the refiner to inspect
the catalyst loading because, usually, the refiner’s personnel
are not certified to go in under inert gas. That has ham-
pered my company when the refiners have hired us to
supervise the catalyst loading. I caution all of you that such
a thing is possible and has happened. Caution should be
taken to avoid that SO2 problem.
143
TOC/INDEX
OZIE S. OWEN (Amoco Petroleum Products):
Mr. Arndt initially said that there were times when they
tried to avoid the titration step and saw some large
exotherms. Do you have any idea how much start-of-run
activity is lost if you bypass that titration step? Also, are
there other ways of starting up very active zeolitic catalysts
without using the titration approach?
ARNDT:
We have always incorporated a titration step when
starting up hydrocracking catalyst containing a fair
amount of zeolites. Our start-up exotherm occurred in
only one start-up where we greatly reduced our normal
titration soak time. Temperature spreads in the bottom
beds occurred during feed in, leading to a temperature
exotherm. As a result, we laid down quite a bit of coke
with resulting higher-than-normal reactor pressure drop.
The penalty to us was more a reduction in resulting cycle
length rather than a reduction in start-of-run activity.
CHRISTINE WILLCOX (Elf Atochem Europe):
Years of industrial experience and feedback from many
European refineries, process advisors, and catalyst pro-
ducers, suggest that an in situ controlled sulfiding with
DMDS is the reference technology which proves its
efficiency time and time again. Within the range of
sulfiding compounds (such as mercaptans, sulfides, disul-
fides and polysulfides) DMDS is the preferred agent
given its high sulfur content, its advantageous physical
and chemical properties, and particularly its low hydro-
genolysis temperature over the catalyst. Controlled injec-
tion of DMDS is the best guarantee to achieve maximum
activity and long life of the catalyst. With in situ injec-
tion, there is no risk of sulfur loss on catalyst if sulfiding
has to be interrupted. Injection can be stopped in case of
hydrogen shortage or temperature excursions. Control
with no risks is the key. Correct packaging, handling and
properly maintained equipment should prevent odor
problems, particularly if a specialist injection service is
used. There is no need to load catalyst under N2. The
reactor can be accessed and catalyst drying properly con-
trolled during sulfiding, an important factor in final
activity. Feedback from refiners suggests time savings in
start-up with ex situ presulfided catalyst can only be
achieved if units run at full capacity. Not in all cases, but
in many, time saving was found to be between 6 to 10
hours. How easy is it to loose these hours during the
shutdown period, during the extra time it takes to load
the catalyst under N2, and how often can these hours be
recovered in the first week of the running of a unit?
Finally, cost considerations certainly favor in situ sul-
fiding with DMDS. In fact, in situ sulfiding with DMDS
offers the best combination of profitability, operating
flexibility and catalyst performance.
144 Hydrogen Processing
Question 18.
There are some recent regulatory changes regarding
the classification of spent hydroprocessing catalysts.
Will refiners still be allowed to utilize landfills, on-
site bulk catalyst storage pads, and bulk transporta-
tion systems under the new legislation? Will wet
dumping techniques continue to be used?
DiCAMILLO:
At this time, the proposed changes have been issued,
but they are not finalized and that is not expected until
some time next year. I will briefly summarize items for each
part of this question.
Basically, the regulations say, with some exceptions, all
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts would be classi-
fied as a hazardous waste. Regarding landfill, catalysts
would need to be incinerated and stabilized before land-
filling. RCRA approved on-site bulk pads and D.O.T.
approved hazardous waste containers would be acceptable.
Suitable containers come in a variety of sizes. Spills would
also be classified as hazardous, but the size of a spill has
not yet been determined. Bulk transportation would be in
approved containers only. There is a question about wet
dumping techniques. An exemption for waste water from
wet dumping was discussed, but no final proposals have
been made at this time.
BARKER:
The proposed regulation, as we understand it, does not
involve any changes to our current procedure. We dump
our catalysts under both wet and dry conditions and ship
them as an excluded recyclable material to either a metals
reclaimer or a primary smelter facility. We do this both in
bulk shipments and in drum shipments.
KOOIMAN:
Well, I think Mr. DiCamillo covered most of what I
was going to say.
The U.S. EPA has issued a proposed rule that would
classify all spent hydrotreating (HT) and hydrorefining
(HR) catalysts as RCRA listed hazardous wastes, regard-
less of their ignitability, corrosivity or reactivity test re-
sults or TCLP characterization. As such, disposal to
landfills would be allowed only after stabilization of the
spent catalyst (e.g., pre-reclaim burn of the spent catalyst)
to meet Uniform Treatment Standards (UTS), with the
most relevant standards to be met being leachable Ni (less
than 5.0 mg/l) and leachable V (less than 0.23 mg/l). This
rule would also require that spent HT or HR catalysts be
stored in appropriate and approved containers or on
RCRA pads (i.e., RCRA permitted). Transportation of
the spent HT and HR catalysts would be in accordance
with DOT regulations for hazardous materials requiring
manifesting and transport by licensed carriers of hazard-
ous waste. It is unlikely that wet dumping technique
TOC/INDEX
could still be utilized unless the dumping pad was RCRA
permitted. Under the currently proposed rule, spent cata-
lysts released to the ground in an amount exceeding the
reportable quantity (currently proposed at 1 lb or 100 lbs)
would be handled as a spill of hazardous waste and
reportable under CERCLA.
ROY S. GODWIN (SADACI (Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp.)):
I would like to draw attention to a very informative
article on the EPA rulemaking and possible further delays
which appears in the current edition of Catails of Gulf
Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation.
Reactor Safety and Reliability
Question 19.
Has there been any progress in reactor temperature
measuring technology?
ARNDT:
We have a lot of reactors and many of them are old, and
the majority have the thermometry penetrating the bot-
tom head or the top head. We have spent a lot of time
trying out different internal bed temperature indicators.
We began installing GAYESCO Flex R thermocouples
in hydrocracking reactors 6 years ago. We have them in six
reactors now. We are planning for more. Response time is
tremendous. You can snake them around and put them in
places that you may never have measured before. You can
put more of them through a thermowell. We will probably
end up with so many internal temperature readings that
we will just confuse ourselves. So far we have had no leaks.
On the other hand, we have had a fair number of leaks in
our other temperature indicators. We also have a few
Therm Mavericks still in service, but the response time is
not very good. These Flex R temperature indicators have
survived catalyst dumping and maintenance turnarounds.
We did have one fail due to mechanical damage, but repair
was relatively easy; merely cutting off the damaged end
and splicing a new tip in place.
The other critical reactor temperature measurement is
the shell and nozzle skin temperatures. Often we do not
pay attention to these. These are absolutely critical to
protect your reactor from brittle fracture. Our favorite
attachment method is to use a small stud on a little weld
pad. The thermocouple is wrapped around the stud and
tightened down with a stud bolt and washer.
BARKER:
We have also used these GAYESCO flexible thermo-
couples. They were installed in our hydrocracking reactors
in 1994. These thermocouples closely resemble 1⁄2 in.
tubing, which allows them to be bent to fit in any location
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
vertically or horizontally within the catalyst bed. This is
the snaking that Mr. Arndt is talking about.
We have located several additional thermocouples to
within about an inch of the bed, which gives us better
monitoring close to the wall, and we have added additional
catalyst bed temperature monitoring. Additional thermo-
couples can be installed into the existing reactor flanges;
no reactor modifications are required to obtain additional
temperature measurements. We have installed 16 flexible
thermocouples in a reactor flange which had previously
held 3 traditional type thermocouples.
Two of these thermocouples have leaked at the first
junction box during this current run. They were capped
and we continued to run with these caps in place with no
further problems.
We are wrestling with what to do during the next
catalyst dump. We have been advised that we may not be
able to pull out all the thermocouples and then reinsert
them. So there is an additional expense over the traditional
thermocouples if we have to change these thermocouples
out each time we change the catalyst.
As for reactor wall temperature measuring, we installed
bands around the outside parameter of our reactors which
have spring-loaded thermocouples attached, and those
appear to be working quite well. These facilities were also
installed in 1994.
LEMMON:
Tosco wanted more radial temperature distribution
information from its hydrocracking reactors to justify a
project to install new reactor internals. We chose to install
GAYESCO’s Flex R radial thermocouples to pick up the
additional information. We now have wonderful justifica-
tion for better reactor internals; we are now actually
limiting the cracking potential of the reactors because of
this additional temperature information. In other words,
we had a lot more hot spots than we had thought.
BRIAN M. MOYSE (Haldor Topsoe, Inc.):
For those people who cannot wait to get the transcript
to read about the snaky thermocouples, there was a good
paper presented this year, NPRA AM-96-63, which dis-
cusses this subject in great detail.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
The ebullated bed reactor is somewhat simpler than the
fixed bed to measure temperatures. For our H-Oil Process,
we install sufficient internal thermocouples set in a spiral
pattern, and typically in 4 thermowells, to ensure that we
measure the whole back mix reactor. We measure between
32 and 36 locations in each reactor. If there are any hot
spots, then they can be detected. Any abnormality in the
temperature readings would indicate possible maldistribu-
tion. Remember, of course, H-Oil and LC Finer reactors
are up flow reactors.
145
TOC/INDEX
If the vessel is a hot wall design, then our practice is to
have a ring of wall thermocouples on the vessel for each
process thermocouple level. This is a few more than the
LC Finer.
All the thermocouples, both wall and internals, are of
the duplex type. So the complete failure to measure the
wall temperatures is somewhat remote. All the reactor
internal thermocouples are now specified as bimetallic
type for easy replacement. They are the removable bundle
type, namely the GAYESCO type. For hot wall vessels,
location of the wall couples is such that adjacent point
temperature measurements can always be made if an
emergency does occur. This ensures maximum vessel
integrity.
We always design the wells to enter through the top or
the bottom heads, and we do not install shell mounted
nozzles and thermowells. We specify a 3 wire 100 ohm
RTD with platinum resistance element which we feel gives
better accuracy and reliability for temperature measure-
ment. On the comment about the wall couples being
embedded into the wall, yes, they go all the way through
to within about 2 in. of the inner core of the reactor. It is
what I call a “pepper pot” reactor in some ways. For
instance, the Husky reactors have 220 wall thermocouples
on each reactor.
BEN GRIEB (Gay Engineering & Sales Company, Inc.):
A recent development by Gayesco in accordance with
ASME Section VIII code allows for a much greater num-
ber of “Flex-R” Radial temperature measurement points
than previously possible. This is particularly important in
applications where the reactor nozzle flange dedicated for
temperature measurement is small, such as in side entering
applications. This development also provides a more eco-
nomical solution for many reactor applications using top
entering pipewells. Additionally, all Flex-R Radial thermo-
couple systems are now available with a secondary con-
tainment feature which is also designed in accordance with
ASME Section VIII code.
Question 20.
Describe non-invasive methods available to trou-
bleshoot distribution problems in hydroprocessing re-
actors. How successful have these methods been in
actually determining the cause of the problem?
SMITH:
For our down flow naphtha hydrotreating reactors, a
catalyst activity test method has proven successful as a
starting point for determining mechanical problems, in-
cluding maldistribution. The procedure consists of first
checking the Raney nickel sulfur in the reactor outlet at
operating conditions. Second, make sure the downstream
sulfur absorber bed temperature is high enough to remove
mercaptans. Third, lower the hydrotreater reactor tem-
146 Hydrogen Processing
perature 25°F to 30°F. Last, after two plant volumes, check
the Raney nickel sulfur in the bottom again.
A first order rate constant is calculated for each of the
two points and plotted against associated reactor tempera-
ture on semilog paper. The slope of the line between the
points is the activation energy (in kilocalories) for the
catalyst. The expected activity energy for a cobalt molyb-
denum catalyst is between 13 and 17 kilocalories. Slopes
giving less activation energy indicate either exchanger
leakage, bypassing or channeling within the reactor.
Additional checks for pressure drop, exchanger leakage,
etc., will help define the cause of the problem. The test
was performed previously once every 6 months for base-
line data and then reperformed if problems were observed.
JACKSON:
BP and some of the other refineries have taken radio-
active vapor tracer injections and determined distribution
through the bed. Basically, a radioactive vapor is injected
into the inlet, and you have a plethora of detectors around
the peripheral of the vessel. Align the detectors above each
other and then watch the tracer flow through the unit.
From the output, it is possible to determine if the bed is
channeling or if any maldistribution is occurring.
How accurate is it? It is good. It tells you where you
have maldistribution. We have used Tracerco frequently,
in the Far East, the U.S., and in Europe.
KOOIMAN:
I agree with that kind of technology. TruTec has tech-
nology involving a gamma scanning and radioactive trac-
ing combination. They will inject the radioisotope into
the reactor feed stream and then scan the reactor. They do
it in 30° increments around the catalyst bed and then at
the different levels.
The isotope stays in the reactor and decays. It has a 15
hour half-life and it does not affect the catalyst in any way.
I think they can do 2 or 3 reactors a day.
They have been able to find damaged distributors,
uneven bed depths, voids, bridges, and zones of sintered
catalyst. And from that scan they can even get mean
residence time and residence time distribution.
BALDASSARI:
My comments are directed towards ebullated bed hot
wall reactors. In these reactors in addition to the three
internal thermowells, there are a number of skin couples
which are attached through partial penetration holes.
These are spring loaded couples and are predominantly
located in 3 rings within 10 ft of the distribution grid.
The distribution through the grid and the partial
slumping of the ebullated bed can be detected by vari-
ations in the readings of the lower internal couples and
these skin couple readings. In the case of a couple which
is close to the surface of the slumped bed, the excess heat
TOC/INDEX
that is generated at the surface and not dissipated, is
transmitted to the couple there by increasing its tempera-
ture, and resulting in a deviation in temperature between
the other internal couples or other couples within that skin
couple ring.
Similarly, if the couple is far from the surface of the
slumped bed, there is an ambient cooling effect. This
couple will gradually decline in temperature and will read
a lower temperature than the other couples in the ex-
panded bed or back mixed area of the reactor. In this type
of situation, we can take action to alleviate the problem
on-line. Within the ebullated bed reactor, liquid is recy-
cled internally from the top of the reactor via a recycle
pump, the impeller of which is located inside the reactor
bottom head and the motor mounted externally. Using the
recycle pump a “bed bumping” procedure is performed.
In this procedure the speed of the reactor recycle is reduced
to its minimum value of about 400 RPM or 500 RPM,
allowing the entire bed to momentarily slump. The speed
is then ramped up to its maximum speed of about 1700
RPM within a couple of seconds, held it for about 30 to
60 seconds and then reduced back to minimum. This
procedure is then repeated partially slumped catalyst is
refluidized. This can be gauged by monitoring the reactor
temperature profiles. When all couple temperatures ap-
proach isothermal conditions, normal operating condi-
tions are reestablished. Initially when this procedure is
initiated, resid flow is maintained to the unit. Depending
on the severity of situation, however, sometimes the resid
is either partially or completely backed out and replaced
with vacuum gas oil until the maldistribution is corrected.
BARKER:
We have also used the radioactive tracer described
earlier in a diesel hydrotreater where we suspected there
were maldistribution problems. The data were fairly diffi-
cult to interpret, but we did end up concluding there was
maldistribution. Bed maldistribution problems were
found when we opened up the reactor.
Question 21.
What criteria should be used to determine when the
reactor needs to be depressured during shutdown?
Considerations include outgassing, and minimum
pressurizing temperature.
ARNDT:
For shutdowns and start-ups, protection from brittle
fracture must be the number one concern. There are two
buzzwords used here: outgassing and minimum pressuriz-
ing temperatures (MPT’s).
Special outgassing steps to reduce soluble hydrogen
charged into the metal are usually a concern only for a few
very high pressure, old (1960’s) reactors. The need to
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
outgas is a function of wall thickness, operating condi-
tions, and the vintage of the metallurgy.
On the other hand, all reactors have an assigned MPT.
In essence, the MPT is the lower temperature limit for full
reactor pressurization. During cool down the reactor must
be depressured (less than 1⁄4 design pressure) at or before
reaching the MPT as measured by skin TI’s. Skin tempera-
tures should be monitored on not only the shell but also
the major nozzles. For heat up, the opposite is true, do not
pressure up (greater than 1⁄4 design pressure) until all skin
points are greater than the MPT.
GENTRY:
Thick wall hydroprocessing reactors can absorb sub-
stantial quantities of hydrogen which can be released upon
cooling and depressurization. This can lead to the forma-
tion of potentially hazardous atmospheres in the reactor
and also the possibility of hydrogen assisted stress cracking
of the vessel. Hydrogen can be allowed to diffuse out of
the metal walls (outgassing) if the pressure is reduced and
the reactor held at an elevated temperature for a length of
time. Kellogg recommends a maximum cooling rate of
50°F to 100°F per hour. However, reactor pressure and
temperature holds for outgassing should be developed on
a case-by-case basis.
Reactors must never be pressurized if the ambient
temperature and corresponding vessel wall temperature
are below the minimum design metal temperature
(MDMT). This is the temperature below which the vessel
can suffer a catastrophic failure when subjected to stresses
from either process pressurization or hydrostatic testing.
The MDMT should be determined by the reactor fabri-
cator based on impact testing of the actual wall material
to measure toughness as a function of temperature.
Vessels in hydrogen service can also be subject to temper
embrittlement resulting in a gradual increase of the tem-
perature at which brittle fracture can occur. To provide an
adequate safety margin against such an occurrence, Kel-
logg recommends that new reactors be heated to a mini-
mum of 175°F prior to increasing pressure beyond 20%
of the vessel design pressure.
SMITH:
In the context of this question, the primary considera-
tion for depressuring during shutdown is the minimum
pressuring temperature (MPT) of the steel. Low chrome
molybdenum steels (3 Cr and 2 1⁄4 Cr) are susceptible to
temper embrittlement resulting in the possibility for brit-
tle fracture at low temperature. This becomes a major
consideration for both start-up and shutdown of hy-
drocracker reactors, because the reactor metal temperature
can be below the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature
in a potentially high pressure environment. Consequently,
unless the metal temperature is above the phase transition
temperature, pressure is generally limited to 30% of the
147
TOC/INDEX
normal operating pressure at the high pressure separator.
In this regard, process licensor and vessel fabricator guide-
lines for pressure and temperature should be sought and
adhered to. The susceptibility of the metallurgy to temper
embrittlement is a function of the metal impurities, par-
ticularly silicon, manganese, phosphorous, and tin. The
relationship of these impurities to embrittlement is de-
fined in a formula known as the “J” factor in which J=(%Si
+ %Mn)(%P + %Sn)x 104. The higher the number, the
greater the temper embrittlement tendency. In the early
70’s, “J” factors were approximately 300, today “J” factors
have been lowered to approximately 100.
Our Ras Tanura refinery’s reactors are specified with
metallurgy not to exceed a “J” factor of 120. This metal-
lurgy will not be pressurized above 20% (500 psig) of the
reactor design pressure (2500 psig), unless all the reactor
metal temperatures are above 225°F. The older reactors at
the Riyadh refinery have an MPT of 300°F below which
they cannot exceed 560 psig, based on 30% of the normal
operating pressure of the high pressure separator.
Outgassing requirements are related to operating tem-
perature and hydrogen partial pressure. Diffusion calcula-
tions for hydrogen from the metal can be performed to
determine outgassing times; however, the licensor would
normally have performed these calculations in setting the
required high rate emergency depressurization for a reac-
tor. As with MPT, licensor recommendations should be
followed for depressurization rate to ensure proper out-
gassing from the metal.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
Concerning the degassing criteria, I support everything
that has been stated here. One thing that we should
remember is that with the newer reactors made of the 3
chrome vanadium modified steel, degassing is not a re-
quirement. For instance, the Husky H-Oil reactors are
made of this steel and do not need degassing, and, of
course, a cold wall would not, since the wall temperature
does not get high enough for any significant quantity of
hydrogen to diffuse into the steel.
Question 22.
What are the pros and cons for the cold wall and hot
wall designed ebullating bed reactors? For the hot
wall vessels, what system is used to monitor reactor
wall temperature?
BALDASSARI:
Both hot and cold wall reactors have been used success-
fully for ebullated bed reactors. We are of the opinion that
the hot wall reactor offers some disadvantages. One is that
for the same process requirements, the reactor volume is
about 15% lower, allowing for the fact that you do not
have a refractory. Even accounting for the fact that the
reactor wall is designed for a lower temperature, the reactor
148 Hydrogen Processing
weight and cost associated with a cold wall reactor is about
5% higher than for a hot wall reactor. In addition, main-
tenance costs would be higher for the refractory lined cold
wall reactor. The design and inspection of the reactor
internals is more complex and difficult with the refractory
lined vessel.
In addition, we believe bed expansion, distribution,
partial bed slumping and in particular areas of can more
effectively be monitored in a hot wall reactor through the
use of reactor wall skin couples. This is something that can
be done with the hot wall that is extremely difficult to do
with the cold wall, because you would have to have
multiple penetrations through the shell. We have found
the use of internal couples alone are not effective to
diagnose areas of partial bed slumping.
The cold wall vessel does offer some advantages, how-
ever, one is with refractory lining the wall is protected from
temperature transients during upsets. By taking appropri-
ate emergency actions and by the application of automatic
emergency shutdown systems upsets which can cause
temperature transients to occur such as the loss of a reactor
recycle pump or recycle gas compressor in the system, or
the loss of feed oil can be effectively handled without
exposing the hot wall reactor to temperatures above its
design limits. Similarly localized temperature transients
due to partial slumping of the catalyst bed can be effec-
tively handled by appropriate temperature monitoring
and initiation of emergency shutdown systems.
Another advantage associated with the cold wall is that
it does not require degassing of the reactor wall. Typically
in hot wall resid hydrocrackers operating in excess of 2000
psig hydrogen diffusion into the base metal requires the
reactor to be degassed for 24 hours to 48 hours to permit
hydrogen to diffuse out of the base metal to avoid dis-
bonding of the internal stainless overlay.
One final point is that, in cold environments where
ambient air temperatures are below 20°F, a hot wall reactor
must be used to enable the reactor wall to be heated in
some minimum temperature prior to applying any signifi-
cant pressure to avoid stress cracking propagation.
DiCAMILLO:
I represent a link between the LC-finer and H-Oil
units here. Criterion catalysts are in use in most of the
currently operated ebullating bed units. Our catalysts
have also been used as design catalysts for the units under
construction now. Mr. Baldassari gave you the LC-finer
position on the differences between cold and hot wall
reactors. HRI said they would prefer to give their response
directly from the floor.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
We have designed and operated both cold wall and hot
wall. One could spend a whole day discussing this subject,
but I will be as brief as I can.
TOC/INDEX
The possibility of localized high temperatures is always
present with any hydrocracker if the correct procedures are
not followed. Reactions do not take place by themselves.
You have to do something wrong to make them happen,
and, of course, that is not what we want to do.
With a hot wall reactor, if high temperatures develop
for whatever reason, it is mandatory to depressure the unit
to fully protect the reactor. With a cold wall reactor, since
the vessel is well protected by the internal refractory, it is
a process reason which dictates whether the unit is depres-
sured and shut down or not. So there is a difference from
a safety point of view.
Cold wall design means a lower reactor design tempera-
ture and, therefore, there is some weight advantage. I do
respect the comment made earlier about diameter and
weight, but we think there is a complete tradeoff on these
two factors. Since the reactor wall in a cold wall vessel
operates at a lower temperature than a hot wall, hydrogen
diffusion is far less and degassing is not required.
The cold wall design does allow maximum flexibility
for all the process operations since we do not have a
restriction on the process temperature. We are not re-
stricted by the reactor design temperature. This gives our
clients more processing flexibility. Their targets are always
going to be variable and they are always going to have
different feedstocks, except perhaps for the Canadian
ebullated bed operators.
The hot wall reactors would restrict the processing
objectives if and when those objectives change. The choice
of hot wall versus cold wall is always the client’s.
With reference to some of the previous comments
made, having operated both the hot and cold wall reactors,
HRI has found that the two types are about equal in
complexity and ease of inspection.
From an operating point of view, the catalyst bed level
is detected and controlled by the use of multiple point
nuclear density detectors. These are fast responding
pieces of instrumentation and provide most of the infor-
mation required on the status of the ebullated bed level.
HRI uses the wall temperatures only as a secondary
indication and has not found this procedure to be very
reliable or definitive.
The emergency procedures we define for the H-Oil
Process are identical for both the hot and cold wall reac-
tors. The only difference is that a shutdown may be
triggered by a wall temperature which approaches the
vessel design temperature. This would not happen in a
cold wall reactor. We provide automated reactor cutback
systems in the H-Oil reactors and these cutbacks will put
both the hot and cold wall reactors in a safe condition after
an upset occurs.
For an extremely cold climate operation, the cold wall
reactor will take longer to heat up than a hot wall since the
cold wall reactor is internally insulated, but this is the only
limitation.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
The second part of this question on what system is used
to measure the wall temperatures was addressed in the
responses made to question 19.
BEN GRIEB (Gay Engineering & Sales Company, Inc.):
A new application of temperature measurement equip-
ment previously used on refractory lined reactors is cur-
rently being applied to hot wall reactors. This temperature
trending system, which can be retrofitted onto existing
reactors, allows the operator to continuously monitor
“bands” at various elevations for hot zones on a reactor.
Question 23.
What is the reliability of the feed and ebullating
pumps used with ebullating bed reactors? What me-
chanical systems are most critical to reliable opera-
tion in moving or ebullating bed processes?
BALDASSARI:
Each reactor has a single ebullating pump associated
with it. The pump, the motor, the variable frequency drive
(VFD), used to adjust the speed of the ebullating pump,
and the seal oil system supplying oil to the immersed
motor windings is designed and has proven to be a highly
reliable system. The overall reliability of this system ranges
from 98.5%, with about 4 to 6 days of downtime expected
per year .
A typical system has 3 reactors in series, and for every
3 recycle pumps there will be a spare VFD which can
automatically switch over in case that there is a problem
with the operating VFD. The VFDs have a self diagnostic
system to detect a fault and automatically switch operation
to the spare VFD.
For each ebullating pump we specifically use, Braun
and Lube type pumps to supply the seal oil because of their
high reliability. Seal oil flow is set at about a half a gallon
per minute into the motor housing from where it flows up
through the breakdown bushing into the reactor.
In addition to the high reliability of the seal oil pumps,
a large reservoir supply is provided to maintain the supply
of seal oil during unit emergency. Usually, desulfurized
vacuum gas oil produced by the process is used as seal oil.
In the case of a loss of power or feed oil supply, the source
of seal oil can be lost for a period of time. The reservoir is
sized, therefore to supply a sufficient reserve.
The loss of seal oil in itself is not a severe problem. In
the case the ebullated pump has also stopped, the operator
has also several minutes to reestablish the seal oil flow. In
the case the ebullating pump remains in operation, the
operator has essentially an indefinite time to reestablish seal
oil flow, since the motor windings are cooled by internal
recirculation of line through the motor housing. In the case
of an overall power outage, it is essential that the seal oil
pumps be on a reliable back-up power supply to enable the
motor housing/windings to continue to be cooled.
149
TOC/INDEX
In addition, the ebullating pump should also be on
reliable back-up power supply to enable power to be
restored to these pumps within an hour of the initial power
outage. In this way as liquid inventory is reestablished in
each of the reactors, catalyst bed expansion can also be
reestablished.
The feed oil pumps are multi-stage barrel type pumps,
having anywhere from 8 to 13 stages, with double me-
chanical seals. They have their own seal oil and lube oil
skids. In our designs, we provide three 50% pumps so that
the loss of any one pump will not measurably affect the
operation of the unit. Power to the two main operating
pumps are supplied from separate busses with the power
to the spare pump being capable of being supplied from
either buss. By designing the system in this manner, its
reliability has proven to be essentially 100%.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
The feed and the ebullating pumps are very critical to
the upflow reactor and the ebullated bed operation. I feel
that, based on our experience, the ebullating pump reli-
ability is somewhat higher than the 98% presented. I
would put it closer to 100%. The pump itself is extremely
reliable. One has to ensure that the power supply to that
pump is very reliable. We generally install spared, variable
frequency drivers. In some cases power can be supplied
from dedicated steam driven generators which can be
located on the unit. That is a choice made by the client.
Today clients seem to go for the VFD, the electronic
device, with the sparing capability as already described,
and with automatic switchover capability. Loss of ebulli-
tion due to pump loss is fairly remote. It usually occurs
because of loss of recycle gas, when we get separation in
the reactor between the gas and the liquid, and then we
actually lose the liquid suction to the ebullating pump.
For the feed pump system, we design and operate with
complete redundancy. A typical system has three 50%
pumps, or in one case we have four 50% pumps for two
trains. This was a little bit more than required, but that
was the client’s choice. Of course, redundant lube oil and
seal oil systems are installed as well.
The energy supply to each of the critical drivers is very
important. We generally look at which is the most reliable
source, steam or power. We design with some of the pumps
on turbine drive and some of the pumps on electrical drive.
Considering ebullated bed emergency situations, I be-
lieve that we have some differences of opinion about the
bed slumping and bumping operation. HRI does not
endorse that procedure. The procedure can create some
forces inside the reactor that cannot be too good for the
reactor internals. We have seen some of the damage that
the procedure can cause.
Going back to the ebullating pump, I believe we are all
using the same seal oil system. The pumps were made by
the same manufacture, whether the process is LC Fining
150 Hydrogen Processing
or H-Oil. The Braun and Luebbe pumps are very reliable.
The fresh feed system and ebullating pump systems are
also very reliable.
General Process
Question 24.
What has been the experience of using on-line ana-
lyzers (e.g., to measure product sulfur) to control
reactor inlet temperature?
KIMBRELL:
We have had an on-line analyzer measuring sulfur in
the product of our gas oil hydrotreater that has provided
good service for the last 10 years. We use it as an indication
in trending when we are making moves on the unit. We
backup that data with laboratory results.
KOOIMAN:
A few years ago with the low sulfur diesel coming into
play, we were having difficulties with a distillate hydro-
treater. We needed to get all we could out of it. It was being
run on blocked operations producing high and low sulfur
diesel. We spent a lot of money to purchase an on-line
sulfur analyzer. We then assigned a good engineer to it,
championing the project. We also brought the manufac-
turer in to help us to set up the system. It is on a back
burner now. I do not know the reasons, but we could not
make it work. It might have had something to do with
going from 0.047% on up to 0.50% sulfur. Maybe that is
too big of a swing. But there was something intrinsically
wrong with it.
HUNKUS:
I wanted to clarify that I am not disagreeing with my
distinguished colleagues here. We had a discussion earlier
and I am from a different culture where we do not have a
lot of extra resources available. We have concentrated on
CEM reliability and achieved quite good results there. We
have used off-line Horiba X-ray fluorescent units with very
good reliability. It is a simple test and a good instrument
with good repeatability and a relatively low cost for a
machine requiring something in the 0.000 accuracy range,
like low sulfur diesel.
We have attempted many times to use our on-line
analyzer on our 38,000 bbl/d distillate hydrotreater. This
analyzer is presently a $100,000+ box of spare parts which
has consumed several man years of instrument technical
support. We feel the potential benefits do not merit con-
tinued support and have abandoned the instrument. I
think the operators keep spare wrenches in it now.
I would recommend you avoid this effort as I see no
real need for this level of complication if you are like us
and you have a small technical staff and a small instrument
TOC/INDEX
staff. We have developed a good feel for where we need to
run our reactor inlet temperatures and pressure. The op-
erators and shift supervisors can run a test in a matter of
a few minutes with about 5 cc’s of sample, verifying
performance when changes are made in feed quality,
throughput, or operating conditions. An on-line H2S
analyzer to guard against tower upsets would be a much
better investment in my opinion. We run an An-Tech to
get readings down to less than 0.01 ppm sulfur and
nitrogen for our naphtha hydrotreater, but have found this
equipment requires a gifted foreman or a good chemist
and is not suitable for continuous duty.
ARNDT:
We have two low sulfur diesel hydrotreaters equipped
with on-line product sulfur analyzers. I believe both are
Berthold LP 340 analyzers. Originally, we had high hopes
that we could close-loop control the reactors, but that has
not been the case. We also trend with the analyzers,
backing them up with periodic laboratory results as Mr.
Kimbrell stated. Both units steam strip product diesel. The
vendor tells us that it is the moisture in our diesel that is
giving us the problems.
DAVIS:
CENEX has an on-line sulfur analyzer (manufactured
by Berthold) on its finished product from the diesel fuel
hydrotreater and it works very well as long as it is cali-
brated. As mentioned by Mr. Kimbrell and Mr. Arndt, the
operators watch the analyzer and adjust reactor inlet tem-
perature accordingly with a set point change. The on-line
analyzer is checked against laboratory data at least 3 times
per day.
Question 25.
Discuss aromatic reduction in diesel fuel? Has anyone
added a dearomatization section to an existing desul-
furization unit?
LEMMON:
Tosco has operated a diesel aromatic reduction unit for
over 3 years. The feed aromatics average 25 vol%, and the
product runs 5 vol% to 6 vol%. The unit uses nobel metal
catalyst manufactured by Haldor Topsoe. Feedstock is
hydrocracker diesel which has previously been desul-
furized and denitrified. The unit was constructed by re-
vamping an out-of-service 1940-vintage naphtha
reformer which allows operating conditions of 700 psi at
the reactor inlet, 435° into, and 600° out of the final
reactor. The unit has 3 reactors reused from the original
reformer design. There is an intermediate hydrogen
quench in front of the third reactor.
The catalyst system is very sensitive to nitrogen in the
feed, particularly nitrogen bound heavy end point mate-
rial. The catalyst life is also shorter than we had hoped,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
but both of these conditions are related to the relatively
small size existing reactors we had to work with. Both of
these issues have been improved with modified catalyst
loading recommended by the catalyst manufacturer.
ARNDT:
I will skip the first part of the question since it is too
open-ended. Regarding the second part, we have added a
saturation unit as a second stage to our existing diesel
hydrotreater at the Richmond plant. The catalyst used is
a nobel metal zeolist. The second stage was put on stream
in 1993 and is still going strong with the initial catalyst
load. The catalyst is nitrogen sensitive. We usually produce
a diesel product with 5% to 10% aromatics, depending
on our blending requirements.
BALDASSARI:
Lummus Global together with Criterion, license the
SynSat Process for the purpose of dearomatizing diesel
fuels along with other distillates. We have completed 5
designs to date, 4 of which are currently in operation, for
revamping existing hydrotreaters for the purpose of dearo-
matizing diesel and kerosene boiling range distillates. In
addition, we are about to start basic engineering on a sixth
unit for diesel dearomatization.
The first of these units was put on-line about 3 years
ago. In this instance we revamped an existing low pressure
naphtha cracker for the production of 5% aromatics, Class
I Swedish diesel using our SynCat 4 noble metal catalyst.
This was accomplished at a reactor operating pressure of
only 520 psig, with reformer hydrogen, having a hydrogen
partial pressure of only 320 psig. In addition, the feed
contained about 6 ppm heteroatoms, with about 2 ppm
to 3 ppm sulfur and 2 ppm to 3 ppm nitrogen. The
existing reactor was modified from a single bed to a two
bed design with the addition of interbed quench to take
up the additional heat of reaction. Other relatively minor
modifications were made to both the feed preheat system
and to the fractionator bottoms reboiling circuit.
A second unit was placed on-line at Scanraff in Sweden
2 years ago. This converted an existing 850 psig hydro-
treater unit also for production of Class I Swedish diesel.
In this case, the existing single stage unit was converted
into a two stage unit including the addition of a high
pressure interstage stripper. In the first stage of the unit,
the heteroatoms are reduced to around 2 ppm, over a
nickel molybdenum catalyst where we also get some aro-
matic saturation. Subsequently after stripping the H2S
and ammonia, the aromatics level is then further reduced
in the second stage to about 4% by countercurrently
contacting the first stage product with makeup hydrogen
over our SynCat 4 noble metal catalyst.
The use of countercurrent contacting results in signifi-
cantly higher catalyst activities compared with cocurrent
processing since any remaining sulfur/nitrogen converted
151
TOC/INDEX
over the noble metal catalyst is stripped out by counter-
currently contacting the liquid product with hydrogen
rich gas.
A third unit was converted for treating of a blend of
hydrotreated heavy FCC gasoline in plus hydrocracker
distillates to produce jet fuel having an aromatics content
of less than 10%. This is being accomplished at 700 psig
pressure and at a space velocity in the range of around 10.
Sulfur and nitrogen content in this feed are very low. This
application represents essentially the upper limit of space
velocity that you can achieve on an ultra pure low heteroa-
tom feed.
Finally, a fourth unit was recently placed on stream this
past May where an existing single stage HDS unit was
converted to be able to handle a blend of 40% light cycle
oil, 20% coker light gas oil and 40% straight-run material.
The intent of the unit revamp an existing 700 psig diesel
hydrotreater to achieve an API gain of around 7.5 to 8
units with a similar improvement in cetane. This was
accomplished by adding a new first stage reactor in which
the heteroatoms of the feedstock were reduced to approxi-
mately 30 ppm. The feed contained 1.3% sulfur, 900 ppm
nitrogen and about 60% aromatics. This first stage prod-
uct was then partially cooled and stripped at full operating
pressure to reduce H2S and ammonia and then processed
over SynCat 4 noble metal catalyst which has a fairly good
resistance tolerance for sulfur, nitrogen, still has good
activity.
An overall aromatics reduction of around 50% was
achieved. To date this was our most difficult hydrotreating
application, processing a feedstock with in excess of 60%
cracked stocks and extremely high levels of nitrogen and
aromatics to achieve significant API and cetane improve-
ment at relatively low moderate pressure.
Question 26.
Considering fixed bed or moving bed resid hydroproc-
essing, how far have refiners been able to go in
handling high metals, high sulfur and high carbon
residue feeds?
ARNDT:
We feed our Pascagoula fixed bed RDS, on average,
about 250 ppm nickel and vanadium. We have operated
for extended periods of time with feed metals as high as
350 ppm to 400 ppm. There are three resid units in
operation in Japan using our Onstream Catalyst Removal
(OCR) process. Although capable of feeding very high
metals feed, they typically are feeding only 120 ppm. The
selected crude slate for these refineries is just not produc-
ing the high metals resid.
DiCAMILLO:
We are working with an ebullated bed feed that has in
excess of 700 ppm nickel plus vanadium. The sulfur
152 Hydrogen Processing
content of that feed is around 5 wt% and the Conradson
carbon is in the range of 20 wt% to 25 wt%.
Other fixed bed units that use our catalysts have metals
in the range of 250 ppm total, sulfurs of 4 wt% to 5 wt%,
and Conradson carbons of 15 wt% to 20 wt%. An ebul-
lated bed system is a little more flexible because it can
handle tougher feeds. I consider tougher being a higher
metals and Conradson carbon content. An advantage you
have in an ebullated bed is that the catalyst addition rate
can be varied as the feedstock changes.
In both cases, catalyst systems can be customized based
on feed quality and customer processing objectives.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
We will be starting up an H-Oil unit with 700 ppm
metals in the feedstock in Mexico in the first quarter next
year. The sulfur level will be high, between 4 wt% and 5
wt%, and the unit will produce a premium quality fuel oil
with a 0.8 wt% sulfur content.
Question 27.
What is the effect on product diesel index when co-
processing VGO in a high pressure diesel hydrotreater
which is processing around 50% cracked stocks (as-
sume constant LHSV)?
DAVIS:
CENEX treats all of its FCC light cycle oil in its high
pressure gas oil hydrotreater and then fractionates the
diesel fuel portion out of the sweet gas oil to a 0.05 wt%
sulfur. Originally, the light cycle oil was treated in a
medium pressure diesel fuel hydrotreater with about a 7
number gain in cetane index.
Now, with the light cycle oil being hydrotreated in the
high pressure unit, there is about a 14 number cetane index
gain. The CENEX laboratory informs me that in the
medium pressure case the cetane index increased, but the
actual cetane number did not. However, in the high
pressure case, both the cetane index and cetane number
have gained.
ARNDT:
DI drops 3 numbers.
Question 28.
What process parameters best define performance of
an FCC feed hydrotreater (i.e., maximum HDS, HDN,
HDM, Concarbon removal, hydrogen uptake or aro-
matic saturation)?
JOHNSON:
All of the mentioned process parameters are important
for monitoring FCC feed hydrotreater performance. I will
go through them individually. Sulfur removal is important
for reducing the FCC product sulfur levels, as well as for
TOC/INDEX
reduction in regenerator SOx emissions. Nitrogen reduc-
tion is important since nitrogen will poison the active sites
on the FCC catalyst reducing product yields and increas-
ing the coke make.
Metals, such as vanadium and nickel, will poison the
FCC catalyst leading to zeolite degradation, increased
coke make, and higher gas yields. Reducing the Concar-
bon residue of the FCC feed reduces the coke yield. This
will favor less LPG yield and more gasoline yield from the
FCC unit. Hydrogen uptake in the FCC feed hydrotreater
determines the potential yields of valuable products for
the FCC unit. That is because the FCC must hydrogen
balance. That is, the hydrogen in the feed must equal the
hydrogen in the product. Higher hydrogen feeds are gen-
erally easier to crack and have a higher yield of liquid
products.
LEMMON:
Hydrogen uptake and HDN are important to maxi-
mizing FCC conversion. While gasoline yield increases
with higher hydrotreatment, gasoline octane is reduced.
Concarbon removal reduces FCC air demand but some
refractory material is essential for heat balance. When you
consider these issues along with other factors, such as
environmental regulations and operating restrictions, you
come to the conclusion that FCC hydrotreatment eco-
nomics are site dependent.
DiCAMILLO:
All of the mentioned parameters can affect perform-
ance, and so it really depends on what you are trying to
do. I will say that out of all the options we have here,
deeper aromatic saturation and its corresponding overall
hydrogen uptake will increase catalytic cracker yields and
have the largest impact on its operation.
OZIE S. OWEN (Amoco Petroleum Products):
This is just a comment on aromatic saturation. One
usually sees in the literature that aromatics and aromatics
reduction are typically reported. But we all realize that this
is an equilibrium reaction. Aromatic hydrogenation is an
equilibrium reaction, and to really describe it, you need
both the aromatics and the naphthalene content. I encour-
age those working in the area to report both to make the
data more useful and easy to interpret.
Question 29.
Has anyone attempted to process atmospheric resid
in a low pressure hydrotreater designed for another
service? What was the percentage of resid in the mix?
What were average feed metals (eg. Ni, V, Fe)? What
was the reactor hydrogen partial pressure? What cycle
length was able to be achieved?
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
LEMMON:
Tosco’s Bayway Refinery has processed atmospheric
resid in their FCC feed hydrotreater since 1992. In August
of 1996, they further added deasphalted oil into the feed
mix along with the atmospheric resid and some imported
high sulfur VGO.
Data with DAO in feed is too recent to discuss. Prior
to this, we have processed combined feeds where the
%1050+ has been greater than 35%. Since it is a sweet
crude atmospheric resid the feed Concarbon is in the 3%
range with Ni+V at approximately 8 ppm.
With a reactor outlet H2 partial pressure of 1100 psi,
we see about 30% reduction in Concarbon and about 50%
to 60% reduction in Ni and V. The unit has 2 reactors in
parallel with 4 beds in each reactor; reactor inlet pressure
is 1500 psi. We use demetallization catalyst for 2 of the
beds and a large pore Ni-moly catalyst in the rest. Liquid
space velocity is about 1.4 at normal rates. Cycle length is
12 to 18 months with pressure drop and catalyst activity
both a concern.
DiCAMILLO:
I experienced a couple of cases similar to Mr. Lemmon,
that is, higher pressure units combining VGO and resid.
In one case, the combined feed had about 20 ppm to 30
ppm Ni+V and a CCR of 4% to 6%. In this case, H2
partial pressure was about 1200 psig (83 bar) and a cycle
length greater than 1 year was achieved. In another case,
about 15% resid was processed at a feed Ni+V of about 18
ppm at H2 partial pressure above 1000 psig. A cycle length
of 2+ years was observed.
As I mentioned earlier, if you know you will be chang-
ing feeds, you can optimize unit performance by picking
the proper catalyst. Cycle length can be maximized by
optimizing the catalyst selection. On the other hand, some
refiners have successfully increased feed heaviness and
realized economic advantages at the expense of shortened
catalyst cycle lengths.
Question 30.
Compare the advantages and disadvantages of partial
conversion hydrocracking as compared to straight
hydrotreating for FCC feed pretreatment.
GENTRY:
Straight hydrotreating and partial conversion hy-
drocracking can both be used effectively to pretreat and
upgrade FCC feedstocks. FCC feed hydrotreaters are nor-
mally designed with the principal objective of desulfuriza-
tion and secondary objectives of denitrogenation and
aromatic saturation or hydrogen addition. Pressure and
space velocity requirements are determined primarily by
the feed quality, with heavy higher nitrogen feeds requir-
ing higher design pressure and more catalyst to achieve the
desired upgrade.
153
TOC/INDEX
Partial conversion moderate pressure hydrocracking, or
MPHC, is designed with the additional process objective
of converting some of the FCC feed into low sulfur
distillate products. The required unit design pressure for
MPHC is similar to FCC feed hydrotreating, but catalyst
and hydrogen requirements are increased to achieve con-
version.
The FCC feed produced from straight hydrotreating
and moderate pressure hydrocracking can be significantly
different. In general, hydrotreating will saturate polyaro-
matics while hydrocracking both saturates aromatics and
cracks them out of the FCC feed boiling range. The
unconverted hydrocracker product is, therefore, more
paraffinic than even a severely hydrotreated gas oil. Partial
conversion MPHC also results in lower product sulfur and
nitrogen contents as compared to hydrotreating.
At the same FCC riser severity, the hydrocracked bot-
toms product will typically give higher conversion and
lower delta coke. FCC product selectivity will shift from
heavier products to lighter products when processing hy-
drocracked feeds. This can be beneficial in increasing
alkylate production and for providing incremental feed
components for etherification. Because hydrocracker bot-
toms product is higher in hydrogen content, FCC operat-
ing conditions can be optimized to produce LCO with
better captain quality.
The most significant benefits of partial conversion
hydrocracking are increased yields of low sulfur middle
distillates and the ability to free up FCC capacity for
processing incremental gas oils or resid. The ability to
minimize the incremental investment and operating costs,
while achieving the benefits of higher distillate yields and
better feedstock upgrade, is the key to the economic
application of partial conversion moderate pressure hy-
drocracking to FCC feed pretreatment.
DAVIS:
I certainly agree with Mr. Gentry, and I can relate an
experience we at CENEX had when we were steep on the
learning curve of our new gas oil hydrotreater. We ran the
high pressure FCC feed hydrotreater in the maximum
diesel fuel mode for a short period during an FCC shut-
down. When the FCCU later charged the gas oil that was
the product from this mild hydrocracking mode, there
were so few coke precursors left that the FCCU would not
run. We had to cut in some sour gas oil to get the
temperatures back in the regenerator even with high feed
preheat.
DiCAMILLO:
I agree with everything that has been said and will also
point out that if you are running a low pressure FCC feed
hydrotreater in mild hydrocracking mode you could well
be on the far side of aromatics equilibrium. What that will
do is actually increase the load of aromatics going to the
154 Hydrogen Processing
FCCU. In that instance, you would see the yield go down.
So you do not necessarily always see an improvement in
FCCU performance when you are running in the mild
hydrocracking mode.
Frequent monitoring of FCC feed (i.e., the hydro-
treater product) properties, such as aniline point, refrac-
tive index, and API, can show whether or not the above
situation is occurring.
Question 31.
What technologies are available for upgrading FCC
light cycle oil cetane quality?
BALDASSARI:
Lummus Global and Criterion offer two processing
solutions, depending on the amount of cycle oil in the feed
blend and the required severity of the operation. One
option is to hydrotreat the cycle oil in a single stage, using
our Synshift process, to remove heteroatoms while concur-
rently saturating aromatics and opening the naphthenic
rings. This results in a less aromatic and more paraffinic
product which can significantly improve the cetane quality
of the cycle oil. In this case, the boiling range of the product
is shifted from heavier diesel to lighter diesel and kerosene,
with a small to moderate amount of naphtha being pro-
duced depending on the severity of the operation.
The second option is to treat the cycle oil in two stage
system to remove sulfur and nitrogen in the first stage and
then process it over noble metal catalyst in the second stage
in order to saturate aromatics. Both these approaches are
commercially available with the second one being already
commercially demonstrated. We have extensive pilot plant
data on light cycle oil which has shown that the cetane
index can be improved anywhere from 16 to 18 units when
processing 100% light cycle oil and 11 to 12 units on
distillate blends containing about 50% light cycle oil.
FEARNSIDE:
We have a lot of experience on FCC light cycle oil using
cetane improving additives. On average, we have been able
to increase the cetane between 5 and 10 numbers. You have
to individually test each light cycle oil to determine what
treat rate is necessary, and then you have to determine if
the economics at that point look attractive.
GENTRY:
The most common method being used to achieve
substantial LCO cetane upgrading is either high pressure
single stage hydrotreating utilizing conventional nickel
molybdenum or nickel tungsten catalyst, or low pressure
two stage processing using specialized noble metal aro-
matic saturation catalyst. The level of cetane uplift for light
cycle oil feedstock is generally limited to 5 to 15 numbers
by the chemistry of polyaromatic saturation (naphthalenes
to naphthenes, tetralins and decalins).
TOC/INDEX
Selective saturation and hydrocracking of LCO
polyaromatics is an alternative route to achieve a high
level of cetane uplift. A new catalyst technology devel-
oped by Mobil Technology Company, and now being
commercialized through the Mobil-Akzo Nobel-Kellogg
hydrocracking alliance, can upgrade light cycle oil by
partial conversion to gasoline. Because this process con-
verts polyaromatics to gasoline instead of fully saturating
them, up to 30% less hydrogen is consumed while pro-
ducing a captain uplift equivalent to conventional hydro-
treating.
The process operates at moderate pressures of 800 psig
to 1200 psig and is uniquely different from conventional
hydrocracking in that it can be configured to produce high
octane gasoline (greater than 90 RON) directly without
reforming. Net conversion levels of 20% to 70% can be
obtained yielding very low high octane gasoline and low
sulfur high cetane diesel products.
DiCAMILLO:
I would like to briefly comment on what Mr. Baldassari
just said. He was a little off on our cetane shift. In one case,
we actually had a cetane increase of 20 units with a liquid
yield of 108 vol%. However, this gain is not free. In order
to get a shift that big, it takes a lot of hydrogen. In the
cases we are talking about, the hydrogen consumption was
over 2000 scf/bbl. So you need to have available hydrogen
if you really want to upgrade your cycle oil that much.
JEAN-PIERRE PERIES (Acreon Catalysts):
Light cycle oil has very low cetane, typically 20 to 25,
due to the aromatic content and mainly di- or tri- aromat-
ics. Hydrotreating alone could be used to saturate aromat-
ics and mainly polyaromatics into naphtheno aromatics
compounds. The cetane of such structure is increased up
to 40 to 45 when deep hydrogenation is achieved. To
further increase the cetane, polynaphthenic structures
have to be opened into more parafinics structure. This
cycle opening is a typical hydrocracking reaction. Process-
ing LCO in HDC achieves cetane numbers higher than
50. This could be done by blending LCO with VGO
HDC feed. To process LCO in ARDS or VRDS is possi-
ble, but cetane will be limited in diesel fractions to around
40 to 45 because the cycles will not generally be opened.
Question 32.
Comment on the effect of hydrogen sulfide in the
recycle gas on a) catalyst activity; b) yield selectivity
of hydrotreating catalysts. What is the effect of am-
monia level on second stage hydrocracking catalyst
operation?
JOHNSON:
Hydrogen sulfide in the recycle gas has a negative effect
on catalyst activity in two ways. It kinetically lowers the
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
desulfurization reaction rate by increasing the concentra-
tion of one of the reaction products, and it also lowers the
hydrogen partial pressure.
As an example, for a distillate desulfurizer operating at
about 650 psi, we would expect the required average
catalyst bed temperature to respond as follows: an increase
in recycle gas H2S content from about 0.5 mole percent
(as the base case) to 3% would require about an additional
20°F bed temperature on the average.
We would not expect the recycle gas H2S levels to have
much of an effect, if any, on yield selectivity in a hydro-
treating operation. Ammonia level has a very significant
impact on the second stage performance in a hydrocrack-
ing operation. At low levels, 0 ppm to 200 ppm, ammonia
levels strongly decrease hydrocracking activity, and also
significantly shift product selectivity from naphtha to
distillate.
LEMMON:
We control second stage hydrocracker recycle gas H2S
in the range of 10 ppm to 15 ppm at the recommendation
of the catalyst supplier. We do this by bleeding some Stage
1 recycle gas to Stage 2, so some of the NH3 found in the
recycle gas may have come from this source. We have not
correlated H2S concentration to reactor performance.
We have not correlated hydrocracker second stage cata-
lyst performance versus NH3 content of the recycle gas
either. We target 8 ppm to 10 ppm nitrogen slip from the
first stage and measured 25 ppm NH3 in the recycle gas.
We have, however, clearly seen the expected temporary
poisoning of the second stage catalyst following nitrogen
excursions in the feed. This has been manifested by reduc-
tions in the delta T’s of the top 2 beds for a duration of up
to a few weeks.
The effect of nitrogen excursions is much more pro-
nounced and lasting when the feed is heavier than normal.
We have been running feed with D-2887 end points of
870°F to 880°F without noticeable Stage II effect, but end
points above 900°F do cause us concern.
To combat this problem the catalyst manufacturer rec-
ommended a modified catalyst loading utilizing a high
activity nitrogen tolerant catalyst to be loaded in the top
bed. We implemented their recommendation during a
turnaround where the existing catalyst charge was off-site
regenerated and reloaded. The new loading is working
very well, stage 2 survived a nitrogen in feed excursion of
40 ppm for several hours with a negligible effect on the
catalyst. Such an excursion would have had a noticeable
effect on the previous loading. The catalyst in the top bed
is Criterion Z-763; the remaining catalyst is Z-753.
ARNDT:
We have a number of desulfurization units with recycle
gas H2S absorbers. When those scrubbers are taken off-
line, we see a 10°F to 15°F drop in catalyst activity. We do
155
TOC/INDEX
not see any appreciable effect on yield. Product aromatics
increase slightly.
We operate the second stages of our isocrackers at low
nitrogen levels (2 ppm to 3 ppm) for two reasons. First,
we believe this gives the optimum balance of activity and
selectivity. And second, our isocracker second stages are
non-alloy, so we need low H2S levels in the reactor loop.
Low sulfur means low nitrogen. The alternative is stainless
steel equipment — quite an expense.
BALDASSARI:
I basically concur with the other panelists to reiterate
our experience indicates the reactor temperatures must be
increased 5°F to 7°F for every 1% increase in the H2S
concentration of the recycle gas.
HUNKUS:
Increasing amounts of H2S in recycle gas of a hydro-
treater reduces hydrogen partial pressure, requires in-
creased reactor temperature, reduces catalyst life, and
reduces liquid yield. How much depends on everything,
based on my experience with unit performance and pro-
ject economics. If I assume you are wondering if you
should add an amine recycle gas scrubber to your unit or
design, and if you are short H2 and expanding production
like us, you should. If you are trying more charge or worse
charge, or to hit a lower specification but cannot go up in
pressure or load additional catalyst, then, yes, adding a
scrubber will help. Who has the extra hydrogen even with
an unnecessarily large purge anyhow?
If you do have extra hydrogen from a reformer and you
do not have a CRYO big enough to put it all through, then
you want to push all your hydrogen through your highest
pressure unit to try to recover the LPG there anyway.
JEAN-PIERRE PERIES (Acreon Catalysts):
The H2S content in the recycle gas is an important
parameter. It acts in two reverse directions:
• H2S is mandatory for keeping the catalyst under
sulfide form. Two cases can be addressed where the
H2S content could be too limited: a) feedstock
injection interruption in a hydrotreating reactor at
high temperature; and b) hydrotreater of very low
sulfur feedstocks (waxes for instance);
• H2S limits the activity of the catalyst. This effect
concerns mainly the high severity hydrotreaters
(deep desulfurization, deamoratization). The impact
depends on the pressure (through PPH2S) and the
sulfur requirements for some diesel hydrotreaters.
Acreon considers an optimum level to be between 0.01
vol% and 0.5 vol% for diesel hydrotreaters. Amine scrub-
bing is recommended for all the severe diesel hydrosulfu-
rization cases. For H2S content in recycle gas higher than
1%, we consider an activity decreasing 2°F to 5°F by 1%
H2S increase, and we recommend high pressure gas purge
156 Hydrogen Processing
if possible for the plants without an amine scrubber (better
PPH2, less H2S).
Question 33.
In many hydrocrackers the recycle gas is heated in a
furnace, and oil feed is heated only by exchange. In
this case, what is the maximum safe furnace outlet
temperature? Is this limit fixed by metallurgy, or by
concern about cracking of hydrocarbons contained in
the recycle gas?
JOHNSON:
We would not recommend increasing furnace outlet
temperature beyond the design outlet temperature listed
on the vendor’s heater data sheet. The maximum outlet
temperature at the design flow rate corresponds to the
maximum tube wall temperature.
These heaters operate in the high temperature creep
rupture range. If the maximum tube wall temperature is
exceeded, the rate of creep damage will accelerate and tube
life will be shortened. Operating consistently at tube wall
temperatures of only 50°F higher than the design can
result in a reduction of hours to rupture life from 100,000
hours to as low as 20,000 hours. Cracking of hydrocarbons
in the recycle gas is not a concern due to the high hydrogen
content of the stream.
LEMMON:
Our hydrocracker stage two trim furnace does heat
recycled gas only. We routinely operate in the 850° range.
We have never seen signs of coking. We limit firing based
on the design limit of the tubes. We periodically check the
tubes with an infrared pyrometer and then target a maxi-
mum firing rate based on those readings.
KOOIMAN:
We use 900°F limited by metallurgy.
Question 34.
What fail safe philosophy is used on hydrocracker
reactor quench (H2) gas? Has anyone modified the
original design and, if so, why?
Question 35.
Discuss hydrocracker compressor operating strate-
gies to insure quench availability for emergencies.
Considerations are: quench valve capacity, compres-
sor speed, and compressor spillback.
BARKER:
We have not modified our original design which in-
cludes quench valves that fail open in an over quench
position. In addition, these valves have hand control for
manual override in the unlikely event that they do fail
closed. These valves have substantial over capacity built in;
TOC/INDEX
the hydrotreater valves have 200% of design capacity and
the hydrocracker valves have 300% of design capacity. To
avoid robbing other quench points the quench valves have
limit stops at the intended capacities.
Another aspect for failsafe is that we always maintain
blower speed in reserve to supply additional hydrogen
quench. At one of our hydrocrackers which has a turbine
drive compressor, “reserve quench” is calculated by our
host computer. It is based on the original compressor curve
adjusted for current suction pressure, specific gravity and
speed. We operate around 10% to 15% reserve quench
with a 3% specified minimum.
At our second hydrocracker, we try to keep at least a
third of the maximum reactor quench requirement in
reserve for emergencies. Since we have an electric motor-
driven recycle gas compressor, there is normally adequate
reserve quench.
Last, we have 100 and 300 pound per minute depres-
suring valves which are used if our previously mentioned
quench moves do not control a developing exotherm.
GENTRY:
For quench points between hydrotreating catalyst beds,
Kellogg specifies that the quench valves should be sized for
2 times the normal expected flow. For points between
cracking beds, Kellogg specifies 3 times the normal flow
for valve sizing. The provision of a reserve quench supply
by maintaining fill back on the recycle gas compressor is
the most direct operating strategy for ensuring the avail-
ability of excess quench gas for upsets and emergencies.
However, this strategy requires that substantial excess
recycle gas circulation be maintained at significant oper-
ating costs. If positive flow control of the reactor inlet gas
is required, as in units designed with hydrogen only
charged heaters, maintaining spillback on the recycle is
necessary. In units with combined feed plus recycled gas
preheat, reactor inlet gas can be diverted to provide incre-
mental quenching without the need for a large spillback
reserve. It is important to note that in upset conditions
requiring extra quench supply, reactor furnace firing
should always be reduced until the situation is returned to
proper control.
Kellogg designs hydrocracker reactor quench systems
for temperature cascade to flow control. This design en-
sures that each individual quench line has independent
flow measurement. Many hydrocracker systems only
monitor total quench flow and do not provide the opera-
tor with a direct indication of quench capacity between
beds. Quench control valves are designed to fail in the
open position. The control valve manifold is located at
grade level, and hydrocracker quenches are equipped with
manual control valve bypasses. Often times, a local flow
indicator for operator control is also included.
The loss of quench supply resulting from recycle gas
compressor failure will cause the shutdown of the reactor
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
charge heater. If temperatures rise above normal according
to catalyst bed thermocouples, the unit is depressured to
avoid runaway and potential damage to the reactor. Mobil,
Akzo Nobel and Kellogg believe in highly automated
systems to monitor and initiate responses to these upset
conditions and strongly recommend such systems in our
hydrocrackers’ designs.
ARNDT:
We do not save recycle compressor capacity. We run
them full. We want to keep our recycle gas rates up so that
we achieve good flow distribution and maximum hydro-
gen partial pressures. Most of our units have been debot-
tlenecked and run higher feed rates than original design.
Therefore our actual recycle gas rates are not on the super
high side.
We usually design quench valves for at least twice the
normal flow. It is our operating policy, in almost all cases,
not to continuously operate a unit with a quench system
running over 50% of maximum flow. We want the ability
to at least double that flow rate in case of emergency. If we
cannot operate at or below 50% maximum, we will shift
the reactor temperature profile, or reduce severity, or at the
next shutdown resize the quench valve. We prefer our
quench valves to fail in-place drifting open.
LEMMON:
We do exactly what Chevron does. I just want to point
out that this strategy allows for the quench valve failure
mode to prevent individual bed runaways. We count on
emergency reactor depressuring to deal with a whole reac-
tor upset in lieu of “reserved” recycle compressor capacity.
SMITH:
Our philosophy is the same as my colleagues have
mentioned. The only other design consideration would be
that the steam turbine driver is used on the recycle com-
pressor for general power failure considerations.
For Saudi Aramco’s Riyadh Refinery, the compressor
operating strategy is based on maintaining enough quench
to cool down the reactors and to maintain an adequate
H2-to-hydrocarbon ratio to prevent reactor runaway. The
quench valves capacity is designed to deliver the required
H2 without exceeding 60% opening, normally they oper-
ate at less than 30% open. The compressor speed is
increased if the H2-to-hydrocarbon goes below the mini-
mum specification.
For Saudi Aramco’s newest hydrocracker at Ras Tanura,
reserve recycle gas capacity has been specified for the
recycle gas compressor in order that H2 process upsets can
be appropriately handled. The reserve quench is specified
as one third of the larger of the sum of quench gas flows
for either the first stage or second stage cracking reactors.
The maximum quench rate will be needed during emer-
gency situations. For the treating reactor, the quench
157
TOC/INDEX
valves are designed to pass nominally 2 times the normal
flow. For cracking reactors, the quench valves are designed
to pass nominally 3 times the normal flow.
Other design considerations included:
1. A steam turbine driver was used on the recycle com-
pressor for general power failure.
2. Compressor spill back is through the hot high pres-
sure separator cooler to ensure proper quench temperature
even at low flows.
Loss of the recycle compressor results in automatic
system depressuring.
Question 36.
What have refiners done catalytically to reduce the
cloud point of hydrocracker fractionator bottoms to
allow inclusion into the diesel pool?
DiCAMILLO:
Running the hydrocracker bottoms over isomerization
catalysts or a combined isom-dewaxing catalyst can reduce
the cloud point.
Question 37.
Mild hydracracking (MHC) has typically been applied
to units originally designed for HDS service. Conver-
sion /eve/s have been around 20% with very short
cycles. Are there any new developments in catalyst
and process technology to extend the conversion ca-
pabilities of MHC?
GENTRY:
There are new developments in both catalysts and
process technologies for extending the conversion level in
mild hydrocracking. One approach is incremental im-
provement through such avenues as improving hydrogen
partial pressure or substituting newer, more effective cata-
lysts. Kellogg’s hydrocracking partner, Akzo Nobel, is
continuously improving catalysts for both pretreatment
158 Hydrogen Processing
and conversion. Even so, the liquid hourly space velocity
encountered in a vacuum gas oil HDS unit is normally too
high to achieve significantly greater than the 20% conver-
sion mentioned in the question, with run lengths of
something on the order of 6 to 12 months.
In many cases, however, the design pressure hydrogen
compression capabilities in a vacuum gas oil HDS unit are
adequate for operation at significantly increased conver-
sion level if incremental catalyst volume is added to the
system. When adding reactor volume, it is essential to
ensure that there are adequate catalyst beds and excellent
flow distribution to optimize catalyst and hydrogen utili-
zation. In order to maximize reuse of existing compressors
and other equipment, additional reactor volume must be
added while also minimizing reactor pressure drop. Reac-
tor design technology is therefore an important key to the
successful revamp of HDS units to hydrocracking. The
Spider-Vortex Quench Zone Technology developed and
commercialized by Mobil Technology Company is an
example of new technology now available for this applica-
tion. The Spider Vortex allows for the design of large
diameter multi-bed reactors that can maximize catalyst
effectiveness while operating at low pressure drop.
When revamping for significant improvements in con-
version, we recommend using a two catalyst system, opti-
mized independently for pretreating and cracking
functions. The best overall activity is obtained by zeolite
based catalysts, particularly if these catalysts have been
designed to be nitrogen tolerant. Trimetallic catalyst for-
mulations with nickel, cobalt and molybdenum as active
metals can also provide benefits in terms of meeting both
conversion and very deep desulfurization requirements.
Akzo Nobel has developed a family of catalysts which
is optimized to achieve excellent desulfurization and de-
nitrogenation together with high conversion. These cata-
lysts, combined with Mobil’s Spider-Vortex reactor design,
were used to achieve 45% conversion with 2 year cycles in
a Mobil affiliated vacuum gas oil HDS unit converted to
partial conversion hydrocracking. The same technology
has been used at OMV in Austria in a design to convert a
vacuum gas oil HDS unit to moderate pressure hy-
drocracking. Conversion will be increased over 60%,
while at the same time run lengths will be doubled.
ARNDT:
Mild hydrocracking has its merits, but it also has its
drawbacks. The synthetic diesel you produce when you are
running at these low pressures and high end-of-run tem-
peratures is really crummy. The product diesel will be high
in aromatics (probably about a 35 motor cetane when you
are running a Mid-East VGO). The total diesel from unit
probably will look better than that, because, most likely,
you have 10% to 15% diesel material in your feed. If I was
looking for more diesel in my refinery, the first thing I
would look for is improved distillation in the crude unit.
TOC/INDEX
BALDASSARI:
We agree with the comment that through the use of
zeolitic MHC catalyst both the run length and the con-
version can be extended when converting vacuum gas oil
HDS units for mild hydrocracking operations. Conver-
sion levels of around 40% at least 12 month cycle lengths
should be possible.
DiCAMILLO:
Mr. Baldassari took the words right off my sheet here.
I will add that based on the success of our SynSat coun-
tercurrent bed technology for distillate hydrotreating, we
are also looking at its use in mild hydrocracking.
Question 38.
How do you clean up the high pressure separators for
entry? Considerations include ammonia salts,
sludge, demister pads.
LEMMON:
We typically chemically clean large vessels that are
expected to be pyroforic, and especially those that contain
complicated internals such as demister pads. We use a
water solution containing surfactants and inorganic basic
compounds. The solution is circulated for 6 hours at about
180°F. The procedure and the work are done by a local
chemical treating company. The cleaning solution formu-
lation is as follows: in 500 gal of water dissolve 2 wt% soda
ash; 2 wt% sodium bicarbonate; 3 wt% sodium gluco-
mate; 0.2 wt% sodium hydroxide; and 0.2 vol% surfac-
tant. Then further dilute this into 6000 gal of wash water
as the vessel is filled.
The cleaning procedure included forced solution circu-
lation at approximately 250 gpm for 6 hours. Temperature
was maintained at 180°F by steam heating. Water rinse
was performed to complete the cleaning process.
A significant amount of sludge had to be washed out
of the bottom of the Stage 1 HPS after the vessel was
opened, but no evidence of pyrophoric activity was noted.
Chemical cleaning has been very effective in reducing
odors from hydrocarbons and H2S. It can also speed up
the gas freeing process and allow earlier entry. Use of a
spray head and circulating system might be beneficial in
cases where simple flooding and circulating has failed to
perform.
SMITH:
To prepare for vessel entry during turnaround & in-
spections (T & I), liquid hydrocarbons are first thoroughly
drained from the separator. Then the vessel is condensate
washed to remove remaining hydrocarbon liquids and
begin removal of hydrocarbon vapors. The vessel is then
chemically cleaned using about 2 vol% water solution of
a commercial surfactant/degassing chemical. This solu-
tion is circulated at 130°F (55°C) for about 1 day to soften
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
hard scale, thus allowing trapped gases to escape. The
solution is drained followed by another condensate wash
to remove any remaining solution. After draining, the
vessel is opened and all necessary entry permit checks are
carried out to ensure personnel safety. Experience with this
cleaning method has been very successful. The soft loose
scale makes for easy removal. Additionally, hydrocarbon
vapor remains very low in concentration throughout the
scale removal, as determined by frequent Lower Explosive
Limit (LEL) checks.
ARNDT:
We have been very successful by starting with an aggres-
sive steaming out while disbursing a turpene-based cleaner
into the vessel. We follow that with a dilute potassium
permanganate wash. The results are no odor, no pyro-
phoric iron, and no benzene.
BARKER:
We purge the vessel to the flare system with hot nitro-
gen and 150 psi steam for 16 to 24 hours. After this initial
steaming, we sometimes find that the separator still has a
strong ammonia odor and needs further steaming and hot
nitrogen stripping for an additional period. After the vessel
is cleaned, it is aspirated per our standard confined space
permit entry procedure before personnel are allowed to
enter. The vessels must be adequately cleaned to eliminate
any odor that may affect personnel or go beyond the
refinery fence line and impact the community. Fresh air is
required for personnel entering the vessel until the demis-
ter pads are removed, due to the potential for ammonia
trapped in or behind the demister pad. Sludge that re-
mains in the vessel is removed and handled as a hazardous
waste. Disposal options for the sludge are determined after
hazardous waste testing characterizes the waste.
Our separator is made of austenitic stainless steel, so
another consideration is protection of the vessel, piping,
and internals from cracking. Austenitic stainless steel can
stress corrosion crack in an atmosphere of both oxygen
and water in the presence of polythionic acid. The sepa-
rator is neutralized using a low chloride solution of 2.0
wt% sodium carbonate and 0.4 wt% sodium nitrate.
Neutralization procedures are based on NACE Standard
RP0170-93.
159
TOC/INDEX
IV. LIGHT OIL CATALYTIC PROCESSING
A. Alkylation-Sulfuric Acid
Process
Question 1.
What are typical levels of oxygenates in Alkylation
Unit Feed from an MTBE unit using a standard water
wash for oxygenate removal? Is there any commercial
experience with an on-line moisture analyzer up-
stream of the alkylation unit?
JOHNSON:
UOP would expect around 1000 ppm oxygenate to
come through a simple water wash with the load to the
water wash somewhat dependent on the MTBE unit
design. When followed by a depropanizer and an oxygen-
ate removal unit, the oxygenates can be reduced to less
than about 1 ppm.
For an HF alkylation unit the typical design would
allow up to 10 ppm oxygenates. Dimethyl ether is the
species that gets through. This will go overhead in the
isostripper and also in the acid regenerator on the alkyla-
tion unit and tend to build up in the acid. So DME is the
problematic species.
KIMBRELL:
We have measured between 50 ppm and 200 ppm
dimethyl ether and water. We track this with an on-line
analyzer. We have a coalescer downstream of the oxygenate
unit to try to prevent any water carryover into the alkyla-
tion unit.
ARNDT:
We feed MTBE raffinate to alkylation plants at our 3
major domestic refineries. However, we rarely analyze
these raffinates for oxygenate contents. In Richmond spot
samples have showed dimethyl ether concentrations of
1000 to 2000 ppm. For the second part of this question,
we do not have moisture analyzers on alkylation feeds. We
do have moisture analyzers on catalytic reformer feed from
tankage. It has worked quite well for years.
GENTRY:
I will take this opportunity to introduce myself. My
name is Art Gentry. I am the Product Director for Petro-
leum Refining for the M. W. Kellogg Technology Com-
pany. In that capacity, I am engaged in managing and
developing proprietary refining technologies for Kellogg.
160 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
Most of my activities center around our hydrocracking
alliance with Mobil and Akzo Nobel, MAK Hydro-
cracking, and our alliance with ER&E for sulfuric acid
alkylation.
I am thrilled to be part of this panel and part of this
Q&A session. My hope is that all of us will go away from
this Q&A with something of value to help us in our jobs
and help our companies improve their bottom lines.
Our information for oxygenate content of raffinate
from an MTBE water extraction step is 1200 ppm to 1600
ppm oxygenates. That is in addition to the water of
saturation. The raffinate is then used as olefin feed to a
sulfuric acid alkylation unit without further water wash.
On entering the alkylation unit, the feed is chilled by heat
exchange, and a coalescer is used to remove free water. We
would not expect to see a moisture analyzer on this stream
when used as a sulfuric alkylation feed stream.
In HF alkylation or in the Topsoe fixed-bed alkylation
process, which has been jointly developed by Kellogg and
Haldor Topsoe, oxygenates as well as dissolved water are
removed from feed in driers using molecular sieves or
alumina as adsorbents. These driers utilize moisture ana-
lyzers to determine the end of the adsorption cycle and to
initiate bed regeneration.
HUNKUS:
We also believe the typical levels of oxygenates in olefin
feed downstream of a typical MTBE unit run between
500 ppm and 1000 ppm. I also have a friend who ran his
unit at lower levels, including Methanol at less than 200
ppm; MTBE at less than 50 ppm; and DME at less than
100 ppm.
We feel a moisture analyzer on most typical units is a
lower priority than good design and operating practice. A
typical unit has a large recycle isobutane stream that
combines with the olefin feed and is cooled by the reactor
effluent. The total combined feed gets cooled from 90°F
to 100°F down to 45°F to 60°F, usually producing free
water. Our opinion is that the feed coalescer should be
designed to remove over 98% of the free water.
Even if you totally dry the olefin feed before it combines
with the recycle isobutane (for most sulfuric units, this also
is a saturated stream), as it is cooled down to 50°F to 60°F,
it will still contain some free water.
We believe it is always a good idea to periodically
analyze the combined feed in and out of the feed coalescer
to verify that the coalescer is operating correctly. On-line
moisture analyzers are hard to maintain and can lead to
TOC/INDEX
serious operating problems if relied upon too heavily
without applying additional process understanding and
operational awareness.
R.E. (Ed) PALMER (Mustang Engineering, Inc.):
I have some data I was involved with a couple of years
back. Methanol is typically 20 ppm to 40 ppm, dimethyl
ether 200 ppm to 300 ppm and MTBE 50 ppm to 70
ppm. This is downstream of standard raffinate water wash.
Question 2.
What are the benefits of premixing a portion of the
unit’s isobutane recycle with the olefin feed being
injected into the reaction zones of an autorefrigerated
unit? What target isobutane-to-olefin ratio at the in-
jection zone is desired?
KOOIMAN:
I am here with information from a couple of places. My
thanks go out to the folks at Koch who have been very
helpful in answering some of these questions and the folks
at Murphy. Koch has a refinery at Pine Bend, Minnesota
and another one at Corpus Christi, Texas and Murphy Oil
has a small refinery in Superior, Wisconsin and another
one in Meraux, Louisiana. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here.
We tested premixing with the theory that it would
improve the reaction by lowering the reaction temperature
at the initial acid hydrocarbon contact point upstream of
the impeller. Also, we wanted to test whether premixing
would improve the reaction by giving the emulsion for-
mation a head start upstream of the impeller.
We experimented with premixing the effluent with the
olefin feed stream that had already been combined, but it
had not, at that point, been run through a mixer upstream
of the contactor. We used an in-line static mixer to mix all
the hydrocarbon feeds prior to injection into the contac-
tor, but we were not able to see any increases in either the
octane, endpoint or yield, and we did not see any improve-
ment in the acid consumption.
There was some erosion, leaks and fouling of the piping
system, and this was probably due to the fact that the
effluent recycle streams were untreated and the piping
arrangement was prone to excessive turbulence. That sys-
tem has since been removed.
LEMMON:
Tosco operates an autorefrigerated alkylation plant at
their Bayway refinery, and they report that premixing of
isobutane recycle with olefin feed can allow an increase in
unit rate, particularly when the autorefrigerated unit is
isobutane circuit hydraulically limited. If you shift some
of the isobutane recycle in the olefin feed and you can
maintain rate and still hit your targeted isobutane-to-ole-
fin ratio of 1-to-4.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
GENTRY:
In the Exxon, stirred, autorefrigerated alkylation reac-
tor design, all of the recycle isobutane from the deisobu-
tanizer is mixed with the olefin feed upstream of the
reactor. This premixed stream is then cooled, chilled to
40°F, and passed through a coalescer to remove free water
before being split and equally injected into the reaction
zones. The recycle refrigerant is not mixed with the olefin
feed, but injected directly into the first reaction zone.
Commercial experience during the early years of operation
conclusively showed a large alkylate octane benefit for the
premixing configuration. Thus, premixing has been the
standard configuration practiced.
For a grassroots design, the typical isobutane-to-olefin
ratio at the premixed feed point is about 4-to-1 by volume.
When the recycle refrigerant stream is included, the overall
isobutane-to-olefin ratio external to the reactor is about
8-to-1 by volume. Due to the nature of the autorefriger-
ated design, where isobutane refrigerant directly vaporizes
from the reactor, the definition of isobutane-to-olefin
ratio can be somewhat confusing. Usually, we talk about
the concentration of isobutane in the reactor product
stream going to the deisobutanizer which is generally in
the range 50 vol% to 60 vol%.
JACKSON:
The benefits associated with premixing recycle iC4 with
olefin feed prior to injecting it into an autorefrigerated
alkylation unit are two fold: increased local iC4-to-olefin
ratio at the point of injection resulting in all the known
benefits that carries, and increased mixing due to higher
velocity of the feed mixture.
No quantitative information on the absolute benefit is
available, but STRATCO states that the benefits follow
the old adage “more is better” when referring to iC4-to-
olefin ratio. The normal design limit is pressure drop
across the olefin feed system. Recycle iC4 until it starts to
affect the fresh feed rate to the unit then stop.
The recycle is simply attached to the olefin feed line
without any special sparger.
Question 3.
Does anyone have an effective procedure for on-line
water washing of the DIB? If so, what are the general
guidelines and how long does the procedure take?
What are the effects on the unit operation while the
DIB is being water washed?
LEMMON:
The DIB tower at Tosco’s Avon refinery has experienced
periods of gradual tray fouling. The fouling, which was
assumed to be caused by neutral ester degradation prod-
ucts, caused the tower to flood prematurely and limited
heat transfer from the bottom reboiler. On-line water
washing successfully removed some of the foulant and
161
TOC/INDEX
reduced tower flooding. Bottom reboiler fouling was not
as effectively removed, and the reboiler eventually had to
be pulled and mechanically cleaned.
The procedure used involved:
Reducing unit charge rate to minimize wet alkylate
production.
Diverting the DIB alkylate bottoms product to a
dedicated tank equipped with vapor recovery.
Reducing DIB bottoms temperature to minimize
water revaporization (250°F to 270°F). Do not allow
alkylate vapor pressure to exceed storage tank safety
targets.
Injecting raw water at approximately 8% of total
DIB feed rate.
Monitoring overhead accumulator closely and
draining water to prevent water recycle to contac-
tors. Watch out for water in DIB side draw normal
butane.
The DIB tower also experienced two incidents of rapid
fouling due to reaction condition upsets. Both times
on-line water washing failed to restore tower performance
and the tower had to be opened for mechanical cleaning.
Aggressive “on-line” water washing, and “on-line” hot
water washing with the aid of a surfactant were both
employed unsuccessfully to remove the foulant. Use of the
surfactant increased the amount of black polymeric mate-
rial removed but did not remove the restriction which was
causing the tower to flood. Entering the tower revealed
that the foulant was lodged in down comers near the
tower’s side reboiler draw trays.
KIMBRELL:
We have water washed our DIB twice successfully. We
have not really had any problems with it. Our system is
set up where the bottoms from the DIB go to a debutan-
izer. So our concern with butanes in the alkylate is not as
great, perhaps, as others. We have a procedure similar to
that described by Mr. Lemmon.
ARNDT:
Two of our alkylation units are equipped with simple
DIB’s (no butane side draw). We have water washed them
both, one all too routinely. Essentially we reduce the
temperatures to the low 200’s and route the downstream
debutanizer overhead to off-test (will be high vapor pres-
sure). We operate the debutanizer carefully to make sure
our alkylate vapor pressure is okay. We inject clean water
to either the mixed butane feed at the top of the column
or in with the reflux. A typical rate would be 40 gal/min
for a 22,000 bbl/d alkylation unit. We watch and drain
the low points throughout the whole procedure. We also
check our product streams to make sure we know where
the water is going. Water is continued for about 2 hours.
The procedures have been very effective and we do not
notice any effects in the reactor section.
162 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
FEARNSIDE:
I will address some fixes to help mitigate the root causes
of the internal DIB fouling and corrosion, and also the
reboiler fouling. One of the rules of thumb that I use is to
maintain the caustic water wash drum temperature in
excess of 120°F. That helps maximize the removal of the
acid esters. Also, maintaining a Total Dissolve Solids
(TDS) of that water wash at 6000 or less, helps minimize
any acid carryover.
What we have found over the years is that if you pay
close attention to the cleanup of the hydrocarbon before
it gets to the DIB, you can stop a lot of the internal
corrosion and fouling. Also, for certain refiners we have
started up a high detergent filmer injection internally. This
has helped keep the salts moving through the tower and
also mitigate any corrosion byproducts which ultimately
end up in the reboiler and cause the fouling of that reboiler.
Certain case histories indicate refiners previously having
to pull reboilers every 3 to 4 months to clean them when
they were maximizing throughput. They have now been
on-line in excess of 6 years, not having to water wash or
clean the reboiler.
Question 4.
Has anyone experienced repeated problems with the
refrigerant recycle pumps (cavitation, etc.)? It so,
what was the cause and what was done to eliminate
the problems?
KIMBRELL:
My name is Mike Kimbrell. I am associated with the
Engineering and Technology Center of ARCO Products
Company here in Anaheim.
We have had some problems with our refrigerant recycle
pumps. It appears that the fluid has been actually “freezing
up” on the discharge side of the pumps. It is our belief that
the suction trap has a leak in the weir, and it is allowing
acid to make its way from the net effluent side over to the
refrigerant recycle side. At the lower temperatures, the acid
TOC/INDEX
is just freezing up. We have been able to raise the level on
the refrigerant recycle side of the weir and since then have
not had any further problems.
KOOIMAN:
We had a lot of problems with DIB charge pump
cavitation when we upgraded to a vertical Sundyne with
dual ports. The cavitation, of course, would cause loss of
flow and the suction trap level would go up and trip off
the refrigeration compressor. We found that there was not
sufficient net positive suction head available when the
compressor suction pressure would drop. In fact, we
determined that the liquid was boiling in the suction line.
So we raised the suction trap approximately 30 ft to get
the better liquid column head, and that has cured the
problem.
We learned that the proper pump application is critical
to stable operation in this application. The Sundyne
pumps require that we maintain flows within a minimum
and maximum range. So now there is a minimum flow
spillback and a maximum flow restriction orifice to ensure
that the pump stays on the curve in the region of stable
operation.
LEMMON:
We had a similar experience to the one reported by
ARCO where the alkylation plant would be running
normally, the refrigerant recycle pump flow capacity
would drop off over several days and eventually we would
switch to the spare pump. Then we would test the dam-
aged pump and find that it was performing just fine the
next day. So we began to speculate that we were freezing
some sort of material in the pump impeller. The thing that
was unique in our situation is that it only occurred when
we were running a high percentage of propylene in the
feed. It did not occur when we were running all butylene
and this kind of mystified us. We also have a suction trap
with the weir in it. We raised refrigerant side levels. We
still experienced the problem when we were running
propylene.
We did obtain some material from the pump. It was a
very purply organic looking material. Others indicated
that possibly it could have been propyl sulfates and from
that we have concluded that when we were running high
concentrations of propylene feeds under reaction condi-
tions perhaps we were making propyl sulfates. We also
found the same material plugging the taps of our refriger-
ant recycle flow meters. Has anyone else experienced
problems at their alkylation plant when charging higher
than normal ratios of propylene, i.e., propylene in excess
of one-third of the olefin charge?
R.E. (Ed) PALMER (Mustang Engineering, Inc.):
I had some experience with a plant that had this exact
problem. This was actually manifested by taking the pump
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
off line, pulling the strainer and finding a slushy type of
ice, or whatever you call it, to be the source of the problem.
The plant determined this was related to increased quan-
tities of propylene in the feed, particularly at higher feed
rates to the depropanizer.
There also had been some previous problems with
cracking in some welds in the depropanizer feed line, so it
was known that there were some problems with carryover
from the depropanizer feed system caustic wash. They
were operating the flash drums at 15°F to 18°F and
running about 3% to 5% propane in refrigerant recycle.
They were able solve this problem by raising the refrigerant
compressor suction pressure to get up over about 20°F in
the flash drum when running an increased propylene rate
to the unit.
Mechanical
Question 5.
What mechanical or process considerations are most
often investigated and/or incorporated to decrease
unit operating costs? Improve mechanical reliability?
LEMMON:
At this point I would like to introduce myself, my name
is Chaz Lemmon. I work at Tosco’s Avon, California
refinery, where I have been employed continuously for the
last 18 years, all of this time the refinery has been under
Tosco’s ownership. The Avon refinery is located near
San Francisco. Tosco currently operates two other refiner-
ies, the Ferndale refinery in Washington state and the
Bayway refinery in New Jersey. Recently press releases have
indicated that the fourth Tosco refinery in Trainer, Penn-
sylvania might restart operations in 1997.
All of Tosco’s refineries are fuel oriented. The Avon
refinery is the most complex featuring all the cracking
units commonly employed. The Bayway refinery is our
largest refinery and is home to the world’s largest FCCU.
The Ferndale Refinery is located in one of the most
beautiful areas in which I have ever visited an operating
refinery. The three refineries together feature a wide spec-
trum of refining technology. We have all types of reform-
ers, all types of alkylation plants, and a lot of refining
history as all the plants have been in operation for many
years. I would like to take this time to thank all the Tosco
employees who helped me prepare for these sessions.
Question No. 5 addresses mechanical and process con-
siderations we have investigated to improve reliability and
reduce operating cost. I would like to start by quoting the
party line on alkylation plants: “maintaining favorable
reaction conditions cannot be emphasized enough when
alkylation plant reliability is being discussed.” All the typi-
cal reliability problems, like fouling of towers and plugging
of pumps, are promoted by poor reaction conditions.
163
TOC/INDEX
Isobutane-to-olefin ratios should be maintained at your
licensor’s recommended targets. You must realize that as
you lower isobutane-to-olefin ratios you are doing so at a
penalty to reliability.
It is essential that you monitor and maintain the right
acid-to-hydrocarbon ratio. We have been paying very close
attention to this ratio in recent years.
Most alkylation plants are refrigeration capacity lim-
ited. Refrigeration condensers need to be maximized in
their performance. I highly recommend that you pay close
attention to your cooling tower water treatment program
and the refrigerant condenser exchanger water side tube
velocity.
Regarding air cooled refrigeration condensers, if that is
what you are using in your plant, you might want to
inspect them and see if they need to be cleaned on the
finned air side of the tubes. We clean certain coolers once
a year. It is also important to make sure your refrigeration
loop propane concentration is at optimum levels. At our
effluent refrigerated plant, we target 15% propane in the
refrigerant loop.
Unique to Tosco, we have had success in utilizing
packaged absorption refrigeration systems to supplement
the main refrigeration system. These units are using low
pressure steam to generate chilled water which we use to
cool the feed to the reactors. This supplements the original
alkylation plant refrigeration system.
It is important to realize that chillers do result in a
decrease in refrigerant recycle flow and, therefore, they
hurt the isobutane-to-olefin ratio. We have had success in
improving our acid management by the installation of a
spent acid density meter. We use a Coriollus type flow
meter to obtain the density data. The flow meter has given
us some acid temperature information which we found
interesting, and I recommend that alkylation plant opera-
tors begin to observe their spent acid temperature.
We have also recently installed a feed forward calculated
acid demand system, which lets the operators know in
advance where their acid demand is going. This has paid
dividends in smoothing out acid strength upsets and
reduced acid consumption. I am sure other refiners have
observed that plant operators tend to ramp the acid up
quickly when they go below target and then very slowly
drop it back down. That is a common human response.
But if you can tell them in advance where the acid demand
is going, you will find that they line that out very nicely.
With regard to plant reliability, I strongly recommend
that all small bore piping in an alkylation plant be of alloy
construction up to the first block valve. When you have
an acid runaway situation, you will really appreciate hav-
ing the extra integrity of alloy thin wall small bore piping.
BARKER:
I am Ellen Barker representing the 76 Products Com-
pany which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unocal 76.
164 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
The 76 Products Company is what you formerly recognize
as the Refining and Marketing Division of Unocal 76.
Our refining system includes four refineries, two in Los
Angeles, one in the Santa Maria area and the fourth near
San Francisco at which I work.
In addition to the issues that Mr. Lemmon mentioned,
we focus work in several process areas for improvement.
First, the higher fresh acid strength (up to a 99.5% maxi-
mum) will reduce the water in the unit and improve octane
while reducing corrosion.
Second, improve the feed quality by reducing the dienes
(same as you would reduce heavier feed content) this
reduces acid consumption, and thus your operating costs.
And third, controlling feed quality to minimize the
inerts (nC4) is helpful in promoting effective contacting.
DiCAMILLO:
My name is Dave DiCamillo. I am a Technical Service
Coordinator with Criterion Catalyst Company in Hous-
ton, Texas. We are a leading international supplier of
hydrotreating, reforming and styrene catalysts. I have to
admit that as a young boy when I dreamed of going to
Hollywood and being on stage, this is not exactly what I
had in mind.
Mr. Lemmon and Ms. Barker covered things well. A
few things they might have missed are: if you minimize
acid inventory, you can avoid stagnant zones. And perhaps
a controversial item is running compressors at as low a
suction pressure as possible.
Question 6.
What is the commercial experience with mechanical
seal technology applied to alkylation reactors? Are
they widely used? What is the expected life of the
seal? Do they reliably meet VOC emissions limits?
ARNDT:
Contactor seals have been a trouble spot for us, like
everyone else. In the old days with the crane pusher type
seals, seal life was about 4 months. Newer versions in-
creased seal life to about 8 months. At that point, one of
our refineries worked closely with Borg Warner to develop
the double liquid cartridge seal. The first one was installed
6 years ago in one of our alkylation plants. Seal lives
increased to between 2 to 4 years. We are slowly changing
out all our existing contactors. Our 2 new West Coast
alkylation plants with a total of 22 large contactors are
equipped with the double liquid seals. The units have been
on stream for a year. The seals are monitored monthly and
they are holding: i.e., no emissions detected yet.
BARKER:
Our experience is that the standard seals prove to be the
most reliable and they do not present any problems with
emissions. We tried a double seal design a few years ago
TOC/INDEX
which had the seal pot and barrier fluid. But after several
seal and bearing failures, we went back to the standard seal
design which is proving to be very reliable.
GENTRY:
I can comment on the experience with mechanical seals
on mixers which are part of the ER&E stirred, autorefrig-
eration reactor system. Double mechanical seals used in
this application have given excellent service. This is be-
cause the seal application is a very mild one.
First, the reactor pressure is very low, typically less than
10 psig. Second, the shaft rotational speed is very low,
significantly lower than the high speed impellers used in
other reactor designs. Finally, the seals are in the vapor
space, which means that even if a seal leak did occur, it is
a gas leak.
If a seal failure should occur in the ER&E reactor, that
mixer can be taken out of service without shutting down
the alkylation plant. Additionally, the mixers are designed
so that the seal cartridge can be changed on the run. This
is possible because of the low operating pressures. ER&E
recently had occasion to survey plants that use their tech-
nology for experience with this capability. The answer
came back that although the operators recognized that
they had the capability to change out the seals on the run,
they have not had occasion to do so because of the
excellent seal service.
KIMBRELL:
We have had mechanical seals on our contactors for
some time. Our average seal life is about 18 months. We
would like it to be longer and we are working with the
seal vendor to try to extend that, but we do not have any
results yet.
LEMMON:
Tosco’s Bayway Refinery reports that they use a dura
metallic model BRT 4000 mechanical seal and they are
getting 18 months of life out of it. They also report that
they have problems meeting VOC seal emission limits at
times.
Question 7.
What type of isolation valve is recommended for al-
kylation service? Is Alloy 20 construction required?
Do Teflon lined plug valves work well?
JACKSON:
As you can probably hear from my voice, I am the token
Limey on the panel. I introduced myself in the Heavy Oil
section.
BP has two sites that have H2SO4 alkylation units; one
is an old M. W. Kellogg sulphuric acid unit and the other
is a new STRATCO unit.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
One of our units uses gate valves specified as A351-
CN7M trim alloy 20, with ANSI, raised face smooth
flanges API 600. So far, the experience has been good, but
they have only been running for around a year.
STRATCO recommends Alloy 20 block valves in sul-
furic acid or sulfuric emulsion service. Larger valves,
greater than 2 in., often have a carbon body with Alloy 20
internals to minimize the cost of the valve.
Ball valves and plug valves are also used in isolation
service, as on HF units. The main problem reported
appears to be the actual position of the valve relative to the
position indicator due to internal misalignments.
STRATCO also has reports of the Teflon sleeve turning in
the valve body and causing flow restrictions. Some small
valves have also been reported to not close tightly in
service. This could be due to the valve remaining con-
stantly fully open and may require exercising occasionally
to cure this problem. This is also covered in question 15
in the HF Alkylation section.
Carbon steel block valves have been shown to perform
adequately and have adequate service life in very low flow
lines; that is in lines with fluids less than 2 fps with no
turbulence. Alloy 20 is used in lines with high velocity
and/or high turbulence.
If plug valves are selected, then on gravity flow lines,
e.g., on the emulsion lines between the contactors and the
settlers, STRATCO recommends that the plug valves be
expanded to the same open area as that of the line. This is
not normally the case unless otherwise specified.
Alloy 20 referenced above is an austenitic stainless steel
designed to be very resistant to hot sulfuric acid which
readily attacks 316 stainless steel. It is a high Ni (32% to
35%), chromium (19% to 21%), with smaller quantities
of manganese (2%), molybdenum (2% to 3%) and cop-
per (3% to 4%), and very low carbon content (0.05%).
The Alloy 20 commercial term usually used is Alloy 20
Cb-3 for piping and ASTM SA-351 grade CN7M for
castings.
KIMBRELL:
I agree with those comments. If the acid is high velocity,
we recommend using an Alloy 20 valve. In the lower
velocities, we have used carbon steel valves with 316
stainless trim. We do have some experience with the Teflon
lined plug valves, and it has actually been quite good. We
did have a problem with those type valves in the alkaline
water wash where the Teflon got scored. But other than
that, our experience is quite good.
LEMMON:
I am going to address the operating experience side of
this question. I have personal operating experience with
carbon steel body valves equipped with 13 chrome seats,
carbon steel valves with Alloy 20 seats, valves of complete
Alloy 20 construction, and the plug valves with Teflon
165
TOC/INDEX
lining. They have all leaked when I did not want them to.
If you are looking for the magic leak-proof valve, I am not
aware of one. The Teflon lined valves look more reliable
to me. They have worked well, but they do introduce an
additional possible failure mode. We had one instance
where the Teflon liner shifted, blocking some of the flow
path, and another instance where the valve hand wheel
operator was misaligned during maintenance and the
operators were inadvertently confused and operated the
valve in an improper way.
The Bayway refinery says they use 316 stainless valves
in most applications and only use Alloy 20 when there are
chlorides present.
ARNDT:
We prefer Teflon-lined plug valves with Alloy 20 trim.
If the velocities are above 3 fps to 5 fps, we use an Alloy
20 body.
We had some installation “opportunities” with these
valves, at our new Richmond alkylation plant, but we are
over these and the valves are performing well.
BARKER:
We use gate valves for the isolation valves in the alky-
lation plant, solid Alloy 20 on the smaller 2 in. valves; the
larger valves are carbon steel with all Alloy 20 trim.
Question 8.
Acid emulsion level is difficult to reliably measure in
our alkylation plant. Other than sight glasses, are
there any reliable level detector technologies in use
commercially?
JOHNSON:
I am Brian Johnson representing UOP. I have spent my
entire career, which will soon be 28 years with UOP. I have
worked primarily in the Technical Service Department.
Early in my career I spent approximately 6 years in the
Caribbean area where I had the opportunity to meet
another of our panelists, Mr. Terry Smith, and our mod-
erator, Mr. Terry Higgins.
After that assignment, I worked in Des Plaines in the
Platforming Technical Service group as a process special-
ist, my most recent assignment is in Light and Heavy
Ends in Technical Service where I have responsibility for
managing a group of process specialists who handle
isomerization, alkylation, catalytic condensation, cu-
mene and phenol synthesis, and some of the heavy oil
technologies.
Regarding the question; the interfaces between acid,
emulsion and hydrocarbon are being detected in acid
settlers using UOP’s density profile system. This device
uses a radioactive isotope in closed wells to detect changes
in the density of the surrounding fluids. In HF alkylation
166 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
service, a single well contains both the source and the
detector and operates on a back scatter radiation principle.
For sulfuric acid alkylation units, the system would be
configured for a two well operation. The high density of
the sulfuric acid requires operation in a transmission mode
with the source in one well and the detector in the second
well. The main advantages of the UOP density profile
system are that it does not contact the acid and the low
strength radiation source is contained inside a well inside
the vessel being monitored.
KIMBRELL:
We installed two probes in each of our acid settlers. The
probes were made by Agar to measure the emulsion den-
sity. They have provided fairly good service, but we really
have not had a problem with emulsion carryover, so we
have not validated them.
BARKER:
We rely on ratio glasses in the contractor reactor and
overall sight glasses in the settler.
General
Question 9.
Has anyone noticed an increase in the corrosion rate
in the reaction section when an upstream oxygenate
unit was brought on-line? If so, what is the mechanism
that is causing the corrosion and are there particular
areas where the corrosion takes place?
JACKSON:
The only sulfuric acid alkylation unit BP has with
upstream MTBE only started up in 1994 and was started
up from new with an MTBE unit upstream of the alkyla-
tion unit.
STRATCO has had three licensees relate experiences of
increased corrosion in the reactor section on installation
of upstream oxygenate units. They are also aware of 2 new
units that have experienced higher than usual corrosion.
These units have only been run on MTBE raffinate. No
quantitative information has been made available to date,
but increased corrosion has been seen on the contactor
spider assemblies, impellers, hydraulic head straightening
vanes, feed nozzles and tube bundles as seen in the exhibits
which follow. The first shows the contactor shell assembly
side view, the second is the end view, and the third is the
hydraulic assembly head. The third and fourth exhibits
show the tube bundle heat exchanger. All of the internals
shown suffer from corrosion.
The obvious control to minimize corrosion to the
alkylation unit is to minimize upsets and poor operation
and consequential carryover of oxygenates into the
alkylation unit from the upstream oxygenate removal
TOC/INDEX
equipment. The type and complexity of the upstream
equipment makes a big difference; water extraction re-
moves the methanol, but does not touch the dimethyl
ether (DME); water extraction removes the methanol,
followed by stripping or molecular sieves which should
remove all oxygenates (DME) and some or all of the water.
This latter setup can be considered a “best practice” when
it comes to equipment design and trying to minimize the
corrosion on the alkylation unit equipment.
The mechanism that is believed to cause the corrosion
of the alkylation equipment has been attributed to higher
water content in the spent acid (as with all type of alkyla-
tion units, H2SO4 and HF). The sulfuric acid will convert
any oxygenates to water and the process of corrosion goes
on. What is not known for sure is how much of the quoted
increased corrosion is due to water content in steady-state
operation and how much is due to periodic upsets from
the upstream units.
KOOIMAN:
We put an MTBE unit on-line and after the MTBE
unit went on-line, we really did not see any increases in
the corrosion rates. However, our corrosion rates were not
as low as we wanted them to begin with.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
LEMMON:
We did not notice any increase in alkylation plant
corrosion after our MTBE plant came on-line 2 years ago.
We have seen the type of corrosion that Mr. Jackson was
talking about throughout the 30 year history of our plant
and would not attribute it to MTBE operations.
ARNDT:
Our first MTBE plant started up in 1992. The raffinate
is fed to a sulfuric acid alkylation unit. This alkylation unit
is closely monitored for corrosion. We have not seen any
increase in corrosion rate over the last 4 years which we
can attribute to oxygenates in the feed.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
I would like to know in general what are the reasons for
the formation of oxygenates. Is this due to ingress of
oxygen into the system? What steps are being taken to
minimize that? Oxygenation would not normally take
place unless there are sources of oxygen available.
JACKSON:
The belief is that the corrosion in the alkylation unit is
due to the MTBE being carried forward. So it is the
167
TOC/INDEX
upstream operation of the MTBE unit that causes the
problem. The acid and the MTBE react together and you
get water forming. The increased water concentration in
the acid leads to an increase in corrosion. So it is the old
chestnut of less water less corrosion. And what you do to
keep them out is you put in some sort of mitigation, to
prevent the MTBE carrying forward into the alkylation
unit.
B. Alkylation-Hydrofluoric Acid
Process
Question 10.
Please describe any control strategies, including
“multivariable controls”, used to manage the isobu-
tane inventory in an alkylation unit.
JACKSON:
We have a variety of iC4 management strategies: from
simple good practice where the site identifies the location
of LPG to their alkylation units, with minimum and
maximum olefins, iC4 contents, based on historic sam-
pling to full blown MVPC systems. From simple good
practice and a knowledge of your unit and refinery, the
unit process engineer and operators can react based on
experience and knowledge of their routing options. For
example: for situations where you are iC4 limited:
• iC4 content of butane splitter bottoms should be less
than 2%.
• iC4 content of alkylation main fractionator side cut
should be less than 10%.
• Straight run C3/C4 splitter columns should have iC4
in C3 product stream less than 1 %.
For situations where you are in excess iC4:
• Increase ZSM-5 addition rate to your FCC.
• Stop FCC olefins to storage and route to alkylation
unit.
• Minimize C4= to any other polymerization unit.
• Increase iC4 recycle to straight run LPG storage to
build iC4 content. (You could increase the C3= to
the alkylation unit [C3= to the alkylation consumes
20% more iC4 than C4=alkylation], but less attrac-
tive if you have a C3= Catalytic Polymerization Unit
(CPU) on site; downgrading C3 to fuel gas).
This is good basic skilled operation of the alkylation
plant.
Two of our units have gone to full blown multivariable
process control (MVPC) systems, but have a number of
separate MVPC systems controlling the overall economics
and hence iC4 management of the alkylation unit.
A third is currently installing three separate MVPC
systems with an optimizer siting above the three control-
lers. The three controllers are on:
168 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
• FCCU DeC4 and is responsible for the DeC4 opera-
tion and product targets, C5 in overheads and RVP
of FRCCG.
• Alkylation feed controller and is responsible for the
control of the iC4-to-C4= ratio, feed rate, inventory
control of the C4 storage and C4 splitter and the iC4
internal inventory.
• C4 regasser control and is responsible for the control
of the level in the regasser based upon demand.
An optimizer will run above the three controllers and
pass directives and targets to maximize the overall profit
(objective function) of the C4 streams.
The steps we would recommend before any refiner
launches into having someone install MVPC on their
alkylation unit are:
• Know where your iC4 is coming from and the range
of how much.
• Know where your C4= is coming from and the range
of how much.
• Understand the C4 disposal options you have.
• Know your economics associated with each disposal
route and the break points.
• Know where you have ullage flexibility and disposal
flexibility and the priorities associated with each.
• Understand the effects associated with all iC4 loss
and control strategies; e.g., reduce the iC4 loss in the
alkylate and the nC4 in the recycle increase; etc.
• Understand your refinery’s iC4 and C4= production
flexibility; e.g., ZSM-5 and FCC riser outlet tem-
perature effects.
• Understand FCC DeC4 tower operation and all
other LPG towers and the limits on the gasoline
RVP, etc.
• Deep understanding of your unit’s objective; e.g.,
maximum iC4-to-C4= ratio for given alkylate make
or steady iC4-to-C4= ratio and maximum through-
put, etc.
Once this is understood by operations and the local
process engineer, the refinery can start thinking through
its MVPC strategy and the opportunities associated with
the control and optimization.
DAVIS:
Good morning. I am Tom Davis with the CENEX
refinery. I have been there for 14 years. The refinery is
located in Southern Montana and is the sole refinery flying
the CENEX flag. We currently charge 47,000 barrels a day
of mostly Canadian sour crude.
Our control scheme is a lot simpler than what Mr.
Jackson talked about. CENEX normally runs their UOP
HF alkylation unit at maximum rates, so the typical
control strategy is to maintain as high an isobutane con-
centration as possible and monitor acid strength. Multi-
variable controls, as such, include an on-line GC on the
depropanizer bottom stream, a charge flow controller on
TOC/INDEX

the butane isomerization unit that is usually at maximum do not use ASO color to indicate the source of the ASO
rates, and a sphere of isobutane on flow control that precursors. That said, all the refineries I spoke with knew
supplements the isomerization unit as required. the general rules and colors. Our leading alkylation expert
created the following picture, so let Barney’s rainbow guide
CARL KLIESCH (Treiber Controls, Inc.): you as your ASO contaminants.
Treiber Controls has implemented control and optimi-
zation of an alkylation unit. The application has been
running continuously and profitably for over 4 years. Our Barney says...
Optimal Predictive Control (OPC) software is a multivari- “Let the rainbow guide you on your ASO Contaminants”
able predictive constraint controller. An OPC controller
on the deisobutanizer column controls alkylate RVP, iC4
in butane, and nC4 in isobutane recycle, by manipulating
reboiler steam, butane draw flow and reflux. A second
OPC controller maintains the level in the isobutane recy-
cle drum and controls the iC4-to-olefin ratio by adjusting
iC4 makeup and recycle rate. The long time constant of
the drum and the complicated dynamics associated with
the recycle circuit make it difficult for the operator co
maintain the level without resorting co major changes in
makeup flow which upset the process. The predictive
capability of OPC handles this problem smoothly. There
are also OPC controllers for temperature control of the The refineries that have ASO disposal problems,
contactors, acid level control and control of the depropan- whether intermittently or continually, do ‘know their
izer. colors’. The guides we use are:
Our Closed-loop Reconciliation and Optimization Color Feed Contaminant
(CRO) software performs an economic optimization us-
Yellow Sulphur
ing a first-principles chemical engineering model of the
entire plant. New values for up to 25 set points are Red Oxygenates
calculated and sent to the controllers every 45 min. to 60 Purple Dienes
min. Among these set points are the iC4 in butane target Brown Caustic
for the OPC controller and the olefin feed rate. This results
Green Amine
in an economically optimal retention of iC4 in the unit
and use of olefin feed to exploit all available iC4. Refer-
ASO is sampled and a white popsicle stick is used to
ence: Treiber, S.; McLeod, R.S; Boyle, T.J.; Powley, G.; and
dip in the sample. The color of the ASO gives the operator
Lee, S., “Closed-loop Plant Wide Optimization”, CPPA
and process engineer an indication of the source of the
Control Systems, 1992 Conference, Whistler, British Co-
contamination causing the ASO formation.
lumbia, September 29 - October 1, 1992.
Yellow indicates sulfur breakthrough and that the
LPG treaters need some attention. One of our refin-
Question 11.
eries uses a 20 ppm sulfur in C4= feed co the alkyla-
How are color charts used on acid soluble oils to
monitor the presence of feed contaminants? What
tion unit as an indication that the treaters needcloser
information can be provided and how can it be used?
attention. As sulfur tends to form “light” ASO, it
can be quickly removed from the system by drop-
KOOIMAN: ping the acid rerun feed temperature to around
Although we do not do it yet, it sounds to me like it is 275°F (135°C). This drops the light ASO out of the
a pretty good idea. We have seen a darker brown in the acid stream via the tower bottom. If it is a real serious
polymer as the amount of sulfur in the feed goes up. It problem, we would probably drop the stripping
seems to me that we could use some kind of a chart to temperature from 350°F to 340°F (175°C to 170°C)
provide feedback to the folks responsible for keeping the to get it out even quicker and accept the resulting
sulfur out. increase in HF losses from the rerun base from the
lower stripping temperature.
JACKSON: Red indicates breakthrough from the upstream
It depends on which refinery you talk to and if they MTBE unit. It could also be due to water carryover,
have an ASO disposal problem. The sites that do not have especially if you do not have an MTBE unit
an ASO disposal problem and it is not a unit constraint upstream of the alkylation unit. Water is almost

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 169

TOC/INDEX
always due to poor performance of the feed dryers
due to incorrect operating conditions on the regen-
eration cycle or sometimes from problems with the
plc logic. You will always loose a lot of acid when
trying to remove the constant boiling point azeot-
rope of water and HF. The feed and stripping tem-
peratures both have to be dropped.
• Purple means you have to talk with the FCC/RCC
operators and see if they have been running higher
regenerator temperatures than usual or changed
feedstocks, etc. The rerun tower would then be
operated with a maximum feed temperature of ap-
proximately 285°F (140°C) and maximum strip-
ping temperature of 350°F (175°C) and the heavy
ASO will readily drop out.
• Brown indicates that you have to look at the separa-
tion of your LPG treaters and the LPG/caustic sepa-
ration. A useful tip given to me by a young engineer
is to first check that all the caustic was drained from
the ASO surge drum boot prior to looking at the
ASO color. There have been a few instances of
personnel spending a long time looking at samples
of caustic thinking that it is ASO. Brown ASO
indicates that the upstream treaters could also be
carrying over caustic (or amine) in the olefin feed.
The first port of call is then the feed surge drum
where the boot is drained looking for caustic (or
amine). The rerun tower is somewhere between the
light and heavy ASO conditions.
• Green, the last one, is caused by amine carryover
from the upstream treaters. The same checks and
procedures are made as for caustic generated ASO
(brown ASO).
As you expect, the ASO is never created due to one
particular incident, so the color is a blend. The ASO color
is only one tool in assessing possible causes of feed con-
tamination, trending the units operation down to 6 min.
averages, talking with the operators (on the alkylation and
upstream), and knowing the upstream constraints and
incidents, will all help the engineer minimize the ASO
production. Knowing the specific unit and looking at the
ASO over a number of operating “incidents” will enable
you to react quickly and accurately.
Question 12.
How are refiners interpreting the API 751 inspection
requirements? What difficulties have been encoun-
tered, such as small bore pipe inspections?
DAVIS:
Below is a detailed list of the CENEX API 751 practices
that have been incorporated into maintenance, inspection
and new vessel purchase. These practices define materials
and the limits of certain contaminants, inspection
frequencies, painting frequencies, new and existing vessel
170 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
non-destructive testing, welded pipe heat treating require-
ments, valve replacement schedules, flange repair and
inspection schedules, gasket and stud requirements.
Materials:
Carbon Steel to have less than 0.2 wt.% sum of Cr, Ni, &
Cu. (If possible).
Inspection Frequency:
Paint — roughly every 2 years (T/A frequency) — exter-
nal every 5 years maximum; UT every 5 years maximum
or 1⁄2 life.
New vessels are WFMT inspected prior to installation.
Existing vessels are not WFMT inspected unless there is a
compelling reason to suspect cracking.
Large Piping:
All butt welds in HF service are PWHT.
Valves:
Most valves are replaced in less than 10 years due to
operability problems. If valves are opened for repair, they
are inspected.
Flanges:
Flanges are informally inspected and repaired if opened.
Gaskets and Studs:
Use only B7M studs.
Use solid Teflon inner ring on gaskets.
ARNDT:
Concurrent with the development of API 751, we made
an extensive review of our Salt Lake HF alkylation plant.
From that review we established inspection frequencies,
based on the plant data, that have turned out for the most
part to match API 751. There are a few places where we
call for longer frequencies and some for shorter frequencies
as justified by plant data.
One of the outcomes of our review was the develop-
ment of a good tagging system for flanges, valves and small
bore piping. We have carefully grouped these tags so we
get a better picture of system problems. We now are getting
more insight to more global problems and can now take
more system-wide remedies.
JACKSON:
All the BP Oil Alkylation refineries have their own
inspection procedures based on the industry’s, and our
own, best practices. All know API 751 inspection recom-
mendations and guidelines and have reviewed it in detail
and in-line with their own procedures.
API 751 defines small bore piping as having diameters
less than 2 in. and the key areas are summarized below:
• All threaded joints to be disassembled, cleaned, in-
spected and replaced where necessary. Radiograph
of joints is an acceptable alternate.
• Welded joints to be radiographed after construction
and repair. Weld hardness should be checked.
TOC/INDEX
• Bleeder and vents to be radiographed.
These are only the key aspects and API 751 should be
referred to directly for more detailed information.
Most of our sites, and one in particular, have gone
through an exercise of identifying all dead legs and small
bore piping items and either eliminating them or mini-
mizing their length. At every shutdown, every 2 years, the
remaining dead legs, threaded fittings and welds are all
radiographed. The short lengths of piping remaining are
checked ultrasonically along their lengths and special at-
tention is given to any bends. The number of tricocks on
the acid drum has been halved from 30 to 15. The level
bridles have been removed wherever possible.
Any and all flanges are broken every shutdown and the
gasket replaced. This also saves time at start-up.
Some BP sites have instigated a number of predictive
and probability programs based on historic data to assist
with identifying areas that need review. One refinery uses
TISCHUC and PCMS. TISCHUC considers operational
criticality assessment to:
• Prioritize inspection and maintenance activities;
• Select inspection methods and frequencies;
• Control inspection waivers and concessions;
• Select items of equipment for reliability improve-
ment;
• Determine maintenance schemes and frequency; and
• Demonstrate regulatory compliance.
It uses operating temperatures, pressures, process con-
taminants and metallurgy and predicts corrosion and
erosion rates. It uses API RP14E for flows in pipes. It
identifies high critical systems.
PCMS is Plant Condition Monitoring System and
tracks the condition of the system as the name implies. It
inputs material condition, ultrasonic data, and gives the
short and long term condition of the systems.
Both work on steady-state data and do not take into
account maloperation of plant upsets. PCMS has a sensi-
tivity module that can be used to look at abnormal opera-
tions and situations. These have proven particularly useful
on alkylation units.
LEMMON:
Tosco’s operating HF alkylation plant is a Phillips
design plant, and it is being inspected consistent with API
751 recommendations. When the API 751 recommenda-
tions were published, we increased the frequency of valve
and pump inspections to comply. All small bore piping
was originally installed with pipe threaded connections
to enable frequent replacements, and at this facility all
small bore piping is completely replaced on a 4 year
schedule, typically during turnarounds. Additionally,
15% to 20% of the unit’s small bore piping is radio-
graphed each year.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Question 13.
At what acid settler velocities does acid entrainment
become a serious problem? Can acid entrainment be
traced by monitoring the acid return from the main
fractionator and depropanizer accumulators? How
much acid entrainment is considered normal?
HUNKUS:
Hello, my name is Steve Hunkus and I am with
MAPCO Petroleum. I wanted to take the time to welcome
you all here and encourage you to ask questions and
participate not only from the floor but avail yourself of all
the experience that is in this room. I know that these
Question and Answer Sessions have been one of the
highlights of my career in the industry that I love.
I also wanted to caution everyone that Mr. Jackson is
going to introduce himself in the FCC session because
that’s where he is going to answer the most questions with
the longest answers, and he feels that his answers are the
best prepared there. So you better be ready.
My team at MAPCO’s Mid-South operation is respon-
sible for Safety and Training. I have been chairman of the
Safety Committee there for about 4 years, for Environ-
mental efforts, for our Quality Control Laboratory, for Oil
Movements, for Engineering, Maintenance and Opera-
tions. I also have been fortunate to have a core role in our
organizational and people development efforts, both in
the Mid-South business unit, and enterprise-wide. We
have a refinery in North Pole, Alaska where the Refinery
Manager resembles the most famous resident up there. We
run about 140,000 bbl/d there and one of the their most
notable features is that they use kerosene for a cooling
medium instead of cooling water. Our Mid-South plant
in Memphis, Tennessee runs about 107,000 bbl/d now.
We are trying to inch that up every day.
I was born on a farm in Ohio, and I will not go into
too much more detail about that. I went to Michigan State
for Chemical Engineering and one year while I was there
we did beat Notre Dame, Terry. I just thought I would
point that out.
I started off my career in head office with Shell Oil
Company in the reforming, hydrotreating and hydroproc-
essing areas and moved into the FCC and resid processing
areas. I was also affiliated with the research effort out at
Westhollow, where Shell Development Company is lo-
cated. Then I went to work for an independent refining
and marketing company, United Refining, in Warren,
Pennsylvania, where I learned how to do a lot with very
little technical support and less sophisticated resources
than I had at Shell. I also got quite a bit of bankruptcy and
lobbying experience at United. Next, I was involved in the
start-up and expansion of 3 small businesses which
evolved into about $10+ million worth of sales in 3 years,
primarily fabricating equipment for the refining, process-
ing and petrochemical industries. So I am a bit closet
171
TOC/INDEX
mechanical engineer. I then joined MAPCO, where I have
had various roles, including Process and Project Engineer-
ing, Project Management, Operation Superintendent,
Operation Manager and now General Manager.
Regarding the question, we have seen carryover in the
1.8 fpm to 1.9 fpm range at various iso recycle and feed
combinations in our 10 ft vertical acid settler. UOP
guidelines indicate this is also their upper range experi-
ence for stable operation, and I can certainly verify that.
About 1.5 fpm is the point where they recommend
normal upper limits for design. Acid condition, tempera-
ture, and physical condition of the equipment also affect
the point of entrainment. Acid entrainment, if not cor-
rected, will almost immediately result in an opportunity
to acidize and inspect your fractionation equipment,
evidenced by tray plugging in the isostripper below the
feed tray, resulting in high C5 material in the iso recycle
stream. You may not be able to get a temperature differ-
ential across the top section of your tower. That would be
another indicator for you.
Yes, you may need to use solubility charts or calcula-
tions to verify flow rates. You can watch it build in the site
glass and check accumulation rates if you need to verify
flows.
You really need to consult your licensor about the safe
operating parameters like this. They will have a lot of
experience to share with you. My experience has been that
any significant acid entrainment results in unacceptable
unit performance.
JOHNSON:
UOP’s guidelines for our licensees are, 1.5 fpm upward
HCBN velocity in a vertical settler and 1.8 fpm for
revamps with normal acid strengths. We would expect that
the weight percent HF be kept above 88 wt% to avoid any
entrainment. We have had a variety of settler designs over
the years and have seen entrainment primarily at low acid
strengths in vertical settlers.
DAVIS:
I can only add that at the moment we have a 2 UOP
design vertical mixer settler reactor system. Our velocities
are around 1 fpm to 1.25 fpm, and we have no carryover
problems. It sounds like a good idea to monitor acid boot
flows but perhaps the metering might be a little more
complicated than you thought. There are solubility charts
that UOP puts out that will give you an idea of how much
you should be carrying over on a normal basis.
Question 14.
Is anyone sending pentenes to an alkylation feed
hydrotreater, and, if so, what are the operating con-
ditions? What are the effects of hydrotreating on
yield, product quality, ASO production and acid
consumption?
172 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
JOHNSON:
UOP has licensees who have intentionally, or other-
wise, put C5’s into their Selective Hydrogenation Proc-
esses (SHP) to add C5’s to the alkylation Unit feed and
to do so without any added dienes. The SHP conditions
were adjusted only based on the diene load. The net
impact was a reduction in the total C4 feed rate due to
the addition of C5’s. Butene-2 to Butene-1 ratio was not
impacted appreciably.
JEAN-LUC NOCCA (HRI, Inc.):
You can feed C5 two ways. You can increase the amount
of C5 in the C4 by modifying the DeC4 operation and have
a selective hydrogenation process running on the mixed
C4/C5. There is also the other case where you send C5
directly to the alkylation unit through a depentanizer. We
have nine units running like this. The advantage is obvi-
ously the diene reduction. If you take a typical acid con-
sumption for a C5 feed, you can pay out the SHP in less
than 2 years. The benefit in terms of ASO yield are difficult
to quantify because the SHP typically runs all the time.
Question 15.
What is the recommended frequency and preferred
approach on exercising and testing key block valves
and control valves in the HF alkylation unit? If a
program has been developed, what is the basis for
developing the prioritization system?
HUNKUS:
We bring in a dedicated operator scheduled to exercise
the valves about every month, and check all the other
safety equipment on a rotating basis. We feel that
DURCO and XOMOX valves, which are Teflon lined,
need to be cycled to prevent cold flow creep in the liner
which could prevent or retard proper operation when
needed. Rotating this duty among operators also helps
build confidence and a workman like approach to these
activities during potential emergency situations. Proper
training is very important since these inspections require
knowledge and experience to be properly done.
The priority is for the acid isolation valves to be re-
motely operated. Other priorities are backup valves or
hydrocarbon blocks that are also exercised. We can run the
remote operated valves locally from the control room on
the west side of the unit and also from outside the east
perimeter of the unit. We also have HF detectors and
hydrocarbon detectors on a monthly PM schedule. Other
valves are moved once per month at a minimum. Valves
and flanges are also inspected on a monthly or quarterly
basis under our Leak Detection and Repair Program
(LDAR). These activities are based upon either regulated
intervals or operations/maintenance teams experience to
maintain “no-fault” operation.
TOC/INDEX
JACKSON:
Our best practice refinery moves all ball valves in acid
service once per month. The valve is moved a quarter turn
to move it just off its seat. Operation supervisors consider
this job absolutely invaluable and feel it should be ex-
panded to include all the valves around the C4 splitter. It
is an effort, as it requires a lot of discipline to ensure this
substantial job is adhered to.
Some of our refineries have tried to stroke their control
valves too, but care is obviously needed not to severely
upset the unit’s operation. One of our refineries tried to
instigate a program to stroke the control valves, but upset
the plant and are now very reluctant to try this again.
As bad as leaving valves in the fully open or fully closed
position, is leaving valves operating in a tight control
range. Some services on our alkylation units are so stable
that their operating band is very narrow (± 5%), such that
they will not be able to fully shut the valve. One particular
refinery has installed valve exercises that keep the valve
moving slowly outside their normal operating range. This
was installed on the debutanizer accumulator acid boot
and moved the acid level set point from 30% to 70%.
Locally it is called a “wobulator”.
DAVIS:
CENEX has a motor operated valve isolation system
around critical vessels and pumps on the HF alkylation
unit. These valves provide remote isolation in the event of
a catastrophic failure. The valves are normally partially
stroked once a month. Several are in routine service such
as regenerator bottoms pump and the acid transfer pump
and are used several times per week. We have no program
with control valves.
Question 16.
What operating and maintenance practices have re-
finers found necessary in extending turnaround cycles
to 4 to 5 years? What conditions have been found when
equipment was opened?
LEMMON:
Tosco’s HF alkylation plant at the Ferndale refinery
currently operates on a targeted four year turnaround
cycle. In order to accomplish this, they installed redundant
critical service relief valves to allow on-line servicing. They
installed Monel skid bars underneath heat exchangers to
prevent fluoride scale binding of bundles, and on-line
inspection intensity has also been increased. They really
have not had any difficulty reaching 4 years, and they
believe they could possibly run longer. There has been a
bit more fouling observed upon entry, but nothing that
would preclude a longer run length. In talking with some
of the panelists whose units run at or above design capaci-
ties, the fact that our unit operates at 80% of name plates,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
well within the feed design capacity, might have contrib-
uted to its excellent reliability.
HUNKUS:
We found that by trying to make a 5 year cycle and
running our unit at full capacity, we were incurring a lot
of unscheduled downtime, a real problem especially dur-
ing the summer when we have to haul excess butanes to
off-site storage. We have moved to a 2 year cycle of planned
outages to reduce total downtime and especially to mini-
mize any outage time during low vapor pressure gasoline
season.
We also wanted to assure ourselves of unit reliability
from an olefin compliance standpoint in our gasoline
pool. This philosophy has paid off in less total downtime
and confidence in year-end unit operation when we are
trying to plan our gasoline blending.
ARNDT:
At our Salt Lake facility, we recently achieved a 4 year
run. The hope is to duplicate that again. They do have to
come down for mini pit stops to take care of some of the
PSV’s. The plans are to spare these valves so that they can
keep the unit up for all 4 years. After the 4 year run, the
unit cleaned up well and looked good even though 3
exchanger shells had to be cut open.
Another Chevron refinery (ex-Chevron now) achieved
close to a 4 year run. They reached the opposite conclusion.
Question 17.
At what acid purity should feed be pulled from the HF
acid unit?
JOHNSON:
UOP’s standard recommendation is to pull the feed out
when the concentration of HF in the circulating acid has
dropped to below 78%. Factors such as acid inventory, the
ability to add fresh acid, known elimination of the incom-
ing contaminants, whether there is settling zone carryover,
and past experiences, can all be factored into the refiner’s
actual guideline.
KOOIMAN:
We are pretty conservative on this. In one refinery,
though we have never been in the situation, if we get down
to 80%, then we do something whether it be with the acid
or start pulling the feed back. Before we initiated this, they
got down to 75% to 77% without serious problems. That
was quite a while ago.
At another refinery, we actually pulled the feed out at
82% because after being hit with something, we were still
not recovering after 24 hours. We felt it was best just to go
ahead and make a move so we could start recovering.
One other thing I would like to add on this is that the
end point is real helpful to us as well. That gives us a little
173
TOC/INDEX
bit quicker response. We see that as the acid purity de-
creases our end point goes up.
LEMMON:
Our plant’s posted target is 82%. Although they once
experienced 78% and recovered with no apparent problem.
HUNKUS:
We reduce feed about 50% when we reach 83% acid
strength and we cut feed out when we reach about 81%,
which has only happened on a few occasions. I will also
mention that we watch end point and octane as early
warning signs for problems with the acid strength.
JACKSON:
Most of our refineries pull olefin feed to the alkylation
unit when the acid concentration reaches 80% or less.
Some locations pull their feed sooner (82% is typical).
Below 80% the acid strength can plummet. The feed is
also pulled when the water content reaches between 2%
and 4%, depending on the refinery. The main aspect of
the water content is that the corrosion rate begins to take
off at higher water levels. One refinery has intermittent
ASO problems that can require them to put the acid on
regeneration, typically when the ASO is around the 4%
level.
Clearly good alkylation olefin feed and acid analysis is
paramount in keeping ahead of the game. Moisture ana-
lyzers are also important and one used on some of the
group’s alkylation units is a Panametric capacitance device.
Like all instruments, it works well with attention.
DAVIS:
CENEX has seen acid strengths as low as 65%. Nor-
mally, olefin feed is not pulled but reduced such that the
acid regenerator can catch up and/or fresh acid may be
added. Please remember that CENEX has a two reactor
system so that 65% acid strength reflects only one of the
reactors.
174 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
STEVEN M. FISCHER (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
I have a general question in the processing area that was
not included this year. Could someone from the panel or
floor comment on any recent developments in new alky-
lation technology?
GENTRY:
As I mentioned earlier, Kellogg, along with Haldor
Topsoe, is developing a new alkylation technology. Mr.
Phil Geren of Haldor Topsoe is here and is prepared to
comment on our status.
PHILIP GEREN (Haldor Topsoe, Inc.):
We are very close to a first project. This year, a U.S.
major oil company signed an agreement with us expressing
its intent to build the first plant to practice the Topsoe
Fixed-Bed Alkylation technology. The project go or no go
decision was to be based on a 3 month feasibility study,
and that study was completed in September. It resulted in
a recommendation to proceed with the project.
However, we learned about 10 days ago that the capital
budget of the company has been cut in response to extraor-
dinarily low refining margins, and the alkylation project
has been canceled. We are again actively seeking the
pioneer user for the process. We are optimistic because 43
other companies are presently studying applications for
the process under secrecy agreements.
JOHN SHECKLER (UOP):
UOP has had a significant R&D effort underway to
develop a new motor fuel alkylation process that will
compete with the existing liquid acid technologies, both
HF and sulfuric. This effort is nearly complete and UOP
has begun commercial discussions with a number of
refiners.
The UOP solid catalyst alkylation technology uses a
solid catalytic material rather than a liquid or a hybrid
system. We continue to confirm product quality, yield,
catalyst stability and other similar parameters in our pilot
plant facilities. The catalyst performance and product
quality are both competitive with liquid acid catalyst
currently used for motor fuel alkylation.
UOP has also completed an engineering design for this
catalyst system and the capital costs are competitive with
comparable alkylation technology. The process is being
developed to operate at moderate conditions without
requiring exotic metallurgy. Although we cannot elaborate
on the unit or reactor design at this point, we do not
anticipate any significant deviations from practices found
in a modern refinery. UOP is committed to bringing this
technology to the market and we have initiated customer
discussions for the initial commercial installation. As you
may know, UOP has recently commercialized a new proc-
ess in the detergent alkylation market based on a solid
TOC/INDEX
catalyst and we are confident that we will experience
similar success in the motor fuel alkylation market.
LLOYD WINGER (Conoco Inc.):
Back to the existing alkylation processes, is there a
recommended optimal water content for the circulating
acid?
JACKSON:
We would recommend you target somewhere around
1%. If you go any lower than that, then you affect octane.
If you go any higher, then you get higher corrosion.
RONALD E. MARRELLI (Phillips Petroleum):
At the Phillips’ refinery in Woods Cross, Utah, we are
in the process of revamping our existing alkylation unit to
use a new process developed jointly by Phillips and Mobil,
to reduce HF acid volatility. The new alkylation process is
called ReVAP, reduced acid volatility process. It is under
construction at this time and should be completed by the
first quarter of next year.
DON A. HUSTED (UOP):
Does anybody use an on-line analyzer for acid strength
or is this all laboratory analyses? And, do you believe that
an on-line analyzer would be beneficial?
DAVIS:
We do not have an on-line analyzer. Ours is done
strictly by the laboratory. It would sure be handy to at least
have a backup device to be able to read on-line.
JACKSON:
We do not have an on-line analyzer that measures the
acid directly, but we do recommend a moisture measure-
ment. Panametrix is the type of instrument that we use,
and it has been very successful.
HUNKUS:
We do not have an on-line analyzer either. We rely on
the “Barney” method, looking at the ASOs, the endpoints
of the gasoline and octane, to give us early looks. And the
only moisture measurement we are comfortable with is the
Karl Fisher titration which we have the ability to do
around the clock.
Mechanical
Question 18.
Discuss routine test systems developed to assess the
reliability of rapid de-inventory systems. How are
actuators and valves tested without actually activating
the “ de-inventory “ system?
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
HUNKUS:
We are about ready to begin field work on a revamp of
our existing HF alkylation unit. We plan to include the
ability to test cycle the dump system without actually
dumping the acid. Our present system includes remote
operated plug valves with backup manual valves for final
block-in. We can presently partially cycle our existing
remote operated valves. We plan to use this same strategy
in our rapid deinventory system so that the remote oper-
ated valves can be stroked on-line as a system, or individu-
ally, giving the operators the flexibility to use the system
for normal deinventory just to assure that the valves still
operate.
Question 19.
What acidizing techniques and solutions facilitate
bundle extraction from exchangers?
DAVIS:
CENEX uses a 5 wt% to 10 wt% solution of sulfamic
acid circulated with an acidizing skid for approximately
24 hours. Temperatures are held at 130°F to 140°F. Main-
tenance flushes and neutralizes according to the manufac-
turer’s procedures and hopes the bundle extracts from the
shell. Note: This procedure is used for maintenance pur-
poses only; it is not used for acidization of an entire
alkylation unit in preparation for a total shutdown.
HUNKUS:
We generally use HCl or citric acid. We always establish
water circulation and acid inhibitor and do any preheating
required before the acid is added.
In designing your acidization program, it is important
to establish well thought out circulation loops and high
enough flow rates, and to provide proper ventilation of
system high points in the circulating tank to the flare
header for H2S and other gases that may evolve during the
acidization process. We use well marked P&ID’s with
numbered, coordinated points. I also feel it is important
to establish calculated volumes, chemical requirements for
each loop, and minimal required circulation rates. I also
insist on identifying and listing all required equipment on
the purchase order.
We sometimes neutralize our equipment to treat any
possible remaining HF before acidization, and generally we
neutralize our acidized equipment before breaking to at-
mosphere. The acidization fluid is then put to a tank for
further treatment, if required. It is important to remember
that ammonia will form salts that can require extra time
and effort if you are trying to extract bundles, trays, or
pump assemblies. We have also used “solvent/cleaning
agent” systems with some success, and there are several
vendors who will work with you to design a custom pro-
gram. Our results were somewhat mixed, but the deposits
175
TOC/INDEX
appeared dryer and more powdery, and probably made
bundles easier to pull and clean.
Low flow rates, cold solutions, dead zones, and partially
vapor-blocked equipment are some of the most common
reasons for poor results. We feel that having someone work
with the crews on the night shift, both from an effective-
ness standpoint as well as an environmental quality con-
trol and safety measure, helps ensure desired results. Also,
once you start acidizing, do not stop until you are done
unless you want to “renew” equipment.
KOOIMAN:
We use dilute sulfuric acid to remove the fluoride build
up followed by a neutralizing solution of water and soda
ash. But I do not have comparison on how well that works
versus other methods.
Question 20.
How common are fluoride scale buildup problems on
check valves and other components of an emergency
acid evacuation system? How do you avoid these
conditions? Please discuss the appropriate design
criteria and operating practices.
JACKSON:
Fluoride scale build-up is a big problem. To understand
the problem with scale and where it is most likely to occur,
you need to understand the corrosion process. As we know
the water in the olefin feed eventually accumulates in the
acid. The carryover of more or less water means more or
less corrosion. To make it worse, operating conditions can
result in a lot of water and only trace quantities of acid in
different parts of the plant. For example, the top of the
main fractionator and the acid regenerator generally have
high water and low acid ratios. As a consequence, the
tower internals often suffer from severe corrosion during
operation.
One of our experts describes the corrosion problem as
a lightning strike — it rarely occurs in the same place twice
and even when it does the corrosion rate is often signifi-
cantly different.
Enough said on corrosion. The iron fluoride scale that
results from the corrosion tends to result in blocking of
small bore piping and internal, such as orifice tappings; it
tends to stop valves seating, and it tends to “freeze” non
return valves (NRVs).
The lines tend to stay “clean” of scale in relatively high
velocity areas. Sites have seen scale layers about 3⁄4 in. (6
mm) thick on trays and on vessel walls and as deep as up
to 12 in. (300 mm) in drums.
Scale will show itself as hard and soft. On some of the
hard scale, the development of the scale shows as growth
rings, like on a tree trunk, that is invisible to inspection
until it is tapped with a hammer and it shatters. The soft
scale appears porous. The obvious danger with this scale
176 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
is the potential presence of pockets of acid trapped in the
scale.
From a recent shutdown, one of our alkylation units
removed over 600 lbs (300 kg) of iron from an acid wash
of the main fractionator after a 12 to 18 month run.
Scale is apparent in the whole of the acid circuit. A
classic location for scale build-up is on relief valve (RV)
lines. Any lines that are sloping down to the RV will
experience build-up of scale. All such lines were spare RVs
taking inlets off the main RV inlet line resulting in dead
legs. Basically, any dead legs will potentially result in scale
formation. Some sites have found the whole inlet to the
RVs blocked with scale. A number of our refineries have
resolved these problems by running new pieces of piping
with the slope back to the main line, away from the RV
itself.
Scale build-up results in potentially inaccurate flow
meters. NRVs typically will begin to pass after 6 months
of operation.
To avoid scale, our experts suggest that refineries keep
acid strength high and water content low, around 1%. Any
lower will result in octane loss. Design away problems by
minimizing dead legs and length of dead leg runs. Know
your unit.
MO VADEKAR (CHEM TECH Consulting):
I want to relate an experience I had recently regarding
alkylation plant corrosion. We were trying to find the
reason for unexpected corrosion in an alloy and carbon
steel line. The metal inspector at this refinery said a curious
thing to me. He said that today, alloy and even carbon steel
equipment made from newer (alloy) steel product contain
trace impurities from more and more scrap being proc-
essed in the steel making process. His suspicion was that
this unexpected corrosion in straight sections of piping
was related to such newer (alloy) steel construction. Con-
ventional wisdom will tell you that such corrosion should
not occur, but it did happen. He believed that trace
impurities which are not detected remain in the new
(alloy) steel and are probably the causes of corrosion. My
question to the panel is, has anyone experienced anything
like that?
DAVIS:
I thought that UOP put out some impurity require-
ments on carbon steel in alkylation units that had to do
with limit requirements on chrome, nickel and copper in
carbon steel. That is all I am aware of.
FRANK HIMES (UOP):
Yes, based on the various NACE papers on the subject
and other information, UOP has implemented a limit on
carbon steel piping in hydrofluoric acid service such that
the Chromium, Nickel, and Copper combined total less
than 0.2 wt%. This is being specified for any current project
TOC/INDEX
work. We will continue to monitor industry findings in this
area and may revise this specification in the future.
RONALD E. MARRELLI (Phillips Petroleum):
Has anyone on the panel or in the audience seen
nitrogen compounds come from the FCC over to the
alkylation unit and cause non-condensables and flaring on
the unit?
HIGGINS:
No response.
General
Question 21.
What are the relative merits of isobutane circulation
and hot nitrogen dry-outs after turnaround concerning
time, energy cost, and quality of dry-out?
JACKSON:
There have been a number of procedures developed to
dry out the alkylation unit after a shutdown. The typical
procedure used throughout the industry is the hot isobu-
tane (iC4) dry out; circulating the iC4 and draining at the
low points. Other procedures have been developed that all
try to shorten the start-up duration. Two that have been
used successfully within BP are hot nitrogen and hot air
dryouts.
The hot air dry out has been successfully used at a
number of our sites and has saved around 2 to 4 days on
the typical iC4. Basically, you can either use a hot air
dryout method using ambient quality air or use a dry air
dryout technique. We have found that by hiring an indus-
trial air conditioning unit; chilling the air and knocking
out the water before compressing it and adding it to the
unit is the best method. This is done by breaking the unit
down into 6 or 7 logical systems, adding the air at a high
point and draining at the low points. Using air also allows
you to leak test the unit after a shutdown before hydrocar-
bons and acid are introduced into the unit.
This point is worth expanding further. We generally
acid clean our alkylation units during a shutdown. You
should, and we do, break every flange to check the flange
face and reinstate the flange. With somewhere between
1000 and 2000 flanges on the unit you should then leak
test the systems using tape, bubbles, and good procedures.
Even with experienced personnel, we typically find 2 to 4
leaking flanges. With air, this is easy and safe to do. Once
the unit is leak tested, the unit should be pressure/depres-
sured via the low point drains until no water is seen. No
water meaning only drops of water are apparent. The
system is then nitrogen purged. This is done by isolating
each logical section and starting with the front of the unit
and filling the first section and pressuring to about 30 psig.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
You then vent via the next section at a low point. Repeat
this until the oxygen level is less than 0.5%. Do the same
for the second section and vent into the next logical section
until the oxygen level is less than 0.5% and so on. The first
section will take 3 to 4 cycles and the remaining sections
will take less due to higher volumes of nitrogen.
When the whole unit is free of oxygen, hydrocarbons
can be brought into the front end and the unit brought
up to operating condition. The water is still looked for at
all low points. We have found the depropanizer proves to
be the most troublesome and wettest. At the hydrocarbon
circulating and water draining stage we find the water
drops off from around 2 gallons of water per day to no free
water after less than 2 days.
The hot nitrogen dryout is basically the same as the air
dryout, except you use nitrogen and you do not need the
pressure/depressure sections to purge the unit. This is an
advantage, but looking for low point leaks is a safety
concern to be considered, and the nitrogen use is higher.
The cost of the air dryer and air compressor, assuming
you have to hire, them is between $5,000 to $10,000. The
nitrogen purge is the same as when you iC4 dry. The
nitrogen dryout does not require the compressor and
dryer, but does require more nitrogen. The costs between
the two gas dryout systems is fairly similar. Both gas dryout
procedures will save between 2 and 4 days on start-up. At
the cost of between $25,000 and $100,000 per day lost
revenue when the alkylation unit is down, it clearly pays
to minimize start-up time. Some refineries do not have
olefins feed when the unit is ready for start-up earlier,
because the FCCU is still down. But you can then schedule
to take longer for your alkylation unit shutdown, and this
will result in a small shutdown crew with less overtime,
etc., all realizing a lower shutdown cost.
KOOIMAN:
That sounds like a pretty good process. Our experience
has been that the isobutane takes longer. The nitrogen does
not get the system quite as dry.
ARNDT:
Traditionally, we used isobutane circulation. It would
take a good 2 days and the acid moisture level after start-up
was high (3% to 5%). We would get measurable metal loss
the first couple of months of operation.
We did a hot nitrogen dryout for the last start-up and
dryout only took 1 day. The acid moisture level was only
1% after start-up. We are cold or hot nitrogen dryout.
RENE LUCENA (Corpoven Petroleos de Venezuela):
I want to ask the panel if they think a chemical clean
out of the alkylation plant during the shutdown for main-
tenance is necessary to preserve the metallurgy of the
plant?
177
TOC/INDEX
JACKSON:
Yes, we would recommend an acid clean. To do some
of the inspections and to get to some of the pipes, we
would actually like to get in there. We have never been
limited in terms of time, and the cost associated with
cleaning is small compared to the information and the
confidence you have in the apparatus on the operational
security afterwards. So, yes, we would recommend you do
an acid clean.
C. Reforming
Process
Question 22.
Discuss ammonia chloride fouling issues. Can up-
stream amine inhibitor programs contribute to feed
nitrogen? Are debutanizer feed chloride treaters
widely used? Are debutanizer antifoulant programs
effective?
BARKER:
We have experienced several shutdowns of debutanizer
and depropanizer systems to water wash the ammonium
chloride deposits. In addition, we have also had to fre-
quently clean the debutanizer feed exchangers. Our re-
former stabilizer overhead gas and liquid feed to this
debutanizer and since our new chloride traps were put into
service on each stream, we have had no further problems
with plugging or developing pressure drop. In the area of
upstream amine inhibitors, we do not use them. But we
do suspect that they would break down in the reforming
reactors to produce more ammonia which would then
react with the chlorides to produce more salts.
DiCAMILLO:
Upstream inhibitors will add nitrogen, but we would
expect that the naphtha hydrotreater would take those out
before the feed reaches the reformer. Antifoulant programs
would probably not be useful in the debutanizer because
ammonium chlorides are water soluble and you would not
need to go with an antifoulant in that instance.
FEARNSIDE:
I am Paul Fearnside. I work for Nalco/Exxon Energy
Chemicals. My background includes 18 years in refineries,
the first 8 with UOP, the second 8 with Nalco and the last
2 years with Nalco/Exxon. It has been a very interesting 2
years for us bringing together two different companies,
two different cultures, and turning it into one truly glo-
balized firm. I thought when I left UOP my worldwide
travels were over, but they have come back. My duties are
basically worldwide tech service with the goal of increasing
178 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
refinery profitability wherever we can utilize Nalco/Exxon
products and services.
With that, onto the question. Can amine inhibitors
increase the ammonia content? Sure, if they are not ap-
plied properly. Good control of the inhibitors upstream
should contribute no more than 0.01 ppm to 0.05 ppm
of nitrogen in the reformer feed, well below the detection
limit of most laboratories and the analyses they are per-
forming.
Moving on downstream to the debutanizer and the
fouling problems associated with that, it all comes down
to the particular economics that the refiner is living with.
Do you water wash the debutanizer tower and loose 12-24
hours of saleable product every time? Do you have an on
stream continuous antifoulant product or program which
is very effective? Or do you go the route where you can
intermittently clean the tower using a high detergent
filmer without resorting to the traditional feed reduction
and tower slumping while water washing when the pres-
sure drop or distillation capabilities are not performing up
to the particular refiner’s needs at the time.
So there are three different options there. You need to
look at all three and consider the economics of each option
and see which is the best for your particular needs.
ARNDT:
I would like to address this one on the chloride issues.
We have one refinery that has chlorides everywhere and
the others are not far behind.
From a reformer, we see problems with 3 species of
chlorides: ammonium chloride, HCl, and organic chlo-
rides. We have fouled the recycle compressors, corroded
the tops of stabilizer or debutanizer columns, and cor-
roded overhead systems in benzene recovery columns way
downstream. We have also seen a lot of tray plugging and
low point damage in downstream Gas Recovery Units
(deethanizers, depropanizers, and debutanizers), and, of
course, fuel gas system plugging.
The easiest chloride species to remove is HCl. The
choice is alumina absorbents or caustic wash. We have
taken the more conservative approach — caustic wash —
in most of our units. This is largely due to the problems
of getting accurate HCl analyses at the very low ppm levels
needed to monitor absorption beds.
The ammonium chloride issue is best mitigated by
limiting nitrogen levels in your reformer feed. We like to
see less than 0.2 ppm which is about the detection limit.
This means you need to operate your naphtha hydro-
treater for both HDS and HDN. There are a few feeds
that bypass the naphtha hydrotreaters, usually coming
come from hydrocrackers. Every once in a while you can
get surprised by the amount of nitrogen in a hydrocracked
naphtha. Usually this is not nitrogen dipping out the
reactor but may be organic nitrogen compounds in your
reactor effluent wash water.
TOC/INDEX
Regarding the organic chloride issue, we have only seen
this in a CCR application. We tried a solid bed absorber
on the reformer separator liquid before going to the debu-
tanizer with very little success. The adsorbents, and we
have tried quite a few, would load only up to 1 wt%
chlorides before breakthrough. We tried injecting amine
inhibitors into the debutanizer column itself but only
succeeded in plugging and corroding the column trays.
FEARNSIDE:
I would caution you on using any type of neutralizing
amines in the DIB column. That will foul and will cause
substantial additional corrosion. So please do not use a
neutralizer type amine in your DIB column. Also, on
another note we have found that quite often simple ad-
justments to the upstream hydrotreater water wash and
paying attention to level controls and things like that will
eliminate a lot of carryover of nitrogen into your reformer.
So, it is a very simple thing to start with if you are trying
to track down sources of nitrogen.
KIMBRELL:
I would agree that operating the naphtha hydrotreater
to minimize the amount of nitrogen breakthrough into
the reformer really minimizes the ammonium chloride
fouling. We also try to control coker naphtha endpoint,
because that is where a fair amount of nitrogen comes
from. We do not have any experience with debutanizer
antifoulants, because we typically run a year between
washing our debutanizers.
KOOIMAN:
Our chemical supplier was a little sensitive to the issue
on the upstream amine inhibitor programs and gave me
some information on the typical inhibitors. His informa-
tion said that the nitrogen content is less than about 1%
and the application rate is 5 ppm to 20 ppm. So if I am
calculating that right, then it would not even show up in
Mr. Arndt’s analysis.
SMITH:
I am Terry Smith with Saudi Aramco. I have been with
Saudi Aramco for about 21 years now. Saudi Aramco
operates 5 domestic refineries in Kingdom. They are fuel
refineries for local products, with over a million barrels a
day capacity. We also have 2 joint venture refineries with
Mobil and Shell, a little over 600,000 bbl/d refining
capacity. We will also bring to bear some gas plant experi-
ence we have with our large gas plants throughout the
Kingdom.
On this question, really it is all of the above. We agree
that chloride fouling is not a big problem for us because
the Arabian light crudes that we run have low concentra-
tions of nitrogen. We believe the water washing programs
should be suited to the depositions that you see and
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
typically we do ours bi-weekly or monthly. We do not have
chloride treaters because we do not have the need to have
chloride treaters or any antifoulant programs.
RICHARD M. NASH (Shell Oil Products Company):
I am aware of a Shell refinery outside the United States
that uses an alumina-based absorbent on the feed to the
stabilizer column with very good results. The main prob-
lem with operating it is that it fouls with ammonium
chloride salts and builds up pressure drop. They have 2
beds which they normally operate in series. When the lead
bed plugs, they purge the salts from the bed using a steam
purge making sure they never pass through the dew point.
They can then put it back in service and usually then
switch the order of the beds. That has worked very well
for them and solved some very frequent fouling problems
of their stabilizer and the need for frequent washes of the
trays and the overhead system.
CHARLES L. MORGAN (LaGloria Oil and Gas Company):
We have been tracing chloride fouling of the debutan-
izer feed bottom exchangers for some time. We are at the
point where we feel there is a relationship between the
amount of coker naphtha that we are processing in the
naphtha hydrotreater, the duration of the catalyst being
on-line in the naphtha hydrotreater, and some contami-
nation of silicones into the naphtha hydrotreater, deacti-
vating the denitrification activity of the catalyst. I was
wondering if the panelist would have any comments
regarding that and any light could be shed on it?
ARNDT:
We have a lot of experience with that, especially with
the silicon loading. We have two naphtha hydrotreaters
each feeding 30% to 40% coker naphtha. We have in-
stalled prereactors on both units to help control silicon
fouling and gum fouling of the hot feed/effluent exchang-
ers, furnaces, and main reactors. The prereactors are situ-
ated in the preheat exchange train and operate in the 350
to 400°F range. They pickup about one half of incoming
silicon. Luckily we have well-aged naphtha hydrotreaters
with 2 or 3 main reactors in series. We can monitor silicon
poisoning in our main reactors by matching delta T of the
first reactor in series. We load catalysts that hold maximum
amounts of silicon. It is vital to keep active catalyst in the
reactors. The naphtha hydrotreater must remove the ni-
trogen down to 0.2 ppm to alleviate NH4Cl problems in
the reformer.
RENE LUCENA (Corpoven Petroleos de Venezuela):
Have some of you have experienced scale and plugging
due to iron and coke in the first reactor during a noncon-
tinuous reformer regeneration?
179
TOC/INDEX
ARNDT:
We have seen both scale and plugging due to iron and
coke in the first reactor. I have seen the catalyst in the first
reactor with more than 10 wt% iron. There are two
sources; upstream units/tankage, and in-plant corrosion
products. Iron from in plant corrosion is usually a result
of neutralization solution entrained during regeneration.
Most of the time, we replace first reactor catalyst every
dump and screen. For the majority of our units, the first
reactor only holds 10% of the total catalyst load so it is
not painful to do this.
As for carbon, again we see it from two sources, one from
heavy feed upsets, the other from recycle compressor seal
oil. You need to watch your seal oil consumption especially
during the lower pressure operation of regeneration.
FEARNSIDE:
We have seen a few customers come back to us with this
problem. For one, it was attributed or traced back to the
fact that they had gotten hit with a slug of organic chlo-
rides which had drastically increased the corrosion on the
reactor effluent side of the hydrotreater. All that iron then
had carried through and plugged the reformer bed.
In other cases we had they have traced it to naphtha
that has come out of an old tank where the bottoms had
not been cleaned properly. A lot of the iron and corrosion
byproducts were sucked in and caused the problem.
HUNKUS:
This relates back to the plugging of the first bed with
caustic and iron. Recently we decided that our low pres-
sure separator, which is fine during normal operation,
allows entrainment of the neutralization solution during
regeneration, probably due to the pressure and higher gas
molecular weight. We are modifying our unit for our next
regeneration to go through the high pressure separator
during regenerations to knock that entrainment out.
SMITH:
Back to the previous question, we have experienced coke
ball formation in the bottom of the first reactor. It has to
do with running beyond the severity limits of the original
design and also the center pipe distribution design was not
done as well as it could have been. It created dead spots in
the bottom of the radial flow reactor and so we had coke
ball formation which eventually holed through the center
pipe. We had catalyst migration through the furnaces.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
Regarding Mr. Hunkus’s comment about entrainment
during regeneration, as pressures go up in the regenera-
tion, the speed of burning coke increases. It decreases the
time for the regeneration. However, separation of the
solution from the gas at higher pressures is more difficult
than it is at lower pressures.
180 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
So as we go up in pressures to decrease the burn time,
the chances for carryover increase. Another thing that
causes the carryover is letting the specific gravity of the
solution get too high, the neutralization solution that is,
during the regeneration.
So one should control the total solids and the pH very
carefully and not get outside the guidelines that are known
for entrainment. If you can stay within those parameters,
then you can avoid carryover and plugging during the
regeneration.
Question 23.
Does any vendor regenerate and rejuvenate semire-
generative reforming catalysts? This would eliminate
the in situ regeneration/rejuvenation of these cata-
lysts and thus save unit start-up time and possibly
improve catalyst activity by having lower catalyst
particle temperatures during regeneration. Also, the
critical in situ oxidation/reduction steps could be
eliminated which could remove extensive time and
operating errors during this critical catalyst activation
step and also reduce corrosion on equipment in the
semiregenerative unit.
SMITH:
Commercial regeneration facilities in North America
and Europe claim the ability to regenerate and rejuvenate
reforming catalyst. Our evaluation of these facilities to
determine the actual ability did not proceed due to the
poor economics of the venture for our facility.
Each of our two fixed bed reformers undergoes normal
regeneration every 9 months and a dump and screen
regeneration every 2 years. The time saving benefits of the
ex-situ regeneration could have only been realized during
a dump and screen regeneration. The use of ex-situ regen-
erated catalyst would have extended the 6 to 7 days
duration of normal regenerations. Additionally, to be fea-
sible, a complete spare catalyst batch (approximately
150,000 lb for us) including precious metals would have
been required. So the cost of spare catalyst, the shipping
costs to and from the regeneration facilities and the limited
use spare catalyst could not offset the time saving benefits
for the dump and screen regenerations. So in summary, it
was not economical for our case.
HUNKUS:
For many years, vendors have offered ex-situ regenera-
tion services for catalytic reforming catalysts, including
CCR, semiregenerative catalytic reforming, and other no-
ble metal based catalysts. One vendor also utilizes their
density grading technology to remove high carbon CCR
platformer heel catalyst from the lower carbon, reusable
platformer catalyst. These services are available on a turn-
around or an “at leisure” basis. An Oil & Gas Journal
TOC/INDEX
article, published in the September 18, 1995, describes the
techniques and costs associated with this.
I agree with a lot of Mr. Smith’s comments. You may be
able to save some time if you just happen to have a spare
catalyst load for relatively small incremental cost, which is
not very likely. More importantly, you also get to compare
your in-situ regeneration to a controlled third party regen-
eration. This option also allows complete sampling of your
catalyst charge for operational adjustment, performance
monitoring, and replacement evaluation.
You probably want to dump and screen your catalyst
every third regeneration anyway and a major turnaround
is a good time to consider this. You certainly should dump
and screen if you see any signs of maldistribution, hot spots,
tails, lingering CO2 generations, or other symptoms.
JOHNSON:
UOP is aware of several companies that provide ex-situ
regeneration of reforming catalyst. We basically agree with
the previous comments, but I would like to add that to
our knowledge, the ex-situ regeneration only does the
carbon burn and screening of the catalyst. The catalyst still
requires that the carbon burn be followed by an oxida-
tion/chlorination step and reduction step to properly re-
condition the catalyst which would then have to be done
in-situ.
KIMBRELL:
I agree with those comments as well. We have considered
doing this, and the only time it seems like it might make
sense is if we were going to dump in the screen catalyst
anyway. But we have not done ex situ regeneration.
EDWIN A. CARLISLE (Eurecat U.S., Incorporated):
All of the Eurecat facilities can currently provide carbon
removal and screening of the reforming catalyst. The
Eurecat S.A. facility in La Voulte, France, can also perform
the oxychlorination treatment. This step is performed in
controlled conditions of temperature and partial pressure
of oxygen, water, and chlorinating agents to redisperse the
platinum phase, just as it is done in continuous catalytic
reformers. Eurecat S.A. can also provide the subsequent
step of hydrogen reduction.
A batch of spent reforming catalyst has recently been
successfully regenerated. The carbon was burned and the
oxychlorination step was performed. This catalyst per-
formed well when utilized by the refinery. Separately, other
batches of fresh reforming catalyst have been pre-reduced
in the Eurecat equipment. The quality control features
monitored include surface area, chloride content, and
platinum dispersion (by H2/O2 titration), in addition to
the typical physical characteristics.
This off-site treatment offers the benefit of reduced
reforming unit down time as well as reducing inherent
corrosion problems. This processing can be done either on
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
a turnaround basis or in conjunction with a spare charge
replacement. In this last case, one batch can be regenerated
to serve as a spare batch for several comparable units to
minimize the expense of the catalyst.
RONALD E. MARRELLI (Phillips Petroleum):
We have used ex-situ regeneration for about the last 15
years, sending the reforming catalyst out to various vendors
(Engelhard and Tricat) to have the carbon burned. This has
been very successful at our facility. It allows us time to work
on our compressors, do work on the reactors, repair scallops
and screens. Our unit is relatively small with about 40,000
lb. of catalyst. We can get it in and out in a week.
GARY A. STEPHENS (TRICAT, Inc.):
TRICAT routinely regenerates semiregenerative re-
forming catalysts in North America and occasionally re-
generates CCR catalyst on both a turnaround and non
time-critical basis. Our regeneration technology ensures a
complete carbon burn on each particle. The configuration
of our plant also allows us to regenerate the catalyst fines,
as well as the catalyst which provides our customers with
additional saving on precious metals recovery costs and
ensures very low catalyst losses. Our plant is not equipped
to perform oxychlorination or reduction steps. These steps
are performed in situ following catalyst loading.
LEE E. TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
If the oxidation/chlorination step was to be done exter-
nally, it probably would be done at lower pressures, than
you would use in an actual operating plant. Could the
panel comment on the effect of doing those steps at lower
pressure?
HUNKUS:
Just off the cuff, the only comment I would make is
that I think you would have to be more careful that you
did not get excessive particle temperatures because you do
not have as much mass to carry away the heat generated,
and the burn and redistribution would both take longer.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
The oxychlorination step is the platinum redistribution
step. Like any other chemical reactions, it has a rate and
the rate is proportional to the concentration of oxygen.
So, as the concentration of oxygen increases, and the
pressure would increase that concentration, then the re-
quired time to redistribute the platinum decreases. So, yes,
the pressure would affect the redistribution of the plati-
num, though only from a time function.
ANGELO P. FURFARO (UOP):
Mr. Roddey is correct that the platinum redispersion
step is rate dependent upon oxygen concentration, mean-
ing that the moles per hour are important. This is the case
181
TOC/INDEX
whether oxygen is delivered via higher pressure or higher
concentration. Good dispersion at low pressure, but high
oxygen concentration, is apparent from the fact that UOP
has more than 120 CCR Platforming Process units in
operation utilizing atmospheric regeneration. The tech-
nology provides for proper oxychlorination conditions,
and thus good platinum redispersion at low pressure
conditions.
In fixed bed operations, increasing the rate of platinum
dispersion is usually accomplished via higher regeneration
pressures and/or higher oxygen concentration during the
oxychlorination step. Longer time at the refiners standard
oxidation conditions can also improve platinum disper-
sion. Prior to increasing the oxygen concentration during
the oxidation step of the catalyst regeneration, refiners
should review the capacity and capability of the recycle gas
machines and attendant seal gas systems with their com-
pressor vendor. In addition, refiners with cold wall reactors
should remain conservative with regard to increasing oxy-
gen concentration due to concerns over possible internals
damage via combustion of pockets of coke which could
exist behind the reactor liner.
Question 24.
Is there any noted success in continuous measure-
ment of recycle hydrogen chloride composition, with
respect to catalyst cycle optimization?
DAVIS:
CENEX uses color indicator tubes manufactured by
Drägor to obtain recycle hydrogen chloride content once
a shift. This is not a continuous reading, but suffices to
monitor chloride injection. The chloride content com-
bined with the continuous moisture analyzer allows
CENEX to maintain proper water chloride balance which
is important for cycle length.
DiCAMILLO:
We are not aware of anyone using a continuous chloride
monitor. I agree with Mr. Davis. Frequent analysis, either
on a shift or a daily basis, will give you early detection of
possible upsets which will help prolong your life in the
reformer.
HUNKUS:
Yes, I know a major that has had very good results
optimizing cycles, surface chemistry and selectivity with a
properly maintained system, including moisture analyz-
ers, on-line catalyst sampling, rapid process monitoring
and elaborate kinetic modeling. For a small independent
refiner, this seems like a lot of effort for results that can be
more easily and reliably achieved with traditional methods
for traditional reformers operating within normal limits.
But this can be very important when defining new areas
of operation or exploring unusual feedstock.
182 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
We believe you must also use judgment and verify
calculations to make sure your instruments do not mislead
your optimization efforts. Always hand calculate your
additions at least once yourself to check that you are in the
right ballpark. By this I mean order of magnitude verifi-
cation against accepted standards.
We would recommend that you tend to run a little
under chlorided and a little on the dry side unless you
really believe you have the data to convince yourself that
you see a real benefit for a different operation. The key to
a good analyzer program is dedicated support, verification,
and buy-in by the operations and maintenance team. If
the instruments suddenly predict a sharp change or rates
drift say 10%, the operators should feel comfortable with
backup chart type systems and ask questions. You should
not have to make sudden or frequent adjustments of your
chloride and water addition rates. Small changes will take
months to equilibrate. I feel the most likely tendency of
new engineers is to over control, over chloride and operate
too wet resulting in less than optimum run length and
yield performance. I know I did. Do not let the low
start-of-run temperature fool you.
JACKSON:
I agree with Mr. Davis and Mr. Hunkus. We use
moisture analyzers. We are not aware of anybody that uses
chloride analyzers. Exactly what Mr. Hunkus said, setup
your water chloride rates and leave well enough alone.
The feedback from our refineries and the reformer
experts within BP would not recommend that the refiner
continuously measure the chloride level in the recycle gas
stream. There are better areas to focus attention that will
lead to optimal catalyst cycle times.
We recommend that the water content of the recycle
gas is continuously measured and the chloride level is
tested intermittently, once a day, by the support engineer.
The water and injected chlorides for a given operation
equilibrate on the reformer catalyst. Slugs of water, nor-
mally from the upstream hydrotreaters, are the usual
upsets that affect the chloride balance.
First and paramount is to ensure the upstream opera-
tion of the hydrotreat unit is stable. Once this is assured,
the water and chloride dosage rates are known and set up.
Once set up, leave well enough alone and allow the
chlorides to equilibrate on the catalyst. Do not fiddle! A
support engineer that continually changes the dosage rate
of the chlorides or the water will end up chasing his own
tail. The system needs time to equilibrate. Either too much
or too little chloride on the catalyst will shorten the life of
the catalyst cycle.
So, stabilize the upstream hydrotreater, continually
monitor the water, Draeger the chloride level, and leave
well enough alone.
TOC/INDEX
JOHNSON:
A continuous chloride analyzer has been installed and
is monitoring HCl in the recycled gas on a semiregenera-
tive reformer in the Southwestern U.S. It was placed in
service at the end of 1995. The analyzer has been reliable
and tracks HCl over a range of up to 4 ppm. The analyzer
response to moisture upsets has also been rapid. It is
interesting that sudden increases in the chloride reading
tends to be a good indicator of the water increase in the
recycled gas.
SMITH:
I agree that continuous monitoring is not necessary for
good chloride control. Good chloride control can be
achieved as mentioned by: 1) using Drägor tube measure-
ments which we do 3 times weekly; 2) we also control by
collecting on stream catalyst samples approximately once
every 4 weeks; 3) continuous measurement of the recycled
gas moisture using an on stream analyzer and; 4) careful
monitoring of any shifts of C5+ to LPG production. By
using these techniques, Ras Tanura Refinery has been able
to maintain chloride on catalysts at 0.92% with the stand-
ard deviation of 0.05%. Chloride is injected into the feed
charge at about 0.6 ppm to 0.9 ppm while methanol
injection is based on maintaining about 5 ppm of water
in the recycled gas. We believe there is no yield benefits in
a tighter control of chloride than we practice.
Question 25.
For regeneration only shutdowns, on semiregenera-
tive reformers, what is the average time between “oil
out” and “oil-in? What steps do you normally include
in your standard regeneration (compressor
washes,...)? What changes have you made, or are you
considering, to reduce the “oil to oil” time?
ARNDT:
First we have to define regeneration time. The question
here says oil out to oil in. I will redefine regeneration time
to mean oil out to dry, high severity operation. Any times
I quote will be based on this definition. I like to include
dry out since it can be very time consuming. We went
through 3 separate eras in Chevron on regeneration time.
There was the dawn of history when it would take us 10 to
14 days. In the late 1980s or early 1990s, in what I call the
octane crunch time when we were running many of our
units at cycle times of 8 to 12 weeks (high feed rates, high
octane, and bad feed), we got regeneration times down to
4 to 4 1⁄2 days. We did have a high incidence of poor
regenerations and when you have a run length of 8 to 12
weeks and you have a poor regeneration you can get into a
real snowball where you are regenerating all the time.
We have now taken more care and with oxygenate use,
we are no longer in an octane crunch. Our regeneration
times are up in the 6 to 7 day range. I think that if the
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
octane crunch returned, we could go back to 5 to 51⁄2 days,
and achieve good regeneration with good dry outs.
The key to minimizing regeneration times are:
1. Dual front, high pressure burns (150 psi to 200 psi).
2. Use double blocks and bleeds to allow blinding
without depressuring.
3. A recycle gas drier is a must (reduces dry out to 24
hours).
4. First class, reliable Oa, moisture, and pH analyzers.
5. Operator knowledge, commitment, and coordi-
nation.
BARKER:
Utilizing parallel burn facilities, reduced our “oil to oil”
cycles to 6 to 7 days with a 5 to 6 day dry out period. We
also are octane long, so there has been no economic
advantage to really to reduce this cycle time any further.
Each of the regenerations does include a water wash of the
stabilizer and we have eliminated the sulfur removal steps
since we have upstream sulfur absorbers.
DAVIS:
Using Mr. Arndt’s definition, a fast regeneration for
CENEX is about 4 days of actual regeneration and about
3 to 4 days of dryout time.
DiCAMILLO:
There are a few other tricks you can use to speed up the
time from oil out to oil in. The steps themselves are pretty
standard, but there are some tricks. If you run at higher
pressure during the regeneration, it will speed up the burn.
You can use liquid nitrogen cooling where appropriate. We
have already mentioned parallel burns. One thing that has
not been mentioned yet is to anticipate the next step in
your process. If you anticipate and think ahead and have
everything ready for the next step, you can save a lot of
dead time in going from one step to the next step. We
found a lot of time savings just doing things like that.
HUNKUS:
My definition of oil to oil is oil to oil, with all due respect
to my distinguished colleague. My experience is mostly in
the 6 to 8 day range. I have also been part of a team where
we found we could consistently go oil out to oil in, in just
over 5 days. This requires properly maintained equipment
and around the clock technical support on-site. For the dry
out, we typically run 4 to 5 days. I also will add that if you
do not have a moisture analyzer, you can watch the amps
on the recycle compressor. This gives you a pretty sharp
indication of when your system suddenly dries out and
hydrogen purity jumps up. Your flow meters should also
respond to the change in molecular weight.
After blinding and evacuation steps, we always include
a compressor wash and feel this is very important. Once
we failed to do a good wash and we paid for it with high
183
TOC/INDEX
vibrations that risked major damage to the recycle com-
pressor and added several days while we took the machine
apart to look at it. We generally do some feed/effluent
cleaning in the naphtha hydrotreater, wash some towers
and do PM on the reformer complex major equipment
such as the lube oil skids and the distillate compressor
system along with the standard UOP regeneration.
We have done all the normal things like multi point air
injection, moving to higher pressure, going with a larger
compressor motor, using high pressure nitrogen for dryout
after oxidation, larger vacuum jets and spectacle blinds.
We also have two turnaround coordinators lead the regen-
eration and work around-the-clock to ensure the best
coordination among all support resources, including con-
tractors. These coordinators, who are generally our top
operators, lead the planning of all activities before the
regeneration with the support team involved. I have also
seen greater than 300 psi separator pressure and liquid
oxygen and liquid chlorine used to further reduce regen-
eration time. This type of operation requires special exper-
tise and increased safety equipment and awareness.
KIMBRELL:
Depending on how much maintenance needs to be
done, we go typically 7 to 9 days oil out to oil in, and then
we take another few days (3 or so) to dry out. We do not
normally wash the compressor during regenerations. De-
pending on how much sulfur is laid down on the catalyst
during the run, we may elect to regenerate twice. This
double regeneration does an excellent job of removing
sulfur from the system.
KOOIMAN:
My experience is similar to that of Mr. Hunkus and Mr.
Kimbrell, about the same times for oil out and oil in and
dry out. The only thing I will add is that we found it
worthwhile to monitor the piping at the caustic injection
point. We had some trouble in the past with that. Also a
good electrical preventive maintenance program is impor-
tant. It pushed us towards doing preventive maintenance
on the recycle compressor.
Regarding higher pressure my experience, especially
working with Mr. Arndt in the past, is that higher pressure
is generally a faster regeneration. But we found that we
were compressor limited in one case. We got above the
pressure that would exceed the recycle compressor amper-
age limits and the operators would start closing off on the
butterfly valve on the compressor inlet. Looking at the
curves we found that when the suction valve was partially
closed, the loss in recycle exceeded the gain of the higher
pressure. The fastest burn was achieved at a pressure that
allowed maximum compressor amperage with the com-
pressor inlet butterfly valve wide open.
184 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
LEMMON:
Our experiences are very similar to those of the other
panelists. We have gone to higher pressure regeneration
with two stage burn. Our semiregeneration unit is only
regenerated about once a year, so we take our time and do
it carefully. We take about 6 days for the regeneration step
and about 5 days to dry out.
SMITH:
Our typical oil in oil out is 6 to 7 days, with another 3
days for dry out. Our standard regeneration includes a hot
strip, the carbon burn (oxidation) step, rejuvenation, re-
duction and pre-sulfiding. Compressor washing is only
done if performance drop indicates the need which we
have not done for the last 5 years.
The most significant recent change to reduce time and
improve regeneration quality is to allow up to 5% oxygen
during the secondary carbon burn if exotherms and oxy-
gen consumption tests permit. Oxygen content during
the primary burn is still rigorously controlled at 0.8%
maximum.
Previously, secondary burn was constrained to 2%
maximum oxygen due to concerns about localized coke
ball temperature excursions. Additionally, the standard
UOP hot circulation reduction has been implemented
instead of the previous stagnant procedure.
KHALID AL-REHAILI (Saudi Aramco Refinery):
Do you not think that the amount of catalyst is playing
a role in the regeneration duration?
SMITH:
Certainly, the amount of carbon that you have on the
catalyst makes a difference. That would probably be the
limiting factor.
TOM KELLY (ARCO Products Company):
The more catalyst you have the longer it takes to
regenerate. But regeneration time is also dependent upon
the recycle rate, and, of course your pressure.
I have one comment about short coke burn times after
a full cycle. If there is not much coke on the catalyst to
burn off, you may have something else deactivating your
catalyst. So before bragging about short regeneration time,
consider that you may have a hidden problem.
ARNDT:
We achieve our short regeneration times with high
coke-on-catalyst. We usually reach EOR with last reactor
carbon levels of 18% to 20%. At times we have exceeded
these levels at EOR but do see a real yield penalty.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
On the dryout there are two phases. One is the first
reduction up to a certain level, maybe 100 ppm or so.
TOC/INDEX
Another is for going from 100 ppm below. Most of the
time is taken in going from 100 ppm and below.
HUNKUS:
I agree with you, and it is very important not to go to
high severity until you do get the moisture down. One of
the changes that we have made in the last 5 years or so, is
go to maximum charge rate at low severity to speed up that
dry out time. In the past, we restricted the charge rate back
so that they could keep the temperatures down and go to
premium production immediately. What we do now is go
to maximum charge rates and hold the severity down. We
do that with inventory management up front. We are not
forced into making high severity right after regeneration.
FRANK ALLEN (Conoco Inc.):
My question goes back to the speed or the shortness of
the regeneration, and Mr. Arndt can probably answer this
best. What hydrogen-to-hydrocarbon ratios are you run-
ning on the run? This goes back to the compressor size,
oxygen limits, and inert circulation rate. What is your
typical hydrogen-to-hydrocarbon ratio on the run that
you can get these kind of quick burns?
ARNDT:
We were running down as low as 3 to 3½. That helped
give us those 8 to 12 week runs. But our feed rate was way
up. At design feed rate, I think the compressor was designed
for more like 5 to 6. Obviously, we do not run at design
feed rate anymore, but the compressor is good-sized.
Question 26.
What has been your operating experience with the
newer generation of CCR catalyst aluminas? Has any-
one documented a decrease in fines generation?
What advances in reforming catalyst technologies
have been made in the last 5 years?
JOHNSON:
The fines make for the R132 series and the R30 series
catalysts have been very similar. This is based on a statis-
tical analysis comparing the operation of over 50 CCR
platforming units operating with the R130 series catalyst
versus the R32, R34 series catalysts. The benefit of the
R130 series is a better retention of the surface area in the
CCR service.
DiCAMILLO:
We would attribute fines generation both to catalyst
quality and mechanical problems on the unit. In some cases
we have noticed fines reductions of 10% to 20% on CCR
units that have switched to Criterion catalyst. We will not
give all the credit to the catalyst there. We also made
recommendations on mechanical modifications to the
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
unit. We think a combination of catalyst change out and
mechanical modifications resulted in the fines reduction.
I really interpreted this as two questions. The second
part of the question is what advances in reforming catalyst
technologies have been made in the last 5 years? I inter-
preted that to mean both in CCR and fixed bed reforming.
A couple of the more obvious ones are increasing surface
area of the catalyst to extend catalyst life, running with
staged catalysts, changes in promoter metals to make
improvements in yield and stability, improved selectivity
of the catalyst and use of L-zeolite supports for C6 and C9
conversion.
JOHN D. COOK (Acreon Catalysts):
Several refiners have converted to our new generation
CCR catalyst (AR series and CR series) to provide excel-
lent selectivity, stability, low fines make, and most impor-
tantly, improved surface area stability. This catalyst
provides relief from the prior generation catalyst limits
allowing them to achieve higher throughputs by over 15%
to 20%. This is extremely important today to increase
hydrogen production for treating and upgrading units for
increased refining margins.
Acreon/Precatalyse also supply a unique tri-metallic
catalyst for fix bed reformers. This catalyst provides im-
proved hydrogen and liquid yield for reforming units.
Over 13 units are currently in operation and these selec-
tivity improvements have been shown over repeated regen-
eration cycles, as well as through several severe sulfur
upsets. Our trimetallic RG-582 offers a now proven solu-
tion to improve yields without compromises in cycle
length, ease of regeneration or tolerance to upsets.
Question 27.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of adding
continuous regeneration to the test reactor of an ex-
isting fixed bed reformer versus replacing the entire
fixed bed unit with a CCR unit? Is the performance of
the hybrid unit close enough to the CCR to make this
option economically competitive?
185
TOC/INDEX

JOHNSON: reactors. Therefore, you increase the yields and increase

Many customers have compared the costs and benefits
of converting their fixed bed unit to either a hybrid or a
CCR platforming operation. There was a paper presented
at the 1989 NPRA Annual Meeting (AM-96-47), “Con-
version of Fixed Bed Reformers to UOP CCR Platforming
Technology” by M. W. Golem, N. L. Gilsdorf and D. E.
Felch that provides reference to the subject.
The main disadvantages of hybrid technology relative
to CCR technology are:
Lower on stream factor. The hybrids still retain a
semiregenerative reactor in front necessitating re-
generation every 1 to 2 years.
Higher operating pressure. Pressure reduction in a
hybrid system can be less because you have actually
added pressure dropped to the reactor circuit if a
heater and reactor were added.
Lower yields. The yield structure of the hybrid cata-
lyst system is basically equivalent to the platinum
semiregenerative catalyst. So the benefit of the CCR
platforming platinum tin system is not achieved.
This benefit amounts to about a 1.5% to 2% yield
advantage at equivalent pressure. The reason for this
is because the yield structure is fixed by the less
selective platinum in the front reactors.
Additionally, hybrid units will exhibit a yield decline
across the semiregenerative cycle compared to more con-
stant yields of UOP CCR. We have completed 28 revamps
of fixed bed reforming units to CCR platforming, with 23
in operation and 5 in design and construction. Half of
these units were conversions of side-by-side reactors and
the other 14 were conversions of units that had already
employed the stack reactor operating in the semiregenera-
tive mode.
KIMBRELL:
We have looked at this option to debottleneck our
reformers, but the conversion costs are about half of a new
CCR, and the yields were not as good as with a new CCR.
We elected not to do it. We felt it was not economical,
especially with the aromatics constraints in gasoline now.
hydrogen production.
There are some disadvantages to the hybrid system in
that, of course, the yields are slightly lower than for a new
low pressure continuous unit. In terms of a delta yield fixed
bed unit — new LP unit — you get about 60% to 70% of
the benefit with the hybrid system. However, it only cost
about one-third of what the new system would cost. I think
you have to look at both yields and economics.
The other advantage of the hybrid system, when you
install the new reactor with the regeneration system down-
stream of the separator, is that because this system is
completely independent from the existing reaction train,
you can install it without shutting down the existing unit.
The tie in takes only about a week. You have no limitation
due to the existing recycle compressor.
LEE E. TURPIN (Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions):
I have done several studies for our clients using our
kinetic model (REF-SIM), and it appears to me that the
yield benefit of putting in a hybrid system is about 60%
to 80% of what can be achieved by going to a CCR, just
due to the pressure reduction on the last reactor. This
variability, of course, depends on how far the last reactor
pressure is being dropped. This does not take into consid-
eration the effect of changing the catalyst in the lead
reactors from a platinum-rhenium to a platinum-tin as
noted by Mr. Johnson.
Question 28.
Are the new generation CCR catalysts significantly
improving aromatics yields?
DiCAMILLO:
There are new generation CCR catalysts available, but
so far they have not demonstrated improvements in aro-
matic yields versus the older catalysts. We do however,
have a catalyst in fixed bed service, PR9, that has given
increased xylene yields.

DiCAMILLO:
I would agree with those comments.

JEAN-LUC NOCCA (HRI, Inc./IFP):

I would like to comment on the hybrid system for
reforming. There are two ways you can implement a
hybrid system, either by adding a reactor in series with the
existing reactors (DUALFORMING), or adding a new
reactor downstream from the separator (DUALFORM-
ING PLUS). In all cases, you put a platinum tin catalyst
in the new reactor linked to a continuous regeneration
system, and you can lower the pressure of the existing

186 Light Oil Catalytic Processing

TOC/INDEX
JOHNSON:
UOP does not expect any difference in the aromatic
production for the platinum tin catalysts like R-32, R-34
and R-132, R-134. These catalysts do, however, show an
improved aromatics yield over the platinum rhenium
catalyst systems.
Question 29.
What is the maximum length of time one can keep
desulfurized naphtha in a tank for processing in cata-
lytic reformer if the bromine index is in the range of
50 to 100?
KIMBRELL:
Even though the bromine index of 50 to 100 is very
low and should not be a problem storing in tankage,
oxygen contamination of the hydrocarbon stored in tank-
age can come from either blanket gas or from leakage
around the seals. Once the oxygen dissolves in the hydro-
carbon and that material is brought back into the reformer,
it can react with more olefinic feeds in the unit and cause
plugging. We have actually done some of that. We have
also stored untreated coker naphtha in tankage for as long
as a month. The tank was blanketed. We would not
necessarily recommend that, but it has been done.
JOHNSON:
The only thing I have to add to that is on test methods.
Stored naphtha can be checked for stability using ASTM
D381, existent gum and motor gasoline and aviation fuels
by the jet evaporation test. A more precise method to
predict future stability is to use ASTM D873, oxidation
stability by potential residue method. This involves run-
ning the naphtha for 4 hours and then evaporating the
stressed fuel by ASTM D381. A residue of less than 5
mg/100 ml will correlate about 85% of the time with a 1
year ambient storage.
DAVIS:
All I can really add is our own experience at CENEX.
CENEX has a cone roof tank that stores reformer charge
for up to a year before we use it. I too suggest looking at
a gum stability test to give an idea of how long you can
store your feedstock.
DiCAMILLO:
Just as a further point of clarification on bromine index
versus bromine number, a bromine number of 1 equals a
bromine index of 1000. So we would agree that an index
of 50 to 100 is very low and it should be stable.
HASSAN A. MAGHAZEL (Saudi Aramco):
We have one sweet naphtha storage tank. Our former
cycle length is 1 year. The sweet naphtha is kept in the tank
for long periods without being used. Our storage tank has
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
a nitrogen blanket system. We do not experience any
problem such as exchanger or reactor fouling when utiliz-
ing this sweet naphtha.
Question 30.
Are there any procedures available for chemical
cleaning the shell side of the feed/effluent exchangers
in catalytic reformers?
SMITH:
Our experience is that the major cause of effluent
exchanger fouling deposition is a sublimation product
from the reactors to the lower temperature effluent ex-
changers. In our case, deposition of these compounds
occurs primarily during high severity operations onto our
stripper reboiler shell which is heated by the reactor efflu-
ent downstream from the other feed/effluent exchangers.
These organic foulants are generally polynuclear aromatics
with many coke like characteristics. As a result, they would
be very difficult to chemically remove.
Additionally, the suspected carcinogen PNA com-
pound “coronene” has been identified as a component of
our deposits. Therefore, all resulting wastes from cleaning
these exchangers has special handling and disposal require-
ments. Given the nature of the deposition, we are forced
to mechanically clean the exchangers which also mini-
mizes the amount of waste that is sent to our Class I
disposal site. At our current lower severity operation, this
type of fouling in our effluent exchangers has not been a
problem.
JOHNSON:
My comments will regard pulling combined feed ex-
changer bundles primarily from our vertical bundles in
CCR service. In this case, the feed is on the tube side. It
is not at all common to pull the combined feed exchanger
bundle unless there is cause. Tube side fouling has been
due to feed contamination typically over use or misuse of
the corrosion inhibitor. Care should be taken when remov-
ing the tube bundles. Damage to tubes has occurred when
the bundle has been laid in the horizontal position.
KOOIMAN:
I have been told that you can use an acid wash with a
dispersant for inorganics or hot oil flush with organic
dispersant for organic deposition. I would probably get
with a reputable chemical vendor if I was confronted with
that.
DiCAMILLO:
Cleaning heat exchangers cannot be avoided in a re-
former. Having said that, there are chemical procedures
available. The feeling seems to be that they do not work
very well. The main problem is that the chemicals will
loosen up the scale but not dissolve it or remove it
187
TOC/INDEX
completely. When the refiner starts the unit back up, that
scale carries over into the first reactor and plugs up the
reactor.
J. B. RODDEY (Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.):
We can remember when bimetallic catalyst first came
out. The big concern was sulfur because we knew those
catalysts were more sensitive than the all platinum catalysts
that we had been working with in earlier years. So a
number of units were acidized including the feed/ effluent
exchange to remove scale rather than pull and clean by
hydroblasting. Mr. DiCamillo’s comments were experi-
enced in many of these units. In other words, the scale
would just simply loosen up and go into the first reactor
and then foul the first reactor’s scallops in the case of a
radial flow or foul the top of a bed in the case of a down
flow.
R.E. (Ed) PALMER (Mustang Engineering, Inc.):
One client we have has vertical combined feed exchang-
ers which have been in service about 25 years. They clean
them about every 3 years after performance falls off to
roughly 60% to 70% of design. I have another client that
has had their units in service about 16 or 17 years. They
have never cleaned them and again these are vertical
combined feed exchangers. It does limit their ability in
terms of charge rate and octane.
Question 31.
During regeneration and after start-up when recycle
gas drier is taken in-line, compressor suction strainer
frequently gets choked. Are there any new types of
strainers available for quick change over?
JOHNSON:
When a semiregenerative reformer starts up after cata-
lyst regeneration, the recycle gas is wet. It is recommended
that the operating severity of the unit be maintained at a
low level until the water concentration in the recycle gas
is sufficiently reduced. This process can take approxi-
mately 5 days to accomplish. The time off-line can be
reduced to about 2 days by incorporating a start-up dryer
in the recycle gas circuit immediately following the catalyst
regeneration.
We do not have any information with regard to new
types of strainers. However, I will point out that if a
strainer is used, a fine mesh strainer should not be used.
UOP would recommend that if a strainer is in the com-
pressor section at all, it would be a course mesh strainer.
The second point is, what is plugging the strainer? If
it is absorbent from the dryer, the dryer will need to be
inspected to identify the cause of migration of the absorb-
ent. If the absorbent actually is leaking from the dryer and
could get into the reactors, this is of some concern. It
188 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
could cause more hydrocracking reactions to occur in the
reactors.
The other possibility is salt accumulation in the
strainer. It could be sodium chloride from the neutralized
products of the regeneration. The separator should also be
checked to see if there is entrainment or carryover.
ARNDT:
I have a dumb answer. We have taken them out, so they
do not plug. In fact, we do not even know if they would
plug.
DiCAMILLO:
I will take the opposite approach. An obvious observa-
tion here is that if your strainer is plugging, add a parallel
strainer and you can switch back and forth and solve the
problem that way.
Question 32.
Has anyone experienced shots of sulfur containing
feedstock to their CRU? What are the relative econom-
ics of regeneration of the catalyst, hot hydrogen strip,
or allowing the sulfur to be stripped off during opera-
tion? What procedures are used in operation of a CRU
system contaminated with sulfur?
HUNKUS:
We have experienced large and small shots of sulfur into
our reformer on initial start-up after regeneration, and
with the naphtha hydrotreater stripper upsets during
power outages. We have also suffered sulfur breakthrough
with the loss of hydrogen makeup and purity in the
hydrogen generation unit. We have even mistakenly
charged sour feed into our reformer for about 10 hours
while trying to run sweet feed for a quick naphtha hydro-
treater exchanger cleaning.
If you see the problem very quickly or are lucky as we
were and have or get your reactor temperatures down low
enough, about 890°F to 900°F, you will see almost no
effect on unit performance. The sulfur will strip off sur-
prisingly quick. If you hit the unit so hard it will not
generate hydrogen, then you are regenerating. Talk to your
licensor; UOP has always been very helpful for us. We have
seen as much as a 70% decline in off gas and delta Ts have
dropped about the same amount. We experienced a near
total recovery in about 31⁄2 days. That is with our current
cycle on R62 which is a year next week with about a 5°
loss in start-of-run (SOR) temperatures.
The basic procedure is to strip sulfur off by cutting
reactor temperatures to 890° to 900° F, keep charge rates
and pressures as high as possible, gas as much hydrogen as
possible and watch the H2S in the off gas and in the
reformate. I have seen more than 20 ppm in recycle gas
with no detectable long term damage to the cycle perform-
ance. If your operators leave the temperatures up and coat
TOC/INDEX
over the platinum with carbon, the hot hydrogen strip may
buy you a week or so to get ready, but you are still going
to have to regenerate.
KIMBRELL:
Yes, I agree with most of those comments. We will also
say that the condition that the catalyst was in to begin
with, before you have this sulfur upset, will also determine
how well a catalyst comes back. So if you are near a start
of run to begin with, it has a better chance of recovering.
If you are near the end of run, it probably will not recover.
We continue to feed the unit to try to purge the sulfur
out of the system, similar to what Mr. Hunkus does. We
have also installed sulfur guard beds prior to the first
heater in our recycle loop, and that helps us recover from
a sulfur upset.
LEMMON:
We also occasionally have the unexpected pleasure of
finding sulfur in the reformer feed. Our procedures are
similar to what has been said before. The most important
thing is to cut temperatures as quickly as possible. We do
operate all three types of reformers. They each respond a
little bit differently. The CCR reformer, with its high
hydrogen yield, seems to recover the quickest and is least
sensitive to sulfur. In the past we have just cut 10° or 20°
and ridden it out. We do maintain charge rate at a high
rate to purge sulfur more quickly. In a CCR reformer you
will form some sulfates in the regeneration step, so it may
take several cycles to get all of the H2S out of the system.
For the swing reactors in our Powerformers, they do the
same thing, cut temperature. They may delay regeneration
to allow more of the sulfur to strip off. Our semiregenera-
tion units are operated similar to what the other panelists
have said.
ARNDT:
We keep the unit on stream to strip out the sulfur
before regeneration. On a few occasions, we have com-
missioned the recycle dryer to help remove sulfur from
the system-worked well. So if you have a dryer consider
using it to remove sulfur.
DiCAMILLO:
The type of catalyst you have in the unit and the
magnitude of the sulfur excursion will have some influence
on what you decide to do. A preferred order of corrective
action would be to continue with the clean feed and take
the octane drop if you can tolerate it. You could perhaps
increase your chloride injection to compensate. The next
thing we would try would be a hot hydrogen sweep. A last
resort would be a regeneration. I would like to reiterate
what Mr. Lemmon says. In the case of a sulfur excursion,
you might need to add an extra sulfate removal step during
regeneration, so that would extend the regeneration time.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
JAMES W. JONES (Turner Mason & Company):
Is there any reformer operator or process licensor that
has an operating procedure that when you lose your recycle
compressor does not call for the immediate pulling of the
feed along with shutting down the heaters?
HIGGINS:
No response.
KHALID AL-REHAILI (Saudi Aramco):
My question is for Mr. Johnson from UOP. The semire-
generative reformer units using UOP catalysts have
changed to staged catalysts. What is the driving force for
this change? Is it yield improvement or higher octane
requirements?
ANGELO FURFARO (UOP):
Refiners have been changing to UOP’s R-72/R-56
staged loading system for its high C5 plus yield perform-
ance, as well as its long catalyst cycles. The staged loading
system is an optimal combination of UOP’s high yield
R-72 catalyst, with the excellent stability of our skewed
platinum/rhenium R-56 Platforming catalyst. For more
information contact your UOP Customer Sales or Service
Representative.
D. Aromatics Extraction
Question 33.
What new solvents are available for improving aro-
matics extraction? What improvements are they sup-
posed to provide, and has operating experience
verified these improvements?
DiCAMILLO:
A solvent I am familiar with is NMP. Its advantages are
it is non-flammable, it improves separation, and it has a
better temperature tolerance. I understand there may be
some co-solvent systems on the market, but I do not have
189
TOC/INDEX
any feedback on them. I am sure this is an appropriate
vendor question and we will get some floor response on
this.
JOHNSON:
UOP offers Carom as an upgrade alternative for the
Udex and Tetra operations. The main benefits being ca-
pacity, purity and reduced utilities. For a new unit, we
would expect a 15% capital cost savings for Carom versus
Sulfolane. To date, all operating units have been revamps,
however, the first new Carom unit is expected to start up
next spring.
Question 34.
In aromatics extraction using sulfolane, how are you
handling the degradation products?
HUNKUS:
In general, we believe you should first focus on the best
operation of your process to minimize production of the
degradation products. We have seen very little of the
degradation products that were initially predicted from
our regeneration unit. We generate less than 100 gallons
per year of this material, which we dispose of as hazardous
waste.
What we have seen is a very fine black particulate which
we filter out of the Sulfolane stream and also from the
aromatic stream. These particles are indicative of corrosion
which has occurred at the flash region of our reboilers on
the extract stripper and the recovery column. This corro-
sion is not evident anywhere else in the unit.
We process raw virgin naphtha with its inherent higher
levels of contaminants which is considered unusual and
difficult by the licensor. We also operate in the tempera-
ture range conducive to the formation of degradation
products, but we believe we also run a tight unit, prevent-
ing the introduction of oxygen to the system. We do feed
our extraction unit directly from an upstream crude unit
as opposed to having an intermediate feed tank. This will
definitely reduce the potential for oxygen addition to the
system. We currently do not add any oxygen scavenger.
JOHNSON:
In our designs, we are handling the degradation prod-
ucts in sulfolane by removing heavy components via dis-
tillation in the solvent regenerator. We add MEA to the
unit to neutralize acids that are formed. We provide filtra-
tion in the designs on the lean solvent circuit to remove
some of the solvent formed by the degradation of the
solvent and the solids created by the corrosion of equip-
ment. We have upgraded the metallurgy of the hottest
surface exposed to the solvent in the recovery column
reboiler to reduce the corrosion there. Every 4 to 6
months, the regenerator must be emptied and the material
discarded as waste.
190 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
FEARNSIDE:
I agree with what both Mr. Hunkus and Mr. Johnson
have said. We usually recommend that you mitigate any
oxygen ingression. If you cannot find it straight away, we
recommend using oxygen scavengers until the problem
can be found and corrected. Another thing that a lot of
people tend to forget is the thermal degradation products
if the fractionator reboiler skin temperatures get too hot.
KENNETH G. TASKER (HRI, Inc.):
I can endorse everything the panel has said. Tempera-
ture and oxygen are the main ingredients in forming the
degradation products. Keeping the oxygen out is the
number one consideration, along with keeping the tem-
perature within a limitation of about 180°C to 185°C. We
have one unit that has gone a complete year with no
degradation product at all. We also have on-line regenera-
tion and on-line removal of degradation products. For
those not so tight units, we have seen a rejection rate of
up to about a barrel a month. On naphtha cracking
complexes, the degradation product is generally disposed
of with the C9+ aromatic stream into the fuel oil. So that
is a nice easy disposal. The alternative is, as reported, to
get rid of it as a hazardous waste. Generally speaking, we
are not talking significant quantities.
BILL MENHEERE (Nova Chemicals (Canada) Ltd.):
In a Tetra unit, is anyone using a non-silicon based
antifoam with success?
HIGGINS:
No response from the panel.
E. Polymerization
Question 35.
We have recently lost the only vendor who treated our
spent Dimersol catalyst. Does anyone have any sug-
gestions for disposal. If in-house neutralization is
done, what is done with the alumina sol, and how is
it handled once formed? Any advice from the catalyst
companies on handling?
KOOIMAN:
We have a polymerization plant at Pine Bend and
another one in Corpus Christi. Any sludge that is left in
the vessel we will take out during turnaround as hazardous
waste. We found there is not a lot of information in the
industry on polymerization plants. I would appreciate any
contacts in the industry.
PATRICK HOH (HRI, Inc.):
There is a company in Louisiana that has routinely
taken the Dimersol spent catalyst for disposal. If the
TOC/INDEX
Dimersol licensee has a wet gas scrubber in the FCCU,
HRI suggests that this spent catalyst can be routed there
for disposal. If Dimersol catalyst is treated by neutraliza-
tion and filtration steps, the filtrate can be put to the
refinery waste effluent stream. The filter cake can either
be sent to the landfill or to the hazardous disposal site
depends on local government restrictions.
F. Isomerization
Question 36.
What has been the industry experience with UOP’s
I-12 isomerization catalyst? How has it affected sulfur
tolerance, run length, activity, etc.?
JOHNSON:
UOP has loaded four units with the I-12 catalyst. All
four units have operated well. One of the four units has
done a sulfur strip operation and the catalyst has recov-
ered. Catalyst activity and stability is similar to I-8. At this
point in time, all of the units loaded are still in their first
catalyst cycle.
LEMMON:
One of the four units Mr. Johnson is referring to is
located at our Bayway Refinery. UOP I-12 catalyst was
loaded into both the Bayway units’ butamer reactors.
Following start-up, they did observe some rapid catalyst
deactivation, or what appeared to be deactivation, in the
first reactor. The suspected causes of the deterioration were
oxygenates breaking through the molecular sieve beds or
possibly reactor flow maldistribution. No unusual catalyst
deterioration was noticed in the second reactor after it was
brought on-line. Sulfur in the reactor feed has always been
maintained at levels below 0.5 ppm.
Question 37.
What reliability problems are refiners having with
their isomerization unit (i.e. corrosion, leaking cool-
ers, etc.)? Have these problems been identified, and
what solutions have been developed for them?
FEARNSIDE:
The biggest problem that we have run across is related
to the feed dryers during the regeneration phase as the
chlorides come off the molecular sieves, especially during
the initial heat up and dry off of water with the chlorides.
The downstream piping, exchangers, and associated
equipment has been corroding quite rapidly.
What we have recommended that people do is inject a
dilution steam or install a dilution steam line downstream
of the feed dryers, and at the same time inject an appro-
priate neutralizer into that steam to handle the chloride
load that initially comes off.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
ARNDT:
The main problems have been with chloride migration
to downstream equipment, usually because we have not
done a good job scrubbing. This occurs because we have
not paid attention to, or in a couple of occasions have
shortcut UOP’s design and screwed up the design on our
own.
Another problem area is electric heater reliability. We
have knocked them out due to moisture ingress. Nitrogen
purging of the energized components has gotten us out
of that.
BARKER:
One of our isomerization units has very few mechanical
problems, but large corrosion problems associated with
our net gas scrubber. It is a Venturi scrubber and has never
performed to design. The heaviest corrosion that we find
is on the welds in the heat affected zones and we are still
battling that issue.
On a second isomerization unit, corrosion issues are
extremely minor, but we have had numerous mechanical
reliability issues. Initially, our automatic on-off gate valves
were very unreliable. The issue turned out to be low air
pressure to the solenoid valves used to activate the pistons.
We initially were operating with this air supply pressure at
100 to 110 pounds and increased the reliability of the
valves quite a bit by merely increasing the air pressure up
to 115 pounds.
A second major problem we have is with our recycle
hydrogen compressor mechanical seals which have very
short life spans. They lasted only 4 to 6 months after initial
start-up. Seals have been modified and now have a longer
life, but different compressor problems. Currently, the
compressor loses 1 to 2 drums of seal oil a day to the seal
pots.
A third problem was with our original feed dryer which
had numerous level switch failures and poor dryer water
removal efficiency. A new, larger capacity feed dryer was
installed and the current operation is satisfactory.
And last, power disturbances have shut down our ID
fans quite a few times. This triggers an entire unit shut-
down. We are currently tackling shutdown logic to modify
the latter logic and resolve this issue.
HUNKUS:
Since we operate a “baby” TIP isomerization unit, we
do not have the corrosion and other problems associated
with a PENEX unit, but we also do not get the higher
octane or lower operating costs. We have had very few
problems with our isomerization unit, as is my under-
standing of the general industry practice. Our isomeriza-
tion unit typically runs too much heavy feed and
produces a lot of cracked material from C7 feedstock
components, sometimes C7+. We have also had problems
with our cycle sequencer, but this was just a control
191
TOC/INDEX
instrument application problem. The problems are mini-
mized greatly by not skimping on the switching valves.
High quality valves more than pay for themselves with
reduced maintenance and better on stream factors.
I know of a refiner that lined the PENEX off gas
scrubber with KYNAR. This plastic-like liner eliminated
corrosion problems there as long as the liner was kept
intact. Mechanically introduced holidays or inadvertent
steaming reduced the effectiveness of this system.
We have had to regenerate on somewhat reduced cycles,
mainly due to heavier feedstock introduction, but the
main problems have been mechanical in nature. We have
also had chronic problems with sticking remote operated
valves which we solved with automatic oilers in the pack-
ing and improved instrument air quality with nitrogen
provided as a backup. We also push our cooling ability very
hard for a phosphate treatment program during the sum-
mer which runs well beyond typical temperature/cycle
ranges. Bypassing the hottest coolers and using extra dis-
persant also helped.
KOOIMAN:
We had some problems with the steam reboiler on the
stabilizer, but I think that was due to the steam side
problems.
Our isomerization unit was charged with a stream that
was unhydrotreated, so we had rapid activity loss as sulfur
accumulated. We were able to make it operable by running
only streams from sweet crudes. When those streams were
not available, we would circulate hydrogen which re-
moved some sulfur and partially reactivated the catalyst.
Question 38.
When molecular sieves are used in butane isomeriza-
tion feed dryer service, what sieve life has been
achieved in terms of number of cycles and bbl/lb?
What has been the performance with respect to sulfur
removal? Has anyone operated with a sulfur analyzer
at the dryer outlet? What chloride levels can be toler-
ated in the butane feed to the dryers? What streams
are used for regeneration, and what are the regenera-
tion conditions?
LEMMON:
We have recently installed molecular sieves in butane
isomerization service. They have been operating for a
period of 7 months and to date have shown no signs of
deterioration. The regeneration cycle is every other day.
Sulfur levels after the molecular sieves have remained
below 0.5 ppm. We have successfully operated an on-line
sulfur analyzer for the entire time. Isomerate from the
stabilizer bottoms is used for molecular sieve regeneration.
I do not have any information on chlorine levels.
192 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
ARNDT:
This is a tricky question because there are five parts. So
I am going to march through them one at a time. We have
3 Butamers in the U.S. We have seen molecular sieve life
as high as 300 to 400 cycles and as low as 100 to 150 cycles.
It is all a function of what the contaminate levels, especially
chlorides or fluorides (fluorides from HF alkylation bu-
tanes). Chlorides attack the molecular sieve. One pound
of chlorides will kill five pounds of sieve.
Regarding running with sulfur, we have run units for
extended periods of time with 2 ppm to 3 ppm sulfur and
suffered no ill consequences. We do not have sulfur ana-
lyzers on our units.
Finally, we use either dried makeup hydrogen or dried
feed for regeneration. We usually hold the regeneration for
2 to 4 hours at 550°F to 575°F.
DAVIS:
CENEX draws a normal butane rich side cut stream
from the main fractionator in the HF alkylation unit. The
side cut is defluorinated and then dried with molecular
sieve before charging it to the butane isomerization unit
which is a UOP butamer unit.
Typical performance is 150 cycles per load, lasting
about 1500 bbl/lb. Since the stream is drawn from the
alkylation unit, CENEX is concerned about fluoride
breakthrough rather than the potential for sulfur and
chlorides. Regeneration conditions are total time of one
day, 18 hours is a hot regeneration at 500°F, 6 hours of
cold cool down at 110°F. The regenerate is a slip stream
of the isom bottoms product.
GENTRY:
We are familiar with a butane isomerization unit, in
operation almost 4 years, with 650 to 660 cycles having
been achieved over 46 months. This corresponds to 7.7
bbl of feed per pound of molecular sieves. Although the
unit was specified for a 20 ppmw feed sulfur level, in
actual operation sulfur in the feed was nil. There is no
sulfur analyzer at the dryer outlet. The maximum chlo-
ride level allowed is 1 ppmw as hydrogen chloride. Dried
C4 feed is used to regenerate the molecular sieve in this
unit, although Kellogg has used an isobutane stream in
other units. The regeneration stream conditions in this
unit are 315°C and 1000 kPa. The regeneration stream is
composed of 1 wt% C3- and 1 wt% C5. Isobutane varies
from 20 wt% to 40 wt% and the balance is normal
butane.
Question 39.
Has anyone experienced catalyst poisoning of Bu-
tamer or Penex Units due to CO or CO2? What was the
feed source? How was the problem solved?
TOC/INDEX
BARKER:
Our Penex Plus unit experienced carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide poisoning in the feed on initial start-up.
The suspected sources are the fuel gas connection to the
towers that feed the unit and the unit feed tank itself,
which was built with a fuel gas blanket. We replaced the
feed gas blanketing with nitrogen and then constructed
direct feed lines to the unit and have had no other con-
tamination issues since then.
DAVIS:
CENEX has not experienced CO or CO2 poisoning to
the best of its knowledge, but has considered the follow-
ing. If steam methane reforming hydrogen were used for
the butamer unit, the possibility exists that minute quan-
tities of CO2 could get to the catalyst. We typically use
catalytic reformer hydrogen, so this was not a real concern.
But, on occasion, we have switched to steam methane
reforming hydrogen for short, say about a 1 week period
of time with no noticeable adverse effect.
ARNDT:
We have a different experience. We see CO in our CCR
hydrogen anywhere from 4 ppm to 10 ppm and that
obviously distresses our isomerization plant. Our current
fix is to dilute the CCR hydrogen with manufactured
hydrogen, knowing that our methanator in our hydrogen
plant is in good condition. I am not sure how we are going
to get out of this box as our methanator ages. I assume
UOP is going to help us here.
JOHNSON:
There have been several incidents of CO/CO2 poison-
ing. The source of the contaminant can be from cyclic
reformers and as Mr. Arndt mentioned also CCR platform-
ers. We have observed that high water levels in the catalytic
reformer will generate a high CO content in the hydrogen.
One of the things that we found on a particular unit was
that the air dryers for the CCR regenerator were not
working properly. When new dryers were installed with
proper sieve and proper operating procedures, the moisture
in the recycle gas went down as did the CO content. As
Ms. Barker mentioned, there have also been various con-
tamination scenarios from upstream tankage and fractiona-
tion trains, again traced to contaminated gas blanketing
systems. One of the things that we have found is the use of
natural gas blanketing for upstream units and tanks. The
natural gas contains CO2 which will dissolve into the liquid
feeds providing the route for CO2 into the unit.
KIMBRELL:
I agree. We actually delayed the start-up of our Penex
Plus unit this year for that very reason. We found CO2 in
the liquid hydrocarbon that we believe got into there from
natural gas blanketing, both the feed surge drum and the
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
feed tank. We found up to 3% CO2 in the natural gas. We
also found CO2 in the wash water for the naphtha hydro-
treater that is upstream of that unit, and we found CO
and CO2 in our makeup hydrogen. We did change to
nitrogen to blanket the surge drum and the feed surge
tank, and that eliminated that problem. We changed to a
different source of water to get rid of the CO2 problem
from the water wash. One of our hydrogen plants is a PSA
unit, and we were able to get that tuned to get the CO and
CO2 down to recommended levels. The other hydrogen
plant had a leak in the methanator feed effluent exchanger,
allowing carbon oxides to sneak by the methanator. So we
fixed that and the problem went away.
We developed and patented a novel solution to this
problem that allows some CO and CO2 in the feed
without damaging the catalysts.
RICHARD M. NASH (Shell Oil Products Company):
I agree with Mr. Johnson’s comments. In fact, he may
have been referring to one of our butamer units. We have
a cyclic reformer and complete a regeneration about every
24 hours. What we have noted is that the hydrogen
produced from the reformer has 40 ppm to 80 ppm of CO
immediately after reactor switch and that decays over the
next 24 hours, rapidly, but down to a minimum of 5 ppm
to 10 ppm. We think the CO is being formed from using
the combination of make hydrogen for reduction and
having no dryer on the regeneration system. Therefore, we
have fairly high moisture. Right now we do not have a
solution. We are living with the problem and the rate at
which we are poisoning the butamer catalyst.
KEITH BUERCKLIN (Marathon Oil Company):
Has anyone experienced oxygenates in their Penex feed,
and if so, what kind of problems are you seeing as a result
of that and how have you addressed them? What have you
done to get rid of the oxygenates?
ARNDT:
We have seen oxygenates in our Penex feed when we
ran off some off test gasoline back to the crude unit. We
got out of that box by hydrotreating the Penex feed.
G. Etherification
Question 40.
What is the status of producing TAME, ETBE or TABE
commercially?
GENTRY:
None of the alternative ethers have reached the level of
commercial acceptance that MTBE has to date. The vol-
ume of MTBE produced either on refinery units associated
193
TOC/INDEX
with FCCUs or on large merchant scale dehydrogenation
units overwhelms the total volume of the other ethers.
TAME has reached moderate commercial acceptance
with refiners having installed units on FCC pentenes, but
the economics are somewhat marginal compared to alky-
lation of isoamylenes. TAME units are more expensive
than MTBE units, because conversion rates are lower and
prefractionation of the C5 feed is somewhat more expen-
sive than that of C4 feeds.
ETBE has been produced commercially in a few units
which were converted from MTBE production. Most of
those units are back in MTBE service due to the recent
higher price of ethanol and due to the option for direct
ethanol blending into gasoline. Generally, extra equip-
ment is required to dewater the ethanol fresh feed or
recycle ethanol feed as compared to methanol feed in
MTBE units.
Several MTBE licensors offer design options for ETBE
production as an alternate if desired. We are not aware of
the commercial production of TABE as oxygenates for fuel
blending.
ARNDT:
We have two 25,000 bbl/d TAME plants running on
the West Coast. They both employ a catalytic distillation
process and both have selective hydrogenation of the feed.
They started up about a year ago. Besides the value of
producing oxygenates and keeping us in isobutane bal-
ance, we get the added benefit of:
194 Light Oil Catalytic Processing
lower light olefin content in mogas
lower mogas RVP.
All this is good in the world of CARB gasoline.
JACKSON:
We have an ether unit which is a TAME unit, CD Tech
design, in one of our European refineries. It is currently
on turn down; the economics are not good due to the high
methanol prices and the fact that the refinery where we
have this plant has excellent available gasoline octane from
the reformers.
JEAN-LUC NOCCA (HRI, Inc./lFP):
We have, six TAME units running. One of them has
been operating in the TAEE mode for quite a while, and
we have 3 ETBE units running at the moment. The ETBE
plants are running in Europe, because there is a large tax
incentive on ethanol.
DAVID J. MILLER (ARCO Chemical Company):
I generally agree with the comments on ETBE. We
could immediately produce 30,000 bbl/d of ETBE on our
largest MTBE unit if the economics were there. We have
commercially produced ETBE on a tolling arrangement
to show that the product was viable and sent samples to
most major oil companies for testing. But as long as the
price of ethanol in this country is so much higher than
methanol, it is not economical.
TOC/INDEX
V. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
A. Sulfur Recovery
Amine Plants
Question 1.
Has anyone experienced problems with high CO2 ab-
sorption in MDEA systems? Has this resulted in in-
creased corrosion due to increased rich and lean gas
CO2 loadings?
JOHNSON:
MDEA preferentially absorbs H2S and slips CO2.
Since most refinery streams treated with MDEA contain
both gases, it is suspected that the higher corrosion en-
countered might be attributed to total acid overloading
and not specifically to high CO2 absorption. Absorbed
CO2 may be released or flashed off more readily in certain
situations, depending on temperature, etc., leading to
localized corrosion.
KIMBRELL:
We use MDEA in the absorber of our tail gas unit for
our sulfur recovery plant. Due to problems, we were
building a liquid level in the absorber higher than normal
on each of the trays. When that occurred, the CO2 absorp-
tion of the MDEA went up quite a bit. The solution was
corrosive, but it was corrosive before we had that problem
occur. I am not sure that the CO2 concentration contrib-
uted to the corrosion, but I am sure it did not help
anything.
HUNKUS:
We are not aware of any corrosion problems that could
be attributed primarily or significantly to high CO2 ab-
sorption. CO2 absorption is mass transfer controlled.
Increasing CO2 absorption requires higher circulation
rates, which in turn, results in lower loadings. We have
used both DEA and MDEA type high capacity amines,
but find the strongest correlation for corrosion with
strength.
Most corrosion in amine systems occurs in the con-
denser, the bottom of the stripper, the reboiler, and the hot
lean line before the exchanger. In some cases, it occurs in
the hot rich line, especially just after a reduction in pres-
sure. Most of these areas have very little relationship to the
rich loading or to the degree of CO2 absorption.
Furthermore, the condenser has no relation to the
amine loadings at all since the amine is not present in this
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
area. The lean loading does have an impact on corrosion
in most all the areas mentioned above. Under stripping
will result in a high lean loading which will cause corro-
sion. However, the lean loading can be controlled with
adequate stripping steam, avoiding corrosion. If stripping
steam is adequate and the lean loading is low and corrosion
still occurs, the cause is likely a contaminate such as heat
stable salts.
FEARNSIDE:
We have run into this situation quite often, and what
it comes down to is the rich amine acid gas loading,
specifically the H2S loading, exceeding 0.6 mole per mole.
What happens is that the H2S is selectively absorbed much
faster than the CO2. So if you have a high H2S loading,
the CO2 can be selectively desorbed in the bottom of the
absorber tower. You set up reflux of CO2 and can generate
substantial concentrations of CO2. The corrosion that
results is from the carbonic acid that is formed in that local
area. The solution to this problem is lowering the total
acid gas loading in the rich amine. That is usually accom-
plished one of two ways, or both ways. These are increasing
the solution strength or picking up the circulation rate, if
possible, or doing both of those.
ROBERT HLOZEK (Union Carbide Corporation):
Basically, we concur with what the panelists have said.
While MDEA based solvents are more selective for absorp-
tion of H2S in the presence of CO2 than generic amines,
higher than desired CO2 absorption can occur. This is
usually a result of changing acid gas composition, too
many stages of contact in the absorber, or not following
the suppliers’ recommendations on solvent chemistry.
Usually higher than design CO2 absorption negatively
impacts the H2S absorption.
On the second part of the question, higher than design
CO2 absorption usually does not result in corrosion of
process equipment, although both rich and lean CO2
loadings may have increased. Other factors that cause
corrosion, e.g., heat stable salts, two phase flow, cavitation,
etc., are much more important potential causes of corro-
sion than increased CO2 absorption.
CHARLES L. MORGAN (LaGloria Oil & Gas Company):
I would like to share an experience we had recently. We
have a UOP catalytic cracker that has a dome air grid in
it and a catalyst standpipe that runs down through the air
inlet. We started experiencing high rates of heat stable salts
195
TOC/INDEX
build up and associated corrosion. We used anti-oxidation
chemicals with not a lot of success. As time went on, we
started realizing that we were actually passing some CO2
into the sulfur recovery unit. With some investigation and
being forced to continue to operate, we found that the
standpipe had a leak from the air dome section into the
reactor causing much higher rates of CO and CO2 going
into the absorber. The solution to that was to shut down
and repair the air grid, and we did that.
After we came back up, with very little flushing the
corrosion was minimal. The oxygen absorbing chemicals
we were using started performing very well, and the whole
system returned to normal. I wanted to share that because
it is an unusual case of what can happen.
V. A. CITARELLA (Exxon Research and Engineering Company):
High acid absorption, CO2 and H2S, in any amine
solution increases its corrosivity at any given temperature,
because it makes it more acidic (i.e., lowers the pH).
MDEA is a relatively weak base compared to other amines,
particularly FLEXSORB®SE. Therefore, high CO2 ab-
sorption in MDEA results in lower pH and higher cor-
rosivity. FLEXSORB®SE, a sterically hindered amine
proprietary to Exxon Research and Engineering Com-
pany, can accommodate high CO2 loadings while main-
taining high solution pH (greater than 10.5) and low
corrosion rates of carbon steel.
Question 2.
It appears that environmental regulations will limit
the emissions of H2S from amine surge tanks. What
options are available to reduce these emissions?
DAVIS:
CENEX is not aware of a regulation specifically reduc-
ing H2S emissions from amine surge tanks. However, all
3 amine surge tanks at our refinery have nitrogen blankets
on them operating at 5 in. of water column. The tanks
have a combination relief valve vacuum breaker in which
the relief valve vents to atmosphere. While this certainly
reduces some H2S evolution to the atmosphere, the main
reason for the system is to minimize oxygen incursion into
the amine.
GENTRY:
Emissions from amine surge tanks can be sent to the
sulfur plant incinerator or be treated by a suitable H2S
scavenger before being released to the atmosphere. Scav-
engers are preferred since the incinerator option replaces
an H2S emission with an SO2 emission. In some cases, a
motive force (steam ejector or fan) is required to move the
gas to the incinerator inlet. The H2S scavengers may be
solid beds containing metal oxides of zinc or iron that are
converted to metal sulfide, but usually scavenging by
liquid treating is more economical. A small circulating
196 Energy and Environmental Management
caustic scrubbing system can remove the H2S to less than
1 ppm. The makeup and spent caustic requirements are
usually so small that they do not impact the overall refinery
caustic system.
Question 3.
Discuss amine selectivity for absorption of COS, mer-
captan and other organic sulfur compounds. What
fraction of these compounds were removed? Does this
create a problem for the Claus unit?
JOHNSON:
Both COS and mercaptans can be removed with amine
solutions, but both compounds are readily displaced by
stronger acids such as H2S and CO2. Also, COS is hydro-
lyzed to CO2 and H2S. Essentially, all mercaptans pass
through the absorber when acid gases are present which is
usual in refinery situations. Typically, about 75% or more
of the COS present is converted to H2S and CO2 which
are stripped out when the amine is regenerated. Any
non-acidic sulfur compounds present in the hydrocarbon
being treated are not removed by amine treating. Hence,
they would not affect the Claus unit.
SMITH:
The selectivity of DGA for absorption of COS and
other organic compounds is high, around 90%. H2S
absorption is around 66%, and mercaptans are consider-
ably lower, around 10%. It does not cause any major
concern to us in our Claus units.
BARKER:
A 1990 study found that our MEA contactor removed
55% to 70% of the carbonyl sulfide from the feed gas.
The feed gas concentration was about 100 ppmv during
the test. Mercaptan removal ranged from 30% to 80%
for feed gas concentrations of mercaptans ranging from
400 ppmv to 1300 ppmv. We have no data on carbon
disulfide.
In a 1993 study, our sulfur plant Claus plants removed
92% of the carbonyl sulfide and 37% of the carbon
disulfide in the first catalytic bed with a relatively low
catalyst outlet temperature of 562°F. This level of organic
sulfur compounds does not appear to create a problem for
our Claus plant.
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
Another means for removal of residual COS, particu-
larly from LPG streams, is using MEA/caustic solutions
which will result in less than 1 ppm COS weight in the
treated LPG. The MEA catalyzes the hydrolysis of car-
bonyl sulfide into hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide
which are subsequently absorbed into the caustic phase.
TOC/INDEX
MARK O. WIMBERLY (Union Carbide Corporation):
It has been our experience that an amine which will
readily absorb CO2, such as MEA and DEA, will also
absorb large amounts of COS. We have seen absorption
in the range of anywhere from 65% to 85% of the incom-
ing COS. However, an amine which will slip CO2, such
as MDEA, will also slip COS. We have seen anywhere
from 20% to 40% of the COS being absorbed in the
incoming stream. However, we do have a formulated
UCARSOL® Solvent that also slips CO2 and will absorb
COS in the range of 65% to 75% of the incoming COS.
Generally speaking, the organic mercaptans and other
organic sulfur compounds are not completely removed
under typical refinery conditions. The organic sulfur which
is removed does not create a problem for the Claus unit.
Question 4.
There are new technologies for removal of hydrocar-
bons dissolved in amine solutions. This should pro-
vide a better feed to sulfur plants. What are the
refineries doing to exploit this technology?
DiCAMILLO:
My contacts were not aware of any new technologies
for removing hydrocarbons. However, there are some
standard design things that can be done to improve an
amine operation. The units they were familiar with all had
activated carbon beds to remove the heavy hydrocarbons,
foam causing agents. You can also use a water prewash of
the acid gas and have skimming ability available for the
upper hydrocarbon layers in the rich amine vessel.
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
Merichem’s AMINEXSM system with a FIBER-
FILMTM contactor results in minimal hydrocarbon car-
ryunder above solubility in the amine phase, and is unlike
trayed or packed columns which can result in excessive
hydrocarbon carryunder and subsequent hydrocarbon
losses from the rich amine surge drum in the amine
regeneration unit.
RICK W. BIRNBAUM (Union Carbide Corporation):
Relatively little work has been done to measure the
solubility of hydrocarbons in amines. Research has shown
that methane and ethane are more soluble in higher
molecular weight amines than they are in lower molecular
weight amines. Methane, for example, is roughly 20%
more soluble in a 35 wt% solution of MDEA than it is in
an 18 wt% solution of MEA.
In any event, however, the solubility of methane in
MDEA solutions is small and does not exceed 40 scf/1000
gal of solution, when the solution is contacted with gas at
a pressure of 150 psi. For design purposes, a rich solution
flash drum operated at low pressures adequately degasses
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
rich amine solutions and allows both dissolved and en-
trained hydrocarbons to separate out of the amine solution.
At Union Carbide, we have been focusing on the flip
side of the problem and that is, how can the solubility of
amines in hydrocarbons be reduced to cut the annual
consumption of MDEA based solvents in the refinery?
This work has been successful and we have introduced
three new UCARSOL® solvents into the market place
that are less soluble in cracked LPG than MDEA based
solvents alone.
Question 5.
Is anyone subcooling the regenerator acid gas to the
Claus plant to reduce water content? Are any refiners
using pumparound cooling to accomplish this?
JACKSON:
At BP, we have Claus plants at all of our refineries. The
last one will be going in the end of 1997. We do not
remove water from the amine regenerator gas over and
above normal cooling water or air type cooling. Typically,
the temperature of the amine gas is around 105°F (40°C),
which equates to around 4 mol% water at a 10 psig to 12
psig (0.8 barg) pressure. We do not see the need to remove
more water as this might affect the sulfur production
equilibria detrimentally.
The sour water stripper offgas to the Claus unit is
hotter, around 185°F to 195°F (85°C to 90°C) and has
more water in it. The option to reduce this water content
might result in salting out at around 185°F (85°C).
DiCAMILLO:
From a more practical standpoint, removing the water
from the regenerator acid gas is probably not justifiable,
because it is only a small portion of the total water content
in the Claus plant.
MO VADEKAR (CHEM TECH Consulting):
I recall an incident several years ago, on a warm
summer day at an amine treating unit in FCC (reactor
offgas) service. An unexpected blockage developed at a
metering station in the sour gas line on its way to the sulfur
plant, where gas temperature was approximately 65°F to
70°F at about 15 psi to 20 psi pressure. We did not know
why there should be any obstruction in the line, but after
some investigation it appeared that the plug may have
been due to hydrate formation, hence we turned on a low
pressure steam hose at the meter. As the meter warmed up,
the blockage soon disappeared indicating that there might
indeed have been hydrate formation at the orifice meter.
This was a curious observation, since both H2S and
CO2 are individually known to form hydrates at fairly
high, but lower than the above, temperatures. Not much
was known about the behavior of mixed gases at the time.
This observation suggested that when both gases were
197
TOC/INDEX
present at fairly high relative levels (H2S-to-CO2 ratio in
the sour gas at 2 to 2.5) hydrates were formed at the
observed temperatures.
Question 6.
What is the typical amine carryover in LPG counter-
current extraction towers? How are carryover prob-
lems addressed?
FEARNSIDE:
With good operations, the amine carryover should be
close to what the solubility limits are for whatever particu-
lar amine is in use. To give you some examples, at 77°F
and 300 psi in 50% MDEA, the solubility is around 310
ppm. For 30% DEA, it is 120 ppm, and 15% MEA, 260
ppm. If you are much above those numbers, you either
have mechanical problems or process related problems. By
process related problems I mean, you are not allowing
enough residence time for the amine to settle properly.
DAVIS:
I will relate an experience that CENEX had when they
switched from DEA to MDEA, which seemed to indicate
there was a higher solubility for the tertiary amine.
CENEX, along with the amine vendor, reduced the
amine carryover by lowering the interface to allow for 5
min of separation time and reduced the MDEA solution
from 35 wt% to 20 wt%.
Other considerations when trying to reduce a carryover
problem include proper amine distribution, good amine
solution filtration, and a properly sized contactor and
coalescer downstream of the contactor.
JOHNSON:
Amine consumption in liquid absorbers may be in the
range of 0.02 lb to 0.03 lb of amine per barrel. This is a
typical figure including both soluble and physical losses.
Excessive physical amine carryover in LPG systems may be
the result of exceeding the unit hydraulic design or foam-
ing. Foaming is usually the result of contamination and/or
the buildup of heat stable salts, decomposition products
and suspended solids. Proper filtration to remove particu-
lates and periodic purging of salts are common remedies.
Traditionally, partial filtration of lean amine has been
practiced, but some refiners are now using full filtration.
JAMES L. DAUGHTRY (The Dow Chemical Company):
Dow has documentation of amine losses of 0.01 lb of
amine for each gallon of LPG treated. This calculates to
be approximately 2000 ppm which is significantly higher
than the solubility of LPGs in MDEA and DEA. Carry-
over problems are addressed by maintaining good amine
quality, temperature, and concentration, plus the use of
coalescer separations and the addition of water wash sec-
tions to remove entrained amines.
198 Energy and Environmental Management
HERBERT W. WIZIG (Merichem Company):
Merichem’s AMINEXSM systems that utilize the FI-
BER-FILMTM contactor are designed for 5 ppmw maxi-
mum amine carryover above solubility and thus avoid this
problem of excessive amine carryover.
In addition, Merichem has an operating unit in Europe
employing our water wash AQUAFININGSM technology
that recovers entrained and soluble MDEA from an LPG
stream that has been treated in an upstream conventional
counter current extraction tower. The resulting MDEA
water solution is then processed in the amine regeneration
unit to recover the MDEA
JON CONRAD (Union Carbide Corporation):
We have seen that amine is lost from a unit in several
ways. The larger contributors are solubility and entrain-
ment losses from LPG treaters. The second in order are
the vapor pressure and entrainment losses in gas treaters.
The third route is housekeeping losses such as filter
changeout, leaking pump seals, or accidental chemical
spills. Finally, upstream upsets can undo every good effort
in the previous three areas.
On the first route, losses from LPG treaters can be
handled in two ways. Choosing a solvent with a low natural
solubility in LPG is an excellent first step. Union Carbide
has introduced a new line of MDEA based solvents which
have a lower solubility in LPG relative to generic MDEA
or other formulated solvents on the market. A solubility
reduction of 30% has been observed. These solvents have
been carefully engineered to allow a drop in conversion
from previous generation solvents. In addition to solubility
losses, entrainment is an area of concern in reducing amine
losses in LPG. Careful attention should be paid to the
design and operation of separation equipment. A properly
designed contactor tower and downstream coalescer are
critical to minimizing losses.
Carbide also recommends a water wash be installed in
conjunction with an amine coalescer downstream of un-
saturated LPG treaters. While losses from a gas treater can
only be addressed through the choice of amine, relative to
the vapor pressure losses and avoidance of entrainer losses,
secondary and tertiary amines have lower vapor pressures
than primary amines. Good quality demister pads are
recommended in the overhead of every gas treater, along
with a downstream knock out drum to recover amines lost
during upset conditions such as the foaming incident.
A final category that can be a major contributor to
amine losses is accidental contamination from upstream
units. Impurities in the amine can cause severe foaming,
amine loss and off-specification treating. The most com-
mon episodic contamination is the carryover of sponge oil
or light cycle oil to an amine fuel gas treater. A single
incident such as this can cause more amine loss than all
other factors combined.
TOC/INDEX
JOE GEORGE (Mobil Oil Corporation):
A few factors must be considered before we answer the
question of typical amine carryover in LPG countercur-
rent extraction towers. First of all, the design of the
liquid/liquid amine contactor is very important and
should be evaluated. In many cases, especially in refineries
that undergo continual debottlenecking for more
throughput, we find that the amine contactors have been
pushed well beyond the normal design parameters. Hy-
drocarbon distributor hole velocities should be main-
tained at or below 1.5 fps. Also, the tray hole velocities
should be designed for 0.5 fps to 1 fps. Exceeding these
velocities can result in the formation of a tight/stable
emulsion that results in increased amine losses.
Second, the type of amine in question is important and
has an effect on carryover. If we are referring to DEA in a
typical liquid hydrocarbon, the solubility is approximately
50 ppmw, but if we are referring to MDEA, the solubility
of amine in hydrocarbon is approximately 150 ppmw.
Since MDEA solutions generally operate at higher con-
centrations than typical DEA solutions, we would expect
any carryover problems to be increased with MDEA solu-
tions in LPG services.
We have six liquid/liquid (DEA) amine contactors in
our refinery, and the hydrocarbon stream just downstream
of each contactor was tested for amine concentrations. We
found anywhere from 150 ppmw to 500 ppmw DEA in
the hydrocarbon, which indicates that we are experiencing
liquid entrainment as well as the solubility problem. These
numbers may not seem extremely high, yet they accounted
for more than 50% of our entire amine loss. We plan to
install a water wash system on each of the LPG contactors
as turnarounds permit.
Question 7.
It is commonly held that activated carbon treating of
the circulating amine solution is a good way to prevent
foaming. Have refiners identified the impurity which
causes foaming/carryover? Which standards are used
to determine regeneration and changing frequency of
charcoal in the filter of lean amine streams?
SMITH:
In 1991, at our Shedgum gas plant, a high pressure
DGA contactor which operates at 950 psi was added that
shared a regenerator with existing low pressure DGA
facilities. At start-up, severe foaming constrained feed to
less than 50% of design rate. A slip stream carbon filter
was quickly designed and installed to eliminate the foam-
ing. Even after 3 charges of carbon, there was only a minor
reduction in high pressure DGA contactor foaming. This
was surprising in view of the widespread use of carbon
filters in amine systems.
The filter was eventually removed from service and an
antifoam agent is injected on a continuous basis. This
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
masked the foaming effect of the contaminants and al-
lowed normal unit operation. Antifoam is added at 0.6
ppm into the suction of the lean DGA pumps. Foaming
returns in minutes if the injection stops.
Because of this experience, an in-depth laboratory
study was undertaken to determine why the activated
carbon did not perform satisfactorily, and what impurities
caused the foaming. The finding of the study was that the
carbon filter was designed for only a 15 min residence time
which is much less than the hour and a half required for
sufficient absorption of the foamers.
Also, the DGA was from a very large system that had
been used for about 10 years with correspondingly high
contaminant concentrations. The amount of carbon re-
quired to clean this system would have been excessive and
uneconomical when compared to using the antifoam.
Over 150 contaminant compounds were identified,
but only three groups had measurable foaming tendencies.
These were carboxylic acids greater than C8, alkyl phenols
and iron sulfide particulates. Interestingly, the normal
hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, xylene, heavy aromatics
and low concentrations of diesel (used as a carrier for
corrosion inhibitor), were not foamers.
The study indicated that a properly sized carbon filter
would have adequately controlled foaming in the new
DGA and on the used DGA once the initial contaminant
level was sufficiently lowered. Of course, it also removes
the antifoam additive.
As a result, the activated carbon filters on the circulated
amines have been added to all three Saudi Aramco high
pressure DGA units currently in design or under construc-
tion. Current practices of other filters are to use mechani-
cal filters to remove particulates and add antifoam agents
as required.
KIMBRELL:
Our experience is that amines have a tendency to foam
naturally, but the foam is not stable. It breaks down
quickly. Hydrocarbon contamination will initiate foam-
ing, but in the absence of particulates the foam, again, is
not stable. However, sufficient particulates will stabilize
the foam. We would recommend particulate filtration to
make sure that they do not stabilize the foam, and then
carbon bed filtration to remove the hydrocarbons to pre-
vent the initiation of the foam. We monitor the oil and
grease in our circulating amine systems and try to keep
that under 100 ppm.
KOOIMAN:
I agree. There was a smaller (200 gpm) amine plant that
was plagued with foaming problems. We had a fairly good
charcoal bed in it, but the change frequency was approxi-
mately annually. We were very reliant on antifoam. We
increased the frequency of the charcoal filter changeout
from annually to weekly just to hit it hard and saw a
199
TOC/INDEX
dramatic difference. We were able to back off on the
antifoam, and the unit started running like it should. Since
that time through trial and error we have backed off on
the change outs. We keep an eye out for problems and
when the use of antifoam comes back up, we know that
we are about to the point of needing a filter change. I think
at present we are at about 6 weeks between changes. We
believe hydrocarbon was causing the problems.
LEMMON:
We had an experience where every time we would
change the carbon bed, foaming would get worse. We were
not aware that a post filter downstream of the carbon filter
was necessary. What was happening was that carbon fines
were coming out of the bed. We were advised by our
carbon supplier to try back flushing out the fines before
putting the carbon bed on-line. We did not find that
successful. We went to post filtration and foaming was
reduced considerably.
FEARNSIDE:
If foaming is due to hydrocarbon contamination, the
first thing I would recommend is that you look at the
temperatures around your absorber column. Rules of
thumb are that you maintain your incoming amine 10° to
15° hotter than your inlet gas stream. That way you do
not condense any of the hydrocarbons and they just pass
on through.
The other most frequent cause of foaming is from
corrosion byproducts. If you operate your unit properly to
minimize corrosion, you should not have that concern. As
far as carbon beds go, they work very well. We typically
run across people who determine the life of the carbon bed
based on a delta P across that bed. This is not always the
case. We find quite frequently that the carbon bed has
spent itself in terms of hydrocarbon adsorption capacity
well before the refiner’s maximum delta P limit has been
met. So we would recommend that you analyze for the
hydrocarbon both before and after the charcoal filter or
carbon bed to determine the health of that bed.
DAVID DORN (United Refining):
I would like to poll the panel to see who has a water
wash on the LPG following the LPG amine absorber to
recover amine.
HUNKUS:
Yes, we do, and we are currently looking at that system.
We have a poly like you do, Mr. Dorn.
JAMES C. RONNANDER (Union Carbide Corporation):
The panel really did not say where the foaming is
occurring. I think it is important to look at the process
variables, such as the lean solvent temperature versus gas
temperature. There are also things to look at in the regen-
200 Energy and Environmental Management
erator that could potentially reduce foaming. Union Car-
bide concurs that carbon filtration is good for removing
hydrocarbons.
There are some other things that can be done too. We
recommend that a visual color change is looked at, usually
shaking and trying to determine if there is any foaming. If
you do have antifoam in your system, you are probably
going to have more foaming coming out of the carbon bed
rather than less, because it does take the antifoam out.
Normally, we recommend to our refiners to remove and
replace their carbon beds on a frequency of every 6 months.
R.E. (Ed) PALMER (Mustang Engineering):
We designed a large MDEA unit recently, and one of
the things we did was install a vacuum reclaimer that has
worked quite successfully. It was somewhat expensive to
build, and I think there are other methods for reclaiming
MDEA that are equally effective, such as ion exchange
systems.
Another thing concerning MDEA losses that we found
in this particular installation was that since there was
excess hydraulic capacity available in the unit, they were
able to reduce amine losses significantly by lowering the
concentration. I think the unit was designed for 40% to
45% MDEA, and they typically run now around 25% to
30%. Obviously, that takes a little more energy consump-
tion, but they were in a situation where they had quite a
bit of low pressure steam available.
MO VADEKAR (CHEM TECH Consulting):
A comment I have relates to Question 6 and 7 with
regard to LPG treating. I fully agree with the causes
mentioned by the panel and from the floor with respect
to contamination of, and foaming in, the amine solvent.
I wish to add that in addition to the other contaminants,
amine solvent can also contain heavier hydrocarbons such
as compressor seal oil. When these materials build up to
certain threshold levels, stable emulsions are formed at the
LPG/amine (aqueous) interphase. The dirtier the amine
solvent, the thicker the emulsion layer, which can bounce
back and forth and up and down in the LPG treating
drum, and at some point amine carryover into LPG and/or
LPG carryunder into the amine is bound to occur. A way
out of this dilemma is to eliminate the emulsion itself
when apparent, and the causes of its formation by keeping
the amine as clean as possible.
C. MANOHARAN (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
We would like to know what the typical time cycles for
the amine units are? Generally, the regenerator section has
been the most fouled section over time, and as you said
carryover from the upstream units does create a problem.
So can the panel respond on the average turn down cycle
for amine unit?
TOC/INDEX
SMITH:
Our turnaround cycle for our low pressure DGA plants
is 5 years.
WINSTON CHARLES (Petrotrin):
I have two questions. Has anyone experienced higher
than normal rates of formation of heat stable salts on
recommissioning a DEA plant system after turnaround?
If so, can they suggest an explanation? Is the rate of
formation of heat stable salts in an amine system treating
FCC products dependent on the severity of FCC opera-
tion?
FEARNSIDE:
On the second question, we find that is not true. What
we find more common is how well the wet gas compressor
water wash is being implemented and utilized as to how
much normally occurring acetate, formates, etc., are car-
ried over into the amine unit.
KIMBRELL:
We have not experienced rapid heat stable salt forma-
tion after start-up, but there are lots of things that can
cause that. I also agree with Mr. Fearnside that the severity
of the FCCU is not necessarily the thing that is causing
the salt formation. Both the FCCU and the coker have all
sorts ofmaterials in the gas. There are cyanides and all sorts
of other acids that can form heat stable salts. So it could
be the way the whole rest of the system is being operated.
KEVIN R. PROOPS (Koch Refining Company):
I wanted to endorse the water wash concept for reduc-
ing amine losses from LPG treaters. If you are looking for
a low cost way to accomplish that revamp, you may
consider using a static mixer as the amine contactor,
particularly if you are following the amine contacting step
with a caustic treating step. Single stage static mixing
should be adequate to get the H2S level down to reasonable
levels. Also, if the water balance is a concern, you should
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
probably look at purging amine regenerator reflux to the
sour water stripper to control ammonia build up in that
system.
JAMES JENKINS (MPR Services, Inc.):
We have a couple of ion exchange units that have been
running continuously for about a year and a half in a
couple of refineries, and it really has helped them with
their amine losses and unit stability. They are quite
pleased. The control of corrosion and heat stable salt is
effective for them. The other thing we are doing with some
customers is helping them control the sodium in the
system. Be it from upstream upsets or some previous
deliberate caustic additions, high levels of sodium causing
surface tension and viscosity changes were making the
foam more stable and harder to break. We reduced those
levels and they returned to a smooth operation.
MO VADEKAR (CHEM TECH Consulting):
I have a comment on a question which came up earlier
regarding heat stable (HS) acid build up in the amine
solvents in the FCC gas treating service.
I observed early in my work (as others have) that the
HS acid build up in amines in FCC gas service was much
faster than those in natural gas or refinery (crude) light
ends treaters. There are several obvious reasons for this
difference, but some unusual, perhaps not so well under-
stood ones deserve a mention here.
FCC (reactor) offgases contain small but significant
concentrations of residual oxygen entrained with the
regenerated catalyst recycle. Also, there are large
amounts of H2 S and significant concentrations of
HCN (depending on the nitrogen content of FCC
feed).
Cyanide ions in the solution react with sulfide ions
in the presence of oxygen to form thiocyanate CNS
ions, (ref: McCoy: Analysis of Industrial Water,
Chemical Publishing Co., 1969). Thiocyanic acid is
a much stronger acid than both H2S and CO2 (in
fact it is often called a pseudo halide, mimicking
chloride); thus the amine thiocyanate remains and
accumulates on an ongoing basis in the amine as HS
acid component.
Another such acid is thiosulfuric acid (as S2O3 ion).
This acid ion is formed by direct reaction of sulfide
with oxygen, and being a stronger acid remains in
the HS acid.
When the FCC unit is restarted from a shutdown, the
unstable conditions during start-up can cause excursions
in O 2 content of the reactor offgas. In addition, if the
amine solvent is stored during the shutdown in un-
blanketed tanks, it can pick up oxygen. Thus, often a step
change is observed in HS acid build soon after start-up.
201
TOC/INDEX
CHARLES T. ORLANDO (Pall Corporation):
In over 100 amine systems that Pall has investigated,
we were able to get the particulate contaminant loading
down to less than 1 ppm. We have actually eliminated the
foaming due to particulate stabilizing the foam. In every
case, if you can get the particulate down to less than 1 ppm,
you can eliminate the foam.
HUNKUS:
We have experienced heat stable salts, rapid build up
right after start-up. It was something basic that we did. I
will check that and share it with anyone who wants to
spend some time discussing it. You should verify your
analyzers with dragger tubes at least twice per shift, espe-
cially during start-up.
Sulfur Plants
Question 8.
What has been the experience with the use of above
ground tanks versus pits for the storage of liquid sulfur?
What is the source and disposition of the purge gas?
SMITH:
In the Ras Tanura Refinery, there are both an under-
ground concrete storage pit and two off plot above grade
molten sulfur loading tanks. The underground pit is sized
for 24 hours of production. As is typical, it is located below
the pipeway in the plant. The pit is inspected every two
years and minor concrete repairs are made.
The pit also includes H2S degassing zones. The source
of the purged gas is atmospheric air which is abducted into
the pit and out into the thermal oxidizer stack via steam
ejector. The purge air picks up any H2S released by the
degassing pumps that constantly circulate the liquid sulfur
into spray nozzles into the vapor space above the liquid
sulfur.
Our gas plants have over 20 years experience in both
above ground tanks and concrete pits for storing liquid
sulfur. The concrete underground pits work as a settler for
the liquid sulfur product from the Claus condensers.
These sulfur pits are normally open for maintenance every
2 years. The major findings are cracks in roofs, fallen
debris, and deposits of carbon, sulfur, and silicon on the
bottom of the sulfur pit and steam heating coils.
The above ground tank requires much less maintenance
than the underground sulfur pits. When opened, the tanks
are found clean and require only minor maintenance. The
degassing process in the sulfur pit removes the dissolved
H2S and routes it again to the thermal oxidizer stack (250
ft tall) using stack draft for the drawing air.
The above ground tank is purged with an air compres-
sor. The air is introduced into the bottom of the tank and
202 Energy and Environmental Management
the deposition gas is vented to the atmosphere through a
small vent stack above the tank.
HUNKUS:
The experience using above ground carbon steel tanks
for SRU rundown that we know of has been good. A big
advantage is that the tank can be heated from the outside,
eliminating steam leaking into the tank. We believe a key
to proper tank life is to exclude air from the tank, as air
and moisture will cause corrosion just like coil steam
supply lines corrode in concrete pits. I would guess that
Mr. Smith has drier air in the Kingdom than we do in
Memphis.
In most cases, the tank will float on SRU tail gas
pressure. In some cases, the tail gas flows through the tank.
Tank sweep vapor can flow to the incinerator or to the
tail gas cleanup unit inlet (if the tank can be pressurized
— this requires careful design of the rundown system and
seal pots). Otherwise, an adductor may be used much like
on a traditional sulfur pit. Just be careful you do not put
one on that can pull too deep a vacuum, unless you design
for it.
KIMBRELL:
We also have pits below grade that daily sulfur produc-
tion goes into, and we pump out of those pits into above
ground storage tanks. The biggest problem that we have
had with those tanks is keeping the roofs hot. Condensa-
tion of moisture on the roof has caused some serious
problems, not only internally. If you do not properly
design the steam tracing externally and let water drip on
the outside, that can be a problem as well. That is really
the key to having good performance of those tanks.
LEMMON:
Tosco’s experience with above ground storage tanks has
also been favorable. I agree with the other panelists that
the key to controlling corrosion is keeping water out of
the tank. To accomplish that, at the Bayway Refinery they
have blanketed their tank with nitrogen. They vent the
tanks to the tail gas treating unit. A general observation is
that a thick wall concrete pit is probably more tolerant to
sulfuric acid attack than a thin wall steel tank.
KENNETH P. REVELL (TPA, Inc.):
On concrete storage pit failures, we find that most of
the time when they were installed an acid test was not run
on the concrete to ensure that it would be resistant to the
acids formed in sulfur pits. If you run a typical acid test
on the concrete beforehand, they tend to last just as long
as any other system. An alternate method is to install sulfur
storage tanks inside of concrete pits. This method allows
you to place steam panels on the outside, removing the
most problematic portion of sulfur storage systems. A
storage tank also allows you to run the tank at higher
TOC/INDEX
pressures and recover the sulfur vapors for disposal in the
tail gas treater unit.
FRANK BUZIUK (Chevron Research & Technology Company):
Most of our units have sulfur pits with capacity for
approximately one day’s sulfur production. The pit con-
tents are transferred daily to shipping storage tanks. These
storage tanks do have a history of problems with corrosion,
especially the upper tank walls and the roof. Proper designs
can eliminate most of this corrosion. The tanks are venti-
lated with an air sweep system. Most use air blowers to
draw vapor form the tank, several designs are used to
control emissions. In some locations, the sulfur is degassed
to below 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide in the pits. As a result,
there are minimal sulfur emissions form the tanks and
additional controls are not required.
We do operate one unit (TPA design) which has an
above ground storage vessel instead of a sulfur pit to receive
the continuous sulfur production. This unit was first
started approximately 5 years ago and has been operated
by Chevron for the last 3 years. The vessel is used for both
receiving sulfur production from the process and for prod-
uct shipments. There have been no reports of any prob-
lems with the vessel. The vapors from this unit are routed
to the tail gas incinerator.
Question 9.
Does anyone use monolithic castable refractory lining
as the internal refractory in sulfur furnaces?
ARNDT:
We have 16 sulfur plants in our domestic refineries. The
majority were designed by Parsons and their vintage is
mid-1970s on average. They use castable refractory for the
liners. There is some fire brick used for the really tough
areas. Most of them are still operating with the original
refractory. We have replaced refractory in a few units and
found that the keys to success are to properly apply it and
carefully dry it out. Make sure your installer is very com-
petent and gets a good smooth round circumference. We
have used two techniques for dry out. One is to bring in
a service company with their own heater. The other is to
embed thermocouples throughout the wet refractory and
use them to give us the information to control the firing
of the burners for dryout.
BARKER:
At one refinery, we use castable refractory as both a 4
in. outer and a 2.5 in. middle lining for the main Claus
reactors, and also as a middle 3.5 in. lining for the fired
reheaters. The fired reheaters typically operate between
420°F and 450°F, while the main Claus reactors operate
between 2300°F and 2500°F.
No unusual maintenance has been required for the
castable refractory short of an occasional patch. There is
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
no evidence that higher operating temperatures (when
processing sour water stripper offgas) result in more or
faster refractory degradation. On occasion, firebrick dam-
age on the inner lining has exposed the castable refractory
without any problems.
LEMMON:
We also use castable refractory at a sulfur plant. The
total thickness is 9 in. I agree with Chevron’s experience
that dryout is essential to a reliable system.
KENNETH P. REVELL (TPA, Inc.):
When using castable refractory in thermal reactors,
what we typically see as the point of failure is the method
of attachment to the shell (steerhorns). These anchors tend
to conduct the heat because they are closer to the interior
surface of the thermal reactor, thus seeing much higher
temperatures than the shell. Also, the differences in expan-
sion of the metal anchors and the castable refractory can
cause cracking and subsequent refractory failures.
JACKSON:
You said that the anchor system, the steerhorn, does not
work? What can you recommend from your experience?
KENNETH P. REVELL (TPA, Inc.):
We recommend two layers of brick. We use an insulation
layer against the steel vessel and a radiant barrier on the
interior layer. The design basis has been used for almost two
decades with very good results (as compared to castable).
JACKSON:
What is used at Chevron?
FRANK BUZIUK (Chevron Research & Technology Company):
We have three units that have been installed within the
last 4 or 5 years with the double firebrick installation. All
the others are 15 to 20 years old with the castable. Only
time will tell how the two compare; we do not have enough
information yet. We have not had any problems with the
fire brick in the 4 to 5 years these units have been in
operation.
Question 10.
What is the experience of your refinery in using oxy-
gen-enrichment technology for sulfur recovery units?
What are the limitations to using oxygen enrichment?
What are safety requirements that need to be consid-
ered in its use?
LEMMON:
In 1992, Tosco commissioned an oxygen enrichment
system at one of our Claus sulfur plants. The project was
constructed jointly with Air Products. The system has
203
TOC/INDEX
been operating well and has been used almost continu-
ously. Its intent was to increase the SRU capacity.
The system was designed to operate with combustion
air enriched to a maximum of 28% oxygen. The oxygen
concentration limitation was the existing air piping, which
we chose not to thoroughly clean for oxygen service.
Safety requirements are the ability to detect oxygen
level in the combustion air downstream of the enrichment
point and the ability to shut down the oxygen system if
you have too high a concentration. At high concentrations
of oxygen, carbon steel piping can actually catch fire and
burn. We also have reaction furnace temperature indica-
tions and alarms.
The project’s biggest drawback is that if the oxygen
system trips, the SRU will go into oxygen deficient opera-
tion resulting in increased hydrogen sulfide emissions.
KIMBRELL:
We have been using oxygen enrichment in our two
refineries, one of them for almost 10 years and the other
one for the last 3 years. Actually, experience at both
facilities has been good. The first refinery experienced
some burner instabilities when the oxygen concentration
got up to around 24%. The burner was not designed for
the higher oxygen concentration. Fortunately, we have not
needed to go much higher than that. On the other facility,
we have been able to go up to 27% oxygen enrichment.
As Mr. Lemmon indicated, that is what we would consider
being a maximum limit from an oxygen service and clean-
liness of the systems standpoint.
We have high temperature shutdown incorporated into
the design. Should we lose air, we would shut down oxygen
as well. I agree that you need to talk to your oxygen
supplier for other safeguards.
GENTRY:
I will address the effect on refractory and burner mate-
rial as the oxygen content of the combustion air is raised.
As the oxygen content of the combustion air is raised, the
relative drop in the nitrogen content increases the tem-
perature in the thermal reactor. The refractory is exposed
to higher temperatures, and the burner material is sub-
jected to oxidation due to the higher concentration of
oxygen. These process considerations impose limits on the
oxygen content of the combustion air.
As several of the panelists have mentioned, enriching
the oxygen content of the combustion air to about 28%
allows a 20% to 25% boost in sulfur processing capability.
This level of oxygen can be used without changing the
refractory or the burner.
A 30% to 40% increase in capacity can be achieved by
increasing the oxygen content to about 40%. This level
will require high intensity burners with a special injection
port for oxygen. Higher grade refractory is also required
for the thermal reactor and the boiler tube sheet.
204 Energy and Environmental Management
Capacity increases of up to 120% have been claimed
by some licensed processes with oxygen content of up to
60% to 75%. This is achieved by either flame moderation,
step wise combustion, or the use of specialty burners to
shield the refractory from high temperatures. The capacity
increase is dependent on composition and is also limited
by the ammonia content of the feed.
RON SCHENDEL (BOC Gases):
With regard to the limitations, the industry standard
of 28% is primarily related to the materials construction
of the air piping and the cleaning and installation proce-
dure. It is not only the danger of the pipe itself burning,
but also of the hydrocarbon film in the pipe igniting and
carrying a flame back to the air compressor. With up to
28%, you can inject oxygen directly into the air with a
diffuser pipe. The next limitation above 28% is either the
waste heat boiler duty (and steam system associated with
it), or the temperature in the reaction furnace. A special
burner is required to deliver oxygen directly to the furnace
above 28% overall enrichment.
BOC provides such a burner. The type of burner has
an impact on how much oxygen can be used. The BOC
design is a Tip Mix type burner which promotes endother-
mic dissociation reactions. This allows maximum oxygen
concentrations of up to about 45% to 60% oxygen in a
typical refinery situation.
To get beyond that limitation, BOC Gases also offers
the double combustion process which allows up to 100%
oxygen and up to 250% of original design capacity.
CHARLES LeROY (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
We suffered several sulfur plant failures this last year,
and we tracked them back to the fact that we are running
heavier and more sour crudes. We are pushing the sulfur
plants a lot harder, and we have oxygen enrichment on
both of our sulfur trains.
We have found that if you push the oxygen levels up
to increase capacity, you can reach a point where the
temperatures go up with the higher oxygen levels, and it
also pushes your mass flux rates up in the waste heat
boiler. We feel that we have exceeded the mass flux rates
and exceeded the ability of the tubes to cool, changing
the boiling regime around the tubes. We suffered failures
right downstream of the farrow outlets.
We have gone back and looked at boiler tube spacings
and mass flux rates. If it gets above 6, you have problems;
typical designs are 3 to 4. If you push the oxygen enrich-
ment, you can push this mass flux rate up past the point
that the tubes are able to cool. You need to look at tube
spacing and mass flux rates and/or other design issues.
You can push the oxygen levels up to the point where
you cannot remove the heat in that zone. We have cor-
rected these and think we are going to get past this
reliability problem.
TOC/INDEX
KENNETH P. REVELL (TPA, Inc.):
Comments have been made that the limit on oxygen
enrichment is 28%. I just wanted to make sure that people
understood that if you go above that, you need to inject
the oxygen directly into the thermal reactor, because you
cannot control any contaminants entering through the air
line. If you attach it to the air line for enrichment, you can
damage the pipe, as one of the gentleman mentioned. We
have an injection system to inject oxygen directly into the
thermal reactors. We have had good success, up to the 60%
oxygen level, and we have achieved over 100% capacity
increase on certain installations.
UDAY N. PAREKH (Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.):
What is the highest level of capacity increase that is
actually being achieved with the practice of oxygen enrich-
ment of sulfur plants and the technology that is being used
to achieve this?
LEMMON:
Our oxygen enrichment system is achieving about a
25% increase in SRU capacity. Our project is not a “world
class maximum” oxygen enrichment system. It was de-
signed to be a cost-effective small expansion project.
THOMAS K. CHOW (Parsons Process Group, Inc.):
With regards to the capacity increase using oxygen
enrichment, when it goes beyond 28% oxygen you have
several considerations. First, as Mr. Schendel mentioned,
is the capacity of the waste heat boiler. Another considera-
tion is the design temperature of the refractory in the
reaction furnace. Normally, you can go up to a design of
around 2900°F or 3000°F. A 90% aluminum will sustain
a temperature of around 3200°F. However, under an
oxidizing atmosphere, it is safe to design below 3000°F.
Now, with that you are talking about an oxygen enrich-
ment limit of up to around 45%. If you have a specially
designed burner, that might bring you up to about 60%
without having to endanger the refractory integrity.
Beyond that, Parsons and BOC have a double combus-
tion process which is a two-stage combustion that will be
able to increase the capacity by 175%. That would be the
maximum. Of course, it depends on the concentration of
H2S in the feed gas.
TARIQ MALIK (CITGO Refining & Chemicals Inc.):
One of the limitations with oxygen injection that has
not been mentioned is the type of waste heat boiler that
you have downstream from the thermal reactor. If you
have a kettle type waste heat boiler, it will only be good
for a heatflux of about 20,000 BTU/hr-ft2 to 25,000
BTU/hr-ft2. But if you have a thermosiphon type, you can
take it up to 40,000 BTU/hr-ft2. The kind of waste heat
equipment that you have downstream from your thermal
reactor is important.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Question 11.
In our sulfur recovery units, we observed cement-like
solids materials in sulfur condensers. Has anybody
else encountered formation of such material, has it
been analyzed and what are the possible reasons and
counter measures? Are the gray solids that show up
in the look boxes of select sulfur condensers (usually
the first and sometimes the last condenser) the same
material?
JOHNSON:
Cement like solids were a familiar occurrence on one
sulfur unit we have dealt with. The problem was mostly
associated with the formation of ammonium sulfate salts
in the process. The solidification temperature is low
enough to result in deposition in the tubes, demister pads,
and sulfur drain lines of the condensers. The last con-
denser, which usually operates at the lowest temperature,
typically is the one to experience this type of problem.
For this unit, the problem went away almost overnight
by adjustment of the reaction furnace gas flows and ensur-
ing substoichiometric operation of the reheat burners.
ARNDT:
Possible causes of the solids are: 1) during dry out and
initial operation refractory chemicals may be leaching out;
2) boiler feed water chemicals due to a tube leak; and 3)
formation of “carsul” due to hydrocarbons in the feed gas.
The first two causes usually produce a gray solid, and the
third usually forms a very dark, hard solid.
Question 12.
COS and CS2 are formed in Claus units. What methods
are used to control or minimize their formation? What
impact does feed gas composition have on their for-
mation? Does hydrogenation catalyst in the TGTU
convert COS and CS2 to other compounds?
LEMMON:
COS and CS2 are generated from the thermoreaction
of carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons present in the Claus
feed. Minimizing the formation of COS and CS2 can be
accomplished by utilizing an H2S selected amine, such as
MDEA, to exclude as much CO2 as possible, and by
minimizing of hydrocarbon carryover to the acid gas from
the amine regenerators and sour water strippers. The
hydrogenation catalyst in a tail gas treating unit will
convert to COS and CS2 to H2S:
COS +H2O ➙ H2S + CO2
CS2 + H2O ➙ 2H2S + CO2
JOHNSON:
The sources of COS and CS2 in the sulfur plant tail gas
are typically from excessive hydrocarbons in the feed gas.
205
TOC/INDEX
A high residence time in the reaction furnace or a good
burner design will tend to minimize their formation. Most
of the COS and CS2 will be converted to H2S in the first
converter bed. Overall, about 95% of these compounds
are converted back to H2S across a three stage Claus unit.
However, if there are excessive aromatics in the feed gas
(which lead to coke deposition on the Claus catalyst), the
resulting coke deposits will actually result in CS2 formation
across the Claus catalyst. The hydrogenation catalyst in the
typical sulfur plant tail gas unit will convert the COS and
CS2 to H2S. For a unit with 3% to 5% CO2 in the tail gas,
you should expect to see no CS2 and about 10 ppmv to 30
ppmv COS leaving the hydrogenation reactor. For higher
CO2 concentrations, the COS levels will be higher.
KIMBRELL:
I agree that hydrocarbons in the incoming feed gases to
the Claus plant are the primary sources of the COS and
CS2. Carbon dioxide contributes as well. Operation of
your upstream amine system to keep it as clean as possible
is imperative to good performance in minimizing the
production of these compounds. I would also agree that
keeping the first converter bed hot to hydrolyze those
compounds, i.e., having the exit temperature in the 600°F
range, converts most of them.
GENTRY:
Most of the points have been covered. I wanted to
reiterate that hydrocarbon carryover to the Claus units can
be minimized by use of properly designed rich amine flash
tanks, adequate hydrocarbon skimming facilities in the
amine and sour water stripper units, and sour water tanks
fitted with internals that do a good job of removing
entrained hydrocarbons in the sour water.
CHAD L. MARKS (ALCOA Industrial Chemicals):
In the first converter, a good non-promoted alumina
catalyst with a high macro porosity, such as Alcoa DD431
or S400, has been proven to aid in COS and CS2 hydrolysis.
Question 13.
What is the lowest Claus converter bed temperature
permissible before feeding sour gas to the reactor
furnace during start-up?
SMITH:
Our Shedgum Gas Plant routinely introduces acid gas
feed to the sulfur unit under cold start-up when the Claus
converter bed temperatures reach a minimum of 350°F.
The catalyst beds have easily reached this temperature due
to refractory curing requirements after maintenance turn-
arounds. However, to speed up start-ups after unplanned
shutdowns, we have admitted acid gas when the converter
beds have reached only 200° F. The freeze point of sulfur
206 Energy and Environmental Management
is 246°F, so at first glance it appears that the 200°F bed
temperature is not possible without plugging the bed.
However, a feed acid gas temperature is preheated by
the first condenser to 320°F. Initial low temperature
strongly favors conversion of liquid sulfur to reach equi-
librium, and this reaction is highly exothermic which
helps warm the bed. Also, even though some of the liquid
sulfur formed may initially solidify, the rate is low relative
to the catalyst sites available and the high pressure drop
across the beds is avoided. Eventually, as the catalyst
temperature rises above 246°F, any solid sulfur will remelt
and drain into the condensers normally. It takes less than
an hour for the catalyst bed to increase in temperature to
over 400°F. Any resulting sulfur build up is corrected with
a 24 hour heat soak after normal operation is established.
The heat soak is achieved by elevating the bed tempera-
tures 50° to 100° higher than normal.
In our Ras Tanura refinery, bed temperatures normally
are 455°F and 400°F, respectively, with no experience
starting up at lower bed temperatures. The other Saudi
Aramco plants’ typical start-up temperatures are much
higher than those at the Ras Tanura Refinery.
KIMBRELL:
We typically have the converter bed temperatures in the
375°F to 400°F range before introducing acid gases. We
have gone as low as 300°F, but I would recommend against
putting any sour water stripper gas in at that sort of
temperature.
ARNDT:
We usually heat up the beds to 275°F to 300°F. We have
gotten away with 240°F to 250°F.
BARKER:
The lowest temperature at which we have introduced
sour gas to the Claus converter beds is 420°F. This is, in
part, based on maintaining a minimum condenser outlet
temperature of 275°F.
DAVIS:
We have introduced acid gas feed as low as 300°F.
Question 14.
Pilots in SRU burners typically are high maintenance
and have short lives. Very low heat release, com-
pressed air pilots have been suggested to us to solve
these problems. Is anyone using these type pilots, or
other technology, successfully in SRU applications?
DiCAMILLO:
As this question implies, if pilots remain in the hot
zone, then special metallurgy is needed to prevent burning
up of the pilots. For this reason, Shell prefers to use
retractable pilots in their designs. This is really just a fancy
TOC/INDEX
name for a pilot lance which is manually inserted and
removed as needed.
JACKSON:
I agree with Mr. DiCamillo. BP recommends Duiker
combined pilots and igniters. They have been specified for
all recent new builds. These are recommended regardless
of the burner type as they are seen to be very reliable, they
are retractable, and they have an automatic start-up se-
quence with ionization detection, ensuring a high confi-
dence of a safe start-up.
SMITH:
Because of poor pilot burner maintenance history in
our plants, we have removed permanently installed pilots
as the others have mentioned and gone with the retractable
type pilots. We believe a better situation would be to have
a retractable igniter behind a closed valve. This way it is
easier for the operator to reinsert them for relight.
Question 15.
What is the typical life of Claus catalyst? What is
typical cause for Change out (deactivation, pressure
drop, or turnaround scheduling)?
DAVIS:
Approximately 1 to 2 years is the change out frequency
of our SRU reactors. The reason could be any of the ones
suggested by the question. Alumina is cheap and since
CENEX has three recovery trains, catalysts can be changed
out relatively painlessly.
KIMBRELL:
We typically change out our Claus catalyst at each
scheduled turnaround. Normally, the catalyst has a little
activity left, but not enough to make another run. The
Claus turnaround schedule at one facility is based primar-
ily on sulfur production load. The catalyst is changed out
every 2 years in that facility. At the other refinery, we have
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
enough Claus capacity to make it to the boiler permit limit
which is a 3 year cycle.
KOOIMAN:
In the smaller units, it is 2 to 4 years, typically because
of deactivation due to upsets more than anything.
SMITH:
In our refinery rich gas feed, we only replace 50% of
the first bed every 2 years, due to fouling. In our gas plants,
which are lean feed operations, we typically have a deacti-
vation problem and the first bed is changed every 2 years,
the second bed every 4 years, and the third every 6 years.
BARKER:
Our Claus catalyst changeout frequency averages 24
months to 29 months. This schedule is based primarily on
sulfur producing unit turnaround schedules and manda-
tory equipment inspection schedules. These are partial
catalyst changeouts attributed to elevated pressure drop.
Some small pressure drop occurs during the hot strip of the
catalyst during shutdown. The first two of three converter
beds are usually changed completely, with a skim on the
third bed. Catalyst activity has not been limiting to date.
At our refinery, both Claus units are operated between
50% and 60% capacity. Recent improvements to the hot
strip procedure, and utilization of a graded catalyst bed of
different mesh size (with a sacrificial active support layer
on top) have mitigated some of our pressure drop prob-
lems. We anticipate future changeout frequencies of at
least 36 months with these modifications.
Question 16.
What is the typical turnaround frequency for sulfur
recovery units? When a sulfur recovery unit is shut
down for maintenance, what procedures are used? Is
a hot strip or a full catalyst regeneration performed?
If hot strip is used, have there been problems with
hazardous vapors when equipment is opened? If the
sulfur recovery unit has been shutdown by loss of feed
or air blower, what procedures are used to prevent
corrosion and/or ensure the plant is restarted without
incident?
SMITH:
All of Saudi Aramco’s sulfur plants are targeted for 2
year turnaround cycles. The multi-plant facilities stagger
the sulfur plants in cycles. Lean plants cannot go longer
due to deactivation resulting in low conversion. The pro-
cedures used are similar for the various plants. For the
normal shutdown, we start with a heat soak. This is
accomplished by elevating the bed temperatures, as I
mentioned earlier, 50°F to 100°F greater than normal to
about 500°F for 24 to 48 hours to remove most of the
sulfur. After the heat soak, fuel gas is added to the reaction
207
TOC/INDEX
furnace as acid gas is backed out, while maintaining
elevated bed temperatures.
Air is reduced to avoid excess oxygen which prevents
catalyst sulfidation or fires in the beds. This is done until
the sulfur condensers run dry. The auxiliary burner tem-
peratures are gradually lowered and then shut down. Once
catalyst temperatures are below 400°F, the air rate is
increased and the steam backed out as the reaction furnace
temperature falls until eventually the burner trips off. Air
flow is maintained until the bed temperature drops to
150°F. We do not use the term hot strip, but believe it is
part of a normal shutdown, cooling and air purge proce-
dure. We have not experienced hazardous vapors when the
equipment is opened for scheduled shutdowns after per-
forming normal shutdown procedures.
We have tried catalyst regeneration, but do not recom-
mend it due to the risk of equipment damage. These
regenerations have initially begun smoothly with the burn
front easily observed. However, even with excess oxygen
closely controlled, another reaction (maybe dissociation
of Al2 (SO4)3 from the catalyst) increases bed temperatures
to well over 1800°F. This phenomenon has consumed
vessel internals, warped internal supports and burned off
thermowells. We have prevented vessel shell damage by
quenching the reaction with large amounts of reintro-
duced acid gas. As was mentioned earlier, aluminum
catalyst is cheap and so this is not a recommended practice.
For unplanned shutdowns, less than 8 hours, we block
the unit in and let it sit. The nitrogen pad is used for longer
periods. Recently, our unit sat idle for 10 days with only
nitrogen and was started up normally.
KIMBRELL:
As I indicated, our Claus plants run on either a 2 year
or 3 year turnaround cycle. On shutdown, we have histori-
cally done a hot sweep to melt the sulfur out of the beds
and then done a full regeneration burnout of these catalyst
beds. And as Mr. Smith indicated, if you do not regenerate
them right, you can cause severe damage. During the last
couple of turnarounds, we have just done the hot sweep
and then used nitrogen to cool down. We dumped the beds
in that form and have not had any problems.
KOOIMAN:
The frequency is about 3 years with some plans to go to
4 years. For the shutdown, we use the hot strip and
generally experience no problems with the vapors. We have
had small fires in the reactor and we just let them burn.
On the loss of feed, we use hydrogen from the naphtha
reformer as spike gas.
In the particular unit I am talking about, there are two
blowers. So there is some redundancy there. One is a
smaller blower and one is a bigger blower. Their use
depends on what the unit feed rate is. If there is a loss of
feed then the spike gas goes in and we keep it going.
208 Energy and Environmental Management
BARKER:
As mentioned earlier, the Claus unit turnaround fre-
quency has averaged 24 months to 29 months at one sulfur
plant. This frequency is usually concurrent with sulfur-
producing unit turnarounds and mandatory equipment
inspection schedules. To date, either a partial or complete
hot strip of the catalyst has been performed. A partial hot
strip has been used only when entry to the reheaters,
converter beds, or condensers was not required.
The hot strip procedure starts with a 24 hr to 48 hr heat
soak in the converters at elevated temperatures, usually
550°F. The heat soak is conducted with amine acid gas.
The unit is then switched to hot standby with natural gas
only at a converter bed temperature of approximately
450°F. Nitrogen and steam are added to maintain a high
volume of flow through the beds to prevent soot laydown.
The oxygen content is closely monitored at the outlet of
the thermal reactor and each converter bed to ensure that
sooting is not occurring. We maintain the excess O2
between 0.5% and 1.5% to protect our tail gas treatment
unit from receiving excess SO2 or O2 and to eliminate the
possibility of converter bed fires.
Once SO2 levels after the third bed are environmentally
safe (less than 250 ppm), we remove the tail gas from the
tail gas treating unit and route the gas directly to an
incinerator. This switch is usually made 10 days to 13 days
following the start of the hot strip. The air to the unit is
increased slowly to make sure the catalyst is stripped well.
Natural gas to the unit is shut down, but the air sweep
continues and at times, nitrogen is added to expedite the
cool down.
In general, the presence of hazardous vapors has not
been a problem for equipment entry. On one occasion, a
third converter bed continued to generate SO2 and heat
following shutdown. This bed was isolated and quenched
with steam and nitrogen. Steam was removed once the
temperature decreased to avoid condensation on the cata-
lyst. During this time, no entry was allowed to the other
converter beds.
Recently, the Claus plants have been shut down briefly
due to power dips that shut down either the amine regen-
erators, the main air blower, or both. Start-up priority is
given to re-establishing air flow (following a nitrogen
purge on the thermal reactor) and relighting burners. The
key to a smooth restart is to hold temperature in the unit
by refiring the main reactor and reheaters as quickly as
possible. This avoids condensation of sulfuric acid. No
excessive corrosion has been directly attributed to emer-
gency shutdowns/start-ups at our facilities.
Question 17.
Has anyone monitored SO3 presence out of the SRU
reaction furnace? Is there information regarding SO3
presence versus reaction furnace conditions?
TOC/INDEX
JACKSON:
The short answer is that we do not measure SO 3
directly. I guess it falls into the category “too difficult”, but
we are looking into it and have been in detailed discussions
with a leading analyzer and sulfur plant manufacturer to
see how this might be done.
Simply, SO3 is dependant on the amount of excess air
in the thermal reactor. Ideally, the air rate should be
controlled to give H2S/S02 levels of around 2. This is the
stoichiometric amount for maximizing sulfur recovery.
Excess air will increase the SO2 level, reducing the ratio
and increasing the SO3 level, resulting in a lower conver-
sion of H2S to elemental sulfur.
The consequence of producing SO3 is its interaction
with ammonia and resultant formation of ammonium
salts that condense in the cooler areas of the plant and plug
the condenser tubes. It is generally accepted that both
ammonia and SO3 have to be present to form the ammo-
nia salts. Different vendors use different techniques to
prevent the salts from forming. Operate the first stage of
the thermal reactor in:
reducing mode in an attempt to prevent SO3 from
forming in the first place, or
oxidizing mode to try and eliminate the ammonia,
but allow SO3 to form.
Both work well when operated correctly.
The on line measurement of SO3 would be useful if the
ammonia were also measured to determine the salting
tendency of the operation.
JOHNSON:
A unit that we are familiar with had a very serious
problem with SO3 formation in the reaction furnace and
in the in-line reheat burners. This unit was an ammonia
burning plant (from sour water stripper gas). The problem
was caused by operating in an excess oxygen environment
in the first burning chamber of the reaction furnace. The
excess oxygen resulted in SO3 and NOx formation. NOx
apparently will catalyze the formation of SO 3 . Even
though the second chamber is in a reducing atmosphere,
there was insufficient residence time to convert the SO3
back to SO2. Since there is usually 50 ppmv to 100 ppmv
ammonia that survives in the reaction furnace effluent gas,
the SO3 combined with the ammonia to form ammonium
sulfate salts.
The problem was resolved by diverting sufficient amine
acid gas to the front burner of the reactor furnace to result
in a reducing environment. The SO3 formation in the
in-line burners was eliminated by ensuring sub-
stoichiometric operation of the burner.
CHAD MARKS (ALCOA Industrial Chemicals):
On the life of the catalyst, I agree with the panel that it
is operation dependent. ALCOA has a publication on the
deactivation mechanisms if you are interested.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Tail Gas Plants
Question 18.
Discuss the importance of temperature control in
Stretford solutions.
LEMMON:
Our Bayway refinery operates a Stretford system and
reports that the rate of formation of sodium thiosulfate
increases with temperature. It is therefore recommended
that the Stretford solution temperature be maintained as
low as possible. They recommend an operating tempera-
ture range of 80°F to 100°F. This low operating tempera-
ture range is set by the following factors: the oxidation rate,
solubility of sodium sulfate, and the reaction rate in the
absorber which affects the H2S level in the absorber over-
head vent.
BARKER:
We have found that it is important to control tempera-
ture in the Stretford solution to minimize the potential for
water evaporation, and reduce the possibility of forming
salts. Lower solution temperatures also tend to make the
formed salts less stable, which makes their removal from
the circulating system less difficult.
Question 19.
A few years ago, the question was asked about oper-
ating an amine based TGTU without the stack gas
incinerator. Has the situation changed with time? (The
original question concerned new amine that can
achieve gas cleanup to less than 10 ppm. As a result,
can refineries shut down the incinerator or have it in
warm stand by and still be in compliance with their
permits?)
BARKER:
We operate a Shell Claus Offgas Treating (SCOT) tail
gas unit with a proprietary specialty MDEA based amine
209
TOC/INDEX
solvent. We typically achieve H2S concentrations between
30 ppm and 50 ppm, and have not been able to achieve
reliable concentrations below 10 ppm. Some of our diffi-
culties are the typical operational problems: loss of tray
efficiency, foaming, lean amine temperature, etc. How-
ever, during steady operation and maximum contact in the
absorber, we have still not been able to achieve concentra-
tions below 10 ppm.
We operate a catalytic incinerator to convert the remain-
ing H2S to SO2. This incinerator reliably converts the H2S
at temperature below 500°F which requires less than one-
third the fuel gas to operate than a thermal incinerator.
DiCAMILLO:
At steady-state operating conditions, less than 10 ppm
H2S should be attainable without operating the incinera-
tor. However, the incinerator would still be needed for
start-up and shutdown and unit upsets. For that reason, it
would be a good idea to maintain it in warm standby
whenever compliance is a concern.
KENNETH P. REVELL (TPA, Inc.):
Concerning tail gas treaters emitting less than 10 ppm
H2S, we have a licensed technology called Resulf-10TM
that guarantees less than 10 ppm H2S. Our experience has
been very good on these units. I will agree with the panel
that the incinerator should always be kept on hot standby
in case of any problems. When we design tail gas treaters
that reduce emissions to the 250 ppm (ResulfTM Units),
we routinely make provisions so that the unit can be
switched over to a more concentrated stripping operation
in the future to meet a 10 ppm specification.
WILLIAM JOSEPH GIBBONS (Union Carbide Corporation):
Our UCARSOL HS103 tail gas solvent has been used
successfully in atmospheric venting applications in refin-
eries for several years. This application requires a well
maintained solvent and tight operational control. Col-
umns in this service typically treat to 0 ppm to 4 ppm of
H2S.
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
Tail gas treatment is now becoming important from an
environmental standpoint. I would like to know what the
total conversion level would be considering both the
typical tail gas and sulfur plant combination. Would it
achieve something over 99% conversion?
KIMBRELL:
Yes, the conversion with the combination Claus and tail
gas plants is well up over 99%. To get down to the 250
ppm range or lower, you are in the 99.9% range of
conversion.
210 Energy and Environmental Management
J.L. RAINA (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.):
And without tail gas, would it be around 95% or
higher?
KIMBRELL:
Depending on your Claus configuration, you can get
higher than 95%. On a three bed Claus with a normal feed
gas stream, you ought to be able to get into the 98% range
of conversion.
TOM KING (PCI Engineers):
I know Haldor Topsoe has a process whereby the amine
gas is converted to sulfuric acid. Could the panel comment
on how the refiners feel on sulfur versus sulfuric acid? Is
there anything special about the sulfur?
LEMMON:
We have both a sulfur and a sulfuric acid plant and the
economics for sulfuric acid are usually stronger. The mar-
ketplace for acid is tighter, yielding more income, but acid
is harder to store. Because of storage limitations, we usu-
ally end up making more sulfur. It is easier to ship and the
fertilizer industry that buys our product has its own acid
plants to convert it.
THOMAS K. CHOW (Parsons Process Group, Inc.):
Referring to the recovery on sulfur plants, normally for
a three stage Claus unit you would be able to achieve 95%
to 98% recovery. With a tail gas unit, it depends on what
kind of solvent you use. If you use solvents like Union
Carbide, I suggest 101 or equivalent, you will be able to
achieve down to 150 ppm H2S which would be equiva-
lent to an overall recovery of 99.9%. If you use a better
solvent, such as the Union Carbide HS103, you can
achieve down to 5 ppm which is equivalent to over 99.9%
overall recovery.
B. Environmental Management
Air
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Question 20.
Our refinery is in close proximity to a residential
neighborhood and we have concerns about odors from
our refinery, especially the emissions from our hot,
heavy fuel tanks. Does anyone have experience in
reducing these odors? We think that adding an inter-
nal floating roof in addition to the existing fixed roof
might help. Does anyone have any experience with
this technique?
TOC/INDEX
ARNDT:
Our refinery in the Los Angeles area is adjacent to a
residential beach community. The elimination of odors is
paramount. We purge our hot cone roof tanks with nitro-
gen, collect the vent gases, and scrub with caustic before
release.
FEARNSIDE:
If the odors are due to H2S, we have used H2S scavengers
quite successfully. If, however, the odors are due to mercap-
tans, we have not had much luck in dealing with them.
ROBERT BRIERLEY (Husky Oil Operations, Ltd.):
Our Lloydminster asphalt refinery had an odor prob-
lem stemming from the hot asphalt sales tanks. These
tanks operate in the range of 185°C or 365°F. The high
temperature prevented us from considering any type of
floating roof and limited our options to vapor collection
and scrubbing.
The vapor space contains over 2000 ppm of H2S and
1000 ppm oil and there was no inert gas blanketing. We
decided to install an oil coalescer and charcoal scrubbing
system on clusters of tanks to minimize cost. One system
handles up to 10 tanks. Not all the tanks are venting at the
same time so this evens the load. The vapor is collected off
the tank vent and is adjusted with dampers to collect more
than the maximum liquid displacement from the tank. If
the tank is not venting, air is pulled in from the vent to
satisfy the vapor collection.
The vapors are run first to an oil coalescer filter for
removal of any condensed oil droplets and then pass
through the activated charcoal scrubber for removal of the
H2S. These tanks operate only 6 months of the year, and
we found our charcoal needs replacement every year at a
cost of $10,000 in material. Trace oil passing through the
coalescer and absorbing on the charcoal does shorten the
charcoal life. We are considering amine scrubbing as a
more economical alternative to charcoal.
Question 21.
In terms of safety and ease of disposal of the hydro-
carbon/H2S vapor emissions, have refiners found
floating roof tanks to be superior to cone roof tanks for
the SW feed storage tanks?
ARNDT:
For sour water we use double seal floating roofs. We
float a layer of diesel on top of the water to absorb light
hydrocarbons and H2S.
Sour diesel is skimmed off periodically and recharged
with clean diesel.
DAVIS:
CENEX has a cone roof tank that has blowers on
pressure control that vent offgas to the tail gas unit. The
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
tank has a continuous level of oil on the water. The tank
had to be extensively modified to be able to handle a partial
vacuum situation.
KOOIMAN:
One plant I know of had a situation like Mr. Arndt
described, except in that case it was naturally occurring
hydrocarbon through the system where extensive efforts
were not taken to separate the water and the hydrocarbons
in the relief vessels. So we ended up getting the hydrocar-
bon out into the tank and that kept the odor down very
well. In that case, however, the hydrocarbon needed to be
skimmed every 6 months or so.
LEMMON:
We use cone roof tanks with vapor recovery for the foul
water stripper feed tanks. We also have a floating roof tank
with a diesel layer for storage of concentrated foul water
from the foul water stripper overheads.
T.R. (Tom) BACON (Dow Chemical Company):
Questions 20 and 21 address the tightening require-
ments for preventing emissions of hydrocarbons and nox-
ious gases. If these recovered streams are sour, it is obvious
that the place one would first consider returning them to
the system is one of the amine systems. In fact, I saw a vapor
recovery unit on a sour water tank that was compressing
the gas off the tank and putting it into the fuel system before
the amine treater. A third of that gas is ammonia which can
cause corrosion due to ammonium salts in the overhead
condenser lines from the stripper. In addition, any vapor
recovery unit has the possibility of admitting oxygen to a
system if the controls are inadequate.
The caution in terms of recovering vapors from either
sour product tanks or sour water systems is that one really
needs to be aware that inclusion of oxygen and ammonia
are going to give you problems in the amine system. It is
important to review process changes directed towards
solving one problem to assure that a new problem is not
created.
ROBERT BRIERLEY (Husky Oil Operations, Ltd.):
We have asphalt tanks that have an H2S odor problem.
Our H2S level is 1000 ppm to 2000 ppm level and H2S
scavengers will not work at those temperatures. We actu-
ally operate at 230°F on our lower temperature tanks and
about 350°F on our higher temperature tanks. We had to
install a vapor recovery system that included a coalescer
prefilter system, and then we scavenge the H2S with
activated charcoal. But the activated charcoal is a very
expensive medium. We have since found that a better way
to do it is to scrub with amine. If you have to follow up
with activated charcoal, the life of your activated charcoal
is much better.
211
TOC/INDEX
FEARNSIDE:
We have recently developed H2S scavengers that will
work very well in the 300°F to 350°F range. The normal
“standard” H2S scavengers that we have used in the past
will not work at those temperatures.
ALIOS VIRAG (OMV – Schwechat Refinery):
Mr. Arndt, I do not think that using a caustic scrubber
will really remove the odor problem. We did a lot of
analysis of the flue gases of the heavy oil tanks and there
are no mercaptans in them. The gas contains only a little
H2S and other odorous components. So I do not think
just adding a caustic scrubber will eliminate the problem.
In addition, it requires a very expensive piping system. It
will plug since the vapors will condense, and you have high
maintenance costs.
LOUIS E. MARQUEZ (Maraven, S.A.):
Does anyone use a corrosion inhibitor other than am-
monium polysulfide to neutralize cyanide compounds,
basically in coker fractionator overhead systems? Ammo-
nium polysulfide releases H2S at ambient temperature.
FEARNSIDE:
We do not run into cyanide problems that often in
coker overheads. When we do, we use a traditional filming
amine to mitigate any corrosion concerns from that par-
ticular species.
LEMMON:
We use ammonium polysulfide in the treatment of our
coker gas plant. Some of the ammonia polysulfide stream
is directed to the cover fractionator overhead condensers.
The use of water wash and ammonium polysulfide has
been effective in controlling cyanide corrosion.
Water
Separators and Cooling Towers
Question 22.
How often and what methods are used for a rigorous
evaluation of cooling tower thermal efficiency?
FEARNSIDE:
Rigorous cooling tower efficiency evaluations require a
variety of physical measurements and calculations unfa-
miliar to most refinery process engineers. There are a
number of contractors certified by the Cooling Tower
Institute who can execute these types of studies for a
nominal fee.
There are also a number of on-site measurements, such
as the approach wet bulb temperature, that are useful for
spot checking performance. Unfortunately, these measure-
212 Energy and Environmental Management
ments do not indicate why the tower performance has
deteriorated in the first place.
Since a significant amount of money is involved in the
operation of these pieces of equipment, it is prudent to
evaluate performance whenever a system cooling effi-
ciency is suspect.
BARKER:
In addition to tower approach temperature, we use
on-line monitoring of the cooling water supply tempera-
tures. You must include the seasonal effects in your evalu-
ation. We rely quite heavily on visual inspection of the
cooling towers, both during operation and shutdown.
DAVIS:
One method used for determining tower efficiency is
tracking performance based on performance characteristic
nomographies. The nomograph may be specific for the
tower or generic, but either will relate cold water tempera-
ture range and approach to some performance factors. By
tracking the performance factors, operating efficiency can
be tracked.
HUNKUS:
To monitor cooling tower performance you need wet
bulb temperature, dry bulb temperature, heat load, water
load, delta T, cooling tower supply temperature, return
temperature and airflow.
The key is to measure wet bulb frequently with a
portable unit. We have had good luck with one from Cole
Parmer that costs about $50. The wet bulb can vary within
the refinery depending on fugitive steam, the restriction
of air flow, and other factors. We have seen as much as a
3° difference in the wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures
across our refinery within 400 yards of each other. Get
someone to show you how to run the wet bulb and what
to look for. Like using an ORSAT or calculating an orifice
plate, it seems complicated until you do it once.
Additionally, air flow is a key parameter. You must
know the amount of vacuum in the cell. We use a water
column which works well. We are also not up north, so
we do not have the freezing problem.
Finally, this data will mean the most if collected during
your warmest weather, since that is the time when there is
little measurable heat pickup from the air and, therefore,
the least error. This is also the time your plant will be most
receptive to improvements as it is the time that the cooling
tower most affects your plant.
LEMMON:
I agree with my fellow panelists on what needs to be
monitored. We do it twice a year. The work is performed
by our cooling water treatment contractor. We have also
used cooling tower contract inspection companies to evalu-
ate the performance of cooling towers. These companies
TOC/INDEX
have done a very thorough job of inspecting the mechanical
condition of the tower. I think we were a little disappointed
that they did not have any unique or novel methods of
evaluating the towers thermal performance. So if you do
use a contractor, you might want to work on a “scope of
work” document before turning them loose.
Question 23.
Discuss the microbiological impact and recom-
mended practices of recycling 20% of the wastewater
treatment plant water back to the cooling water in a
refinery, discuss the microbiological impact and rec-
ommended practices.
FEARNSIDE:
This is currently being done in a number of refineries at
significantly higher percentages. Wastewater differs from
raw makeup water in two important ways. First, wastewater
contains higher levels of biological food such as ammonia
and BOD. This introduces a supplemental source of food
for the microorganisms and makes microbia control the
key control parameter in successful tower operation.
Second, the wastewater will have a higher level of
dissolved inorganic species than the raw water will. Higher
levels of total dissolved solids require some alteration to
the cooling tower operation and water treatment program.
The additional ammonia can also be a concern with regard
to yellow metal corrosion.
We have found that the higher levels of oxidizing
biosides fed to the combined cooling tower makeup will
control microbia problems in this scenario. The oxidizer
must be fed as far in front of the cooling tower feed point
as possible, to sterilize the makeup prior to introduction
into the cooling tower. The selection of oxidizing bioside
is equally important. It must be effective at the pH of the
makeup water and has to have a variable feed control. In
other words, solid halogens are not recommended. We
have found that this scheme works very well. We also know
that trying to handle wastewater microbial control only at
the cooling tower does not work.
The TDS levels of the wastewater are usually much
higher than the TDS of the raw makeup water. Therefore,
some calcium and magnesium hardness can be removed
by commingling the wastewater with raw water in existing
pretreatment equipment. However, some highly soluble
species such as chlorides and sulfates will not be removed,
resulting in higher TDS makeup to the cooling tower. This
generally requires the cooling tower to operate at lower
cycles of concentration.
Since the makeup water is now highly variable, it is
critical that the cooling towers utilizing this makeup water
be fully instrumented and controlled. Supplemental testing
is usually required to account for things such as phosphate
levels in the makeup water. In most cases, the existing base
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
water treatment can handle the recycle operation with an
overlay of supplemental corrosion inhibitor.
While wastewater recycle is a significant change in
operation, in all cases operational changes such as these
can be tested and evaluated using on-site pilot plant
equipment to verify operating conditions.
KIMBRELL:
We would choose not to recycle this level of wastewater
back into the cooling towers. The higher salt content and
the ammonia level are our primary concern. The ammonia
is food for microbiological growth. And the higher salt
content requires higher blow down rates and Mr. Fearn-
side indicated some of the other problems. We are seri-
ously considering using a municipal secondary treated
water as our complete makeup water source for our cool-
ing towers. We would choose to use reverse osmosis to
improve that water quality before we used it.
Question 24.
Does anyone have experience with hydrocyclones to
separate oil and water? Oil and solids? Water and
solids?
HUNKUS:
Hydrocyclones have been used to separate oil and water
mixtures in some refinery applications. We have one type
on our West crude unit desalter effluent. We have seen
various amounts of separation efficiency, oil/water, oil/sol-
ids, and water/solids, and have experimented with them all.
I would say that we have had qualified success in all
three areas, but have only installed large units for oil/water
separation so far. The use of hydrocyclones to separate
complex emulsions and effluent brine from crude desalt-
ing is not always successful. However, we feel we benefit
from our desalter application and have seen some benefit
for use on waste oil recycle.
Some reasons applications may fail include:
1. Desalter operation is seldom a steady-state process.
Large variations in oil-to-water ratios can fre-
quently overload the hydropumps.
2. One of the primary emulsions stabilized in most
heavy crude desalting brine is solids. High levels of
solids frequently plug the small orifices in the oil
eject of the hydrocyclone. This requires frequent
(twice per shift) back-washing, but we feel this
effort is rewarded by better overall refinery oil
recovery from our process water and more reliable
compliance.
3. Typical desalter pressure is only a few hundred psi.
As a result, sufficient driving force is not available
to accelerate the emulsion as much as may have
been required, and thus, insufficient G force may
be developed in the hydrocyclone to achieve the
best separation.
213
TOC/INDEX
KIMBRELL:
We have used a hydrocyclone to separate oil and water
in our desalter water effluent prior to it being sent to a
steam stripper. As Mr. Hunkus indicated, the quality of
the feed determines the quality of the performance of the
hydrocyclone. We have been generally pleased with its
performance. We do have to do daily back flushing to
maintain efficiency, and solids do collect in there. You
need to take them off line and clean them out occasionally.
BARKER:
The underflow from the deashers at our Parachute
facility contained a lot of shale oil with the wash water.
Because of the stable emulsion that was produced across
the mixing valve that the grid did not have enough horse-
power to break. We installed three vortoil units which are
horizontal hydroclones. We started out with two and then
added a third as a spare. They worked quite well, but had
to be disassembled once a week for cleaning and replace-
ment of worn parts. Some of the internal parts had useful
lives as short as 6 weeks because of the abrasion from the
oil shale grit that we were washing out of the oil in the
deashers in the first place. We use ceramic coated surfaces
in some areas, but that did not improve life.
We produced a very stable emulsion from the heavy oil,
water and solids that was nearly impossible to break. Yet,
approximately two-thirds of the shale oil that was in this
mixture was separated out.
DAVIS:
We used a hydrocyclone ahead of our water treatment
plant to separate solids out from the liquid stream.
DAVID ZUDKEVITCH (Columbia University):
I would like to augment what Mr. Davis said about the
use of hydrocyclones in treatment of wastewater. It is a
part of standard procedures to use hydrocyclones as de-
gritters in the primary treatment of municipal wastewater.
While the grit is separated by the hydrocyclones from the
wastewater, it comes out coated with heavy oil and grease.
Thus, the hydrocyclones remove solids, grits, and some
sticky oily substances which could plug downstream pip-
ing and which, due to high specific gravity, may not float
in the API separators (primary treatment settlers).
In petroleum processing, I know that hydrocyclones
have been successfully used in separating kerosene from
water. However, since liquid/liquid hydrocyclones operate
under relatively high pressures and require attention, they
may be considered relatively expensive per unit flow rate.
Question 25.
For cooling towers, has anybody used boiler blow-
down water as makeup and what problems have been
encountered? Is anyone reusing cooling tower blow-
down elsewhere prior to discharge?
214 Energy and Environmental Management
FEARNSIDE:
The use of boiler blowdown as cooling tower makeup
is dependent on the type of boiler treatment program
utilized and the ratio of boiler blowdown-to-cooling tower
makeup. Boilers using phosphate programs can probably
be utilized if the incremental phosphate contribution is
taken into account. Polymer boiler programs are generally
not acceptable due to the polymer solubility in the pres-
ence of high hardness streams, unless some method is used
to oxidize the polymers.
An additional consideration is the added cooling tower
thermal loading caused by the addition of boiler blow-
down.
HUNKUS:
We do not use boiler blowdown as makeup to cooling
towers, but we use both cooling tower and boiler blow-
down in the makeup to our Venturi wet gas scrubber. This
has worked very well for us in our efforts to reduce total
fresh water makeup and outfall. We also use our raw water
makeup to the cooling towers as once-through cooling
water for some equipment that requires the extra cooling
duty from this cold water supply which has treatment
chemicals injected into it.
KIMBRELL:
We used to use boiler blowdown as cooling tower
makeup on an intermittent basis approximately 10 years
ago. It was not very successful. The high TDS, high pH,
and high temperature are things that we were concerned
about. I agree that there can be some interaction with the
chemistry of the two systems, and have heard that odors
have been emitted as well.
KOOIMAN:
Our Drew representative polled his consultants, and
he found that only one had ever been exposed to a case
where they had used the boiler blowdown as cooling
tower makeup. It was a utility cogeneration facility in the
TOC/INDEX
Northwest, and they were doing it because they had zero
discharge and they had evaporation ponds as well.
They had a 1300 psig boiler operating on a coordinated
phosphate program. In this case, the entire blowdown
stream went to the cooling tower, but the boiler blowdown
only represented about one-fourth of the total cooling
water makeup. They got about 5 to 7 cycles on the cooling
tower, but they also experienced terrible condenser fouling
of calcium phosphate. They stopped doing it because of
that fouling. Now the blowdown goes directly to the ponds.
Question 26.
What is the best method for controlling sludge accu-
mulation in the cooling tower basin? Is there any
proven on-line method to remove sludge from the
cooling tower?
SMITH:
In addition to maintaining good water treatment pro-
grams, there are two additional ways that our Riyadh
Refinery cooling tower sludge is controlled. The first way
is slip stream filtration. Approximately 10% of the flow
from the return line is processed through sand filters to
remove suspended solids. The effluent is returned to the
basin. The second way is that the settled sludge is blown
down from the cooling tower basin. By providing a slope
in gradient to the bottom of the basin floor, the accumu-
lated and settled sludge can be removed by opening a
blowdown valve which produces sufficient velocity to
remove the sludge. Periodic operation of the blowdown
system along with the slip stream filtration can provide
good on-line sludge removal.
BARKER:
There has not been any effective on-line method util-
ized at our refinery to deal with the accumulation of sludge
in cooling tower basins. We typically remove any sludge
accumulated in our basins with a vacuum truck during
routine shutdowns. There have been some basins designed
with a “sump draw off ” that allows easier access for remov-
ing sludge, but this is not typically done on-line.
DAVIS:
We have attempted to remove sludge from the basin
on-line via a vacuum truck without any luck. Currently,
we clean sludge from each basin as shutdowns allow. Also,
back flushing exchangers to the sewer, as equipment al-
lows, is practiced.
FEARNSIDE:
A major contributor to suspended solids is windborne
dirt and dust from surrounding acreage. Any steps that can
be taken to reduce the level of airborne particulates will be
beneficial. The main problem with sludge accumulation
is that it usually turns septic and generates problems
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
associated with anaerobic bacteria. Once again, preven-
tion is the best solution.
GENTRY:
Our utilities group endorses side stream filtration as a
proven on-line method.
Secondary Treatment
Question 27.
What process strategies are employed to control am-
monia in the wastewater plant effluent?
KOOIMAN:
Controlling ammonia in wastewater plants is kind of
interesting. We just started a new wastewater treating
plant, an activated sludge plant. It was clean enough in the
front end that there was not a lot of BOD or ammonia.
But there was more ammonia coming out than was toler-
able. The summertime limit was 3 ppm. Looking into it
in greater detail, we found that the ammonia is actually a
nutrient and the more BOD consumption you have, the
more ammonia consumption you will have in a ratio of
about 100 to 5 to 1 of BOD to ammonia to phosphate.
What we did in this particular case was back off on the
polymer a little bit to allow some BOD slip. Then the
ammonia was consumed as a nutrient. When we did not
do that, ammonia was also consumed, but the right mi-
crobiology had to be cultured in order to handle it.
What we are working on right now is feeding a little bit
of ammonia to culture that microbiology. In line with this,
we made another interesting discovery. Every once in a
while we would get an ammonia squirt from somewhere,
and we would look through the unit and it would be all
clean water coming out. It turns out, in one case at least,
that we had an upset coincident with an ammonia excur-
sion to the water plant and we traced it back to the crude
unit. The upset that occurred in the crude unit had shifted
where the water loading happened to be and actually
washed off ammonium chloride salts out to the sewer for
a little while. That was quite an interesting find.
LEMMON:
Ammonia in our Avon and Bayway Refineries’ waste-
water treatment plant effluent is controlled by a combina-
tion of upstream controls and an extended aeration
activated sludge biological treatment facility. Upstream
controls include a sour water stripper which reduces hy-
drogen sulfide and ammonia levels in sour water streams
prior to discharge to the wastewater treatment plant.
Additionally, batch discharges from process units of
compounds such as monoethanolamine are discharged at
controlled flow rates to the wastewater treatment plant, to
avoid potential shock loads and/or excess ammonia pass-
ing through the wastewater treatment plant. At one plant,
215
TOC/INDEX
they use a permit system to authorize and control unusual
discharges to sewer.
Ammonia that enters the extended aeration activated
sludge system is then partially removed as part of the
biological growth process, with the remainder converted
to nitrites and nitrates through nitrification. If conditions
are not right for nitrification, it is possible for the ammo-
nia concentration to increase across a biological treater.
This occurs when the biological mass feeds on nitrogen-
containing compounds and then expels ammonia as a
biological waste. If cost is no object, ammonia can be
oxidized by chlorine to chloroamines; the cost to do this
depends on wastewater COD.
KIMBRELL:
One of our refineries has its effluent discharge to the
Los Angeles County sanitation district, and the limit of
100 ppm ammonia on the effluent is not difficult to
achieve. The other facility does have an activated sludge
biological treatment plant. We have not had a problem
with ammonia in the effluent there, as long as we keep the
dissolved oxygen in the aeration tank up.
BARKER:
We control ammonia in our wastewater through nitri-
fication. Our wastewater plant is extremely well aerated,
which is a key parameter to maintaining good nitrifica-
tion. The blowers and the design of our aeration grid do
not allow us to significantly reduce the amount of aera-
tion. Consequently, our aeration tanks run at saturated
dissolved oxygen levels. The only parameter that we do
have to monitor is our aeration tank pH. Typically, the
optimal pH ranges between 6.5 and 7.5 while targeting
for 7.0. If the pH drops below 6.5, then denitrification
can occur. This is when nitrifying bacteria produce nitro-
gen gas which causes the activated sludge to float instead
of settle. This, in turn, will result in a very undesirable
condition known as a clarifier “burp”. It causes the sludge
blanket at the bottom of the clarifier to rise to the surface
leading to high solids in the treated effluent.
FEARNSIDE:
Effluent ammonia levels can be effectively controlled
via the activated sludge process. Biological nitrification is
a sensitive process that will occur concurrently with car-
bonaceous BOD removal in a properly controlled envi-
ronment. Nitrification is particularly susceptible to
process variations such as flow increases, high organic
loading or excessive wasting of biological solids. Addition-
ally, the nitrifying organisms are inhibited by the presence
of numerous compounds including phenols and heavy
metals.
Sudden increases in ammonia loading can be over-
whelming to an otherwise healthy biomass and result in
high effluent ammonia levels. The loading can be obvious
216 Energy and Environmental Management
if in the form of free ammonia, or less obvious if it is a
product of biological breakdown of amines from the
refinery strippers.
In the case of ammonia contribution from amines,
there can be the appearance of a loss of nitrification, when
in fact it is a matter of ammonia being released in the
system faster than the bacteria can assimilate it. Therefore,
it is important to monitor both ammonia and nitrate levels
in and out of the system to perform a simple ammonia
balance across the system. Periodic TKN analysis for base-
line amine levels can also provide valuable information
when upsets occur.
Routine laboratory nitrification capacity and inhibi-
tion testing has been used extensively at two Midwestern
refineries to monitor plant performance and troubleshoot
incidences where effluent ammonia levels have increased
beyond desired limits. These tests also provide informa-
tion needed to determine whether or not the application
of pure nitrifier cultures is an appropriate course of action.
The use of nitrifying cultures has been shown to reduce
the recovery time in systems that have lost nitrification or
experienced an increase in ammonia loading. However,
plant conditions must be suitable for nitrification prior to
application.
Question 28.
Can the panel comment on any experience with out-
side firms contracted to run the wastewater treatment
plants?
KOOIMAN:
On the same plant that I talked about on the last
question, we were trying to run an activated sludge plant,
and we thought that both refining and water plant proc-
esses would be similar enough that it would be an easy
transition for our operators and supervisors to go from a
refining process to the water plant. But we found that there
were a lot of differences in the way they operate, so much
so that we had difficulty getting it up and operable.
In our case, we were able to find some people from PSG
who worked with us for a couple of months. They had so
many good ideas on what to do that we considered hiring
them on indefinitely. They have contract programs where
for a fixed rate they will come in and operate the facility.
They are big, part of Air and Water Technology, I believe,
which is part of CGE. Those are unfamiliar to me, as was
PSG. We were very steep on the learning curve, but they
got us into a position where we could take it on. I am
confident that in that particular plant, with continued
effort, we will be able to get the cost down enough that it
would not warrant a long-term contract.
KIMBRELL:
We have been approached by a contractor to perform
operation of our biological treatment facility. We looked
TOC/INDEX
hard at it, but at this time we have elected to continue to
operate the plant ourselves. As I indicated, our other
facility discharges to the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District and that has been a good relationship.
GENTRY:
Service companies that operate utility and outside sys-
tems within refineries and chemical plants have included
wastewater treatment along with other utilities, such as
water treatment and steam and power generation. One
perspective that we have seen on this is that using the third
party “build/own/operate” approach can be considered in
addressing the economics of new plant construction, as a
means of translating capital costs into operating costs.
Question 29.
Have any refiners had success using activated carbon
absorbers for wastewater polishing or treating prior
to disposal? If so, what size bed is being used, how
long does the carbon last, and is it cost-effective to
regenerate the carbon?
LEMMON:
At our California refinery, we often treat the entire
refinery wastewater stream with activated carbon. We do
this because of stringent biological assay requirements that
require the use of rainbow trout as test species.
We use jumbo size carbon vessels which hold 40,000
pounds of carbon. We operate them in pairs in a lead like
series mode to maximize carbon utilization. Wastewater
flow to each vessel is typically 600 gpm and the carbon
lasts about 3 weeks. All the carbon is regenerated by
regeneration companies. We have multi-year contracts,
and as a result, we have very good economy. A multi-year
contract with a carbon supplier can probably get your
carbon pricing down quite a bit.
The carbon treatment reduces wastewater COD by
about 50%, but our control point is set by biological assay
results, not by COD removal. So if you do the math, you
will find that 1 lb of carbon is used to process 450 gal. of
water. Activated carbon is not suitable for ammonia re-
moval and it will not reduce ammonia. Feedwater must be
low in suspended solids, or bed channeling will rapidly
occur. If you leave a bed stagnant (take one off line), a toxic
environment can be created that, when the bed is brought
back on-line, can impact treated water biological assay
results.
I also understand that it is much more common to have
carbon vessels that hold 20,000 lb/vessel, our 40,000 lb
vessels are unique and in some ways difficult to manage.
ARNDT:
We use a lot of activated carbon for wastewater treating.
In Richmond, we post-treat all our biologically treated
wastewater. We use 20,000 lb bed module units as Mr.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Lemmon mentioned. We use about 20 of them to treat a
nominal 6 million gallons on dry days. Bed life is usually
1 year. The carbon is regenerated off-site by the supplier.
BARKER:
We have no experience with granular activated carbon
(GAC) at our facility. We use powdered carbon mixed with
our activated sludge; this is commonly known as the
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) process,
which is patented by ZIMPRO. Our experience is that
PACT produces an effluent quality equivalent to and often
better than GAC beds. This is based on comparative
discussions with other GAC users. We regenerate our
powdered carbon using wet air oxidation which has
proven to be very cost-effective when compared to
makeup with virgin PAC. We are not aware of any facilities
that regenerate granulated activation carbon beds on-site.
Instead, they periodically replace their beds and have the
spent carbon regenerated off-site which is more expensive
than the on-site regeneration.
FEARNSIDE:
We would recommend granulated carbon only after a
careful study of the COD components and alternative
solutions. Typically, alternative biodegradation steps, such
as bioaugmentation, can be one-half to one-third the cost
of granulated carbon with little or no capital costs involved.
Question 30.
What are the recommended treatment methods for an
aqueous stream containing 10 ppm to 15 ppm of
phenol? What are standard methods for testing “phe-
nol content” of low concentration (i.e., ppb range)?
FEARNSIDE:
Aqueous streams with this level of phenol can be de-
graded using biological treatment. This can achieve phe-
nol levels in the 1 ppm to 5 ppm range, and possibly lower,
depending on the bioplant operation. From the question,
it would appear that you are looking for ppb levels in the
final stream. In this case, the volume of the stream be-
comes important. For large wastewater streams, you would
presumably be using secondary flotation and filtration.
Activated carbon or trickling filters after gravity filtration
should meet this criteria.
GENTRY:
Conventional activated sludge design or proprietary
configurations, such as sequencing batch reactor (SBR),
orbal and submerged biological contractors (SBC), have
been shown to be effective in reducing effluent concentra-
tions to less than 0.5 ppm. Equalization of the effluent is
important. The EPA Treatability Data Base will provide
considerable detail on the applicability and effectiveness
of treatment processes over a wide range of phenol
217
TOC/INDEX
concentrations. With regard to test methods, the determi-
nation of phenol and water at the ppb level can be done
using Method 8250A Semivolatile Organic Compounds
by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
from EPA’s Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846.
DAVIS:
CENEX uses a small bioreactor which essentially air
saturates the 130°F wastewater. The biological activity
reduces the phenol content from 15 ppm to about 1 ppm
in the outfall. Performance is checked with color indica-
tion sticks manufactured by Chemetrics. The glass tube
tip is broken and a sample is drawn in from the vacuum
in the tube. Color indication gives the phenol content.
KIMBRELL:
Our activated sludge biological system treatment rou-
tinely reduces the phenol content down to 0.1 ppm.
LEMMON:
My comments are consistent with the earlier panelists.
I would add that concentrations of phenol in the ppm
range can be estimated quickly using inexpensive color-
metric field kits.
CHRIS H. SPURRELL (Chevron Products Company):
Acclimated activated sludge can handle upwards of 100
ppm of phenol. As a stop gap method for phenol control,
activated carbon works, potassium permanganate works,
and Fentons reagent, which is a mixture of ferrous ion and
hydrogen peroxide, also works.
RENE LUCENA (Corpoven Petroleos de Venezuela):
I want to know if anyone has at any time used hydrogen
peroxide for treatment with water while the oxidation level
is being managed?
DAVIS:
We use it only as a stop gap measure.
LEMMON:
We have also used it as a stop gap measure.
Question 31.
Did refineries that covered their flotation units due to
NESHAPS continue to use air or did they convert to
nitrogen or natural gas? How has this affected the
operation? We have experienced problems with trou-
bleshooting (no visual access) as well as mainte-
nance issues with the scraper chains and shear pins
seizing up. For units that converted to nitrogen, what
changes were made in recycle rate or saturation re-
tention time?
218 Energy and Environmental Management
LEMMON:
We covered our API separator channels to comply with
regional air quality fugitive emission standards. At that
time, we made the decision to convert to DNF, Dissolved
Nitrogen Flotation, and gas blanketing. We were con-
cerned that we might form an explosive mixture under the
channel covers. I understand that this is not consistent
throughout the industry; different refineries do different
things.
Operation following the conversion to covered chan-
nels was very poor. Composite samplers were installed to
allow operators a means to gauge unit performance; this
had previously been accomplished by simply looking at
the effluent water. Lubrication systems were upgraded to
use a combination of misting and drip systems; eventually
a conversion to non lubricated plastic chain was made.
Amp meters were installed on the flight scraper motors so
operators and mechanics could detect high drag condi-
tions and conduct preventive maintenance.
A fresh air supply system had to be installed near
observation hatches to reduce the potential for operator
exposure to oxygen deficient atmospheres when sampling
through open hatches.
KIMBRELL:
Rather than cover our dissolved air floatation units, we
installed a new style of induced gas flotation units that use
nitrogen that is recycled. Nitrogen consumption has been
very low, and performance has been excellent.
FEARNSIDE:
We find that there is a lot more corrosion taking place
due to the captured gases. We have seen H2S levels 10 to
20 times higher than what you would have with a non-
covered system. We have some references that people are
switching over to plastic materials to help with the corro-
sion situation.
GENTRY:
Switching from air to nitrogen service can be expected
to slightly decrease the gas-to-oil ratio, and, therefore, the
performance of the units. Nitrogen solubility in water is
approximately 20% less than the solubility of air in water
at the same temperature and pressure. Increasing nitrogen
pressure to 49 psig would yield gas-to-oil ratios equivalent
to those obtained with air at 40 psig. Another means of
increasing the gas-to-oil ratio is increasing the retention
time in the gas saturation tank. Consideration should be
given to modifying the level controls on the existing tank,
allowing operation at a lower level, and increasing the
dissolving efficiency factor. Increasing the recycle rate
directly increases the gas-to-oil ratio. An increase of ap-
proximately 25% should yield nitrogen-to-oil ratios equal
to the air-to-oil ratio.
TOC/INDEX
General
Question 32.
In what process streams are refiners finding Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material (N.O.R.M.) to be a
concern? Have crudes from certain regions been
found to be more problematic than others?
KOOIMAN:
Regarding naturally occurring radioactive material,
there are a couple of good sources. N.O.R.M. A Guide to
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material; Wilson, W.F.;
PennWell Books 1994; and “Radioactive Materials Could
Pose Problems For The Gas Industry”; Oil and Gas Journal;
June 25, 1990; Gray.
The radioactive material is produced in the decay series
of Uranium-238 and Thorium-232. Refineries and natu-
ral gas liquid plants could be affected from the Radium-
226 and the Radon-222, the fifth and sixth products in
the Uranium-238 decay series.
Radium is found in soil and rocks; and radon, which is
an inert radioactive gas, is generally present wherever
radium is found. In fact, that is what we test for in homes
these days.
Both radionuclides are soluble in groundwater also. A
producing reservoir would remove radium as a sludge in
a liquid phase and radon would be produced or separated
as a gas. Because its boiling point was about -80°F, it will
concentrate between ethane and propylene in the light
hydrocarbon side of a refinery or a natural gas liquids
plant.
Domestically, Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma have the
greatest probability of radon. Measurements from wells in
Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have also shown
relatively high radon concentrations. Radium can also be
found in crudes from those areas.
SMITH:
Saudi Aramco defines N.O.R.M. contamination as
radioactivity exceeding 5 picocuries. This is a little lower
than most do. None of the Arabian crudes or products
tested has shown N.O.R.M. contamination. For some
formations, Saudi Aramco has, however, found N.O.R.M.
contamination in formation water separated from the
crudes in fields and primary desalters. This N.O.R.M.
concentrates in the resulting scale. Despite the occurrence
of formation water, N.O.R.M. is easily removed by reverse
osmosis treatment of the water or by flashing to remove
the radioactive gases.
BARKER:
We have not found any N.O.R.M. in our crude or
product streams, but we did find an unusual situation with
some sandblasting sand containing thorium. The material
had been used by a contractor for cleanup of a process
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
vessel during a shutdown. When it was sent off-site for
disposal, we found the sand had a low level of radioactivity.
Further investigation revealed that some geographical lo-
cations which supply this blasting sand do in fact have
naturally occurring radioactive material in the product
they supply to the sandblasting contractors.
Question 33.
Does anyone control the sour water stripper overhead
condenser outlet temperature to prevent corrosion?
How accurately can this be controlled, and what sys-
tems are used to achieve this?
BARKER:
Our sour water stripper overhead is controlled quite
well by a circulating tempered-water system. The overhead
is kept at 180°F which prevents corrosion and fouling salts
from forming. This overhead accumulator temperature is
controlled by a tempered-water flow rate through the
condenser. At a different refinery, we have solved the
problem by upgrading the metallurgy to titanium. We still
control the overhead condenser outlet temperature to
minimize formation of salts which cause plugging.
DAVIS:
CENEX also uses metallurgy to prevent corrosion.
Considering the material and potential swings in feed-
stock, the correctly applied material is the best fix. The
sour water stripper overhead condenser is a fin fan on
temperature control with titanium tubes. The outlet pip-
ing to the receiver is 304L. Our worst problem so far is
salt build up, as Ms. Barker mentioned, in instrument taps
which has been corrected by the use of small steam purges.
FEARNSIDE:
We know of a lot of refiners who are using temperature
controls to mitigate salt fouling. What you have to be
careful of is that it only works with ammonium bisulfide,
ammonium chloride, and possibly ammonium sulfate-
type salts. If you have a cyanide related corrosion problem,
you have to move over to other means of controlling that
type of corrosion.
KIMBRELL:
We do not control the outlet temperature from the
overhead condenser. The condenser tubes themselves are
titanium. The piping is 316 stainless. We control the
temperature of the overhead accumulator by bypassing gas
around the overhead condenser to prevent salt formation.
The water that is used for the condensing duty has already
been used in a prior service. It is approximately 100°F
which helps prevent over condensing. We also have expe-
rience with a sour water stripper that does not have an
overhead condenser or accumulator. The heat duty is done
by a pumparound stream so that the product off the top
219
TOC/INDEX
is temperature controlled by varying the duty on the
pumparound.
KOOIMAN:
I am aware of one sour water stripper that had tempera-
ture control like that. In this particular case, it was a carbon
steel shell and tube heat exchanger with cooling water on
the tube side. The cooling water flow rate was controlled
to adjust the outlet temperature of the process side at about
190°F. One of the problems, though, was a lot of tube side
fouling. That would be cooling water fouling because of
the reduced flow rates. It would last about 9 months
between clean outs.
LEMMON:
We found that the salts that formed at our foul water
stripper overheads also contained carbon dioxide. We
experienced a lot of salt formation at temperatures around
120°F. So our composition may be different than what
other panelists are familiar with. We also throttle cooling
water to control temperatures. We target a process outlet
temperature of 160°F. The cooling water gets heated up to
as high a temperature as 180°F which would normally
cause fouling as reported for carbon steel bundles. We use
aluminum overhead bundles, they do not foul on either
side under these conditions. We have heard that titanium
is even more resistant to water side fouling.
Question 34.
What residence times are being used in sour water
surge tanks for oil removal or surge capacity? Have
de-emulsifiers been used to reduce the required oil
settling time?
SMITH:
In the Ras Tanura Refinery design, raw sour water is
initially fed to a degassing drum which is fitted with
vertical weirs. There is an overflow weir at one end of the
drum for recovered oil removal and an underflow/over-
220 Energy and Environmental Management
flow weir arrangement at the other end to ensure that no
oil is entrained with the water leaving the drum.
The recovered oil is automatically pumped to slop on
level control. The drum is designed for a 30 min residence
time. The sour water from this drum is routed to either of
two sour water surge tanks with about a 4 day surge
capacity per tank. One tank is filled while the other is used
to charge the stripper.
In addition to internal floating skimmers, side
mounted decants are being provided as a backup for
secondary oil removal from the surge tanks. No planned
demulsifiers will be used due to the relatively long resi-
dence time and other mechanical measures in the design.
KIMBRELL:
We also degas our sour water prior to sending it to
storage tanks. We have between 24 and 48 hours worth of
residence time in the storage tanks. We do skim oil, both
in the degassing drums and in the sour water tanks, to
minimize the oil intrusion into the sour water stripper and
on into the Claus plants, to help minimize the COS and
CS 2 production.
LEMMON:
At one Tosco facility, past practice has shown that less
than 2 hours residence time yields oil in excess of 100 ppm.
Therefore, residence time was increased to 4 hours, and
that is working adequately. Demulsifiers work well, but we
do not currently use them.
KOOIMAN:
There is about 10 min to 15 min for initial removal in
a small drum and then about 7 days in a tank, but no
experience with demulsifiers.
ARNDT:
In our large refineries, we have nominally 2-weeks of
surge time in our sour water processing system. The exact
location of the surge vessels or tanks is site-specific. Surge
time includes feed storage for sour water concentrators
and sour water strippers.
DAVIS:
Our sour water surge tank is a 25,000 barrel tank held
approximately half full. This gives us 7 day retention time.
We too skim oil from this tank. No demulsifiers are used
in the tank.
FEARNSIDE:
We typically see 12 hour to 24 hour residence times or
much greater like Mr. Davis indicated. We have used
demulsifiers very successfully, but our first recommenda-
tion is try to find out the source of hydrocarbon and fix it
at the source.
TOC/INDEX
Solid & Chemical Waste
Question 35.
Several catalyst manufacturing companies have pro-
posed alliance agreements to refiners to manage their
catalyst supply, handling, and disposal activities. Us-
ing a single source manufacturer may eliminate new
technology available from alternate suppliers. Has
any company entertained an offer to outsource these
catalyst activities to an independent management
company?
DiCAMILLO:
Alliance agreements for full catalyst management are
beneficial to the refinery, especially in these days of down-
sizing where manpower is at a premium. An example
would be Criterion’s full service alliance with Syncrude
Canada Ltd. In that instance, we have a permanent em-
ployee located at the Syncrude site assigned to catalyst
management. This arrangement has reduced turnaround
time and handling and storage charges for the customer
and had a positive effect on their bottom line.
Regarding whether that is the best route, Criterion is
constantly looking for new ways to do things, and we will
replace outmoded technology when we come up with
something new. In addition, our agreements have a best
technology clause. The customer is free to explore new
technologies, and we also are allowed the option to change
the technology to match if they find something better. The
customer is also free to switch to that technology if we
cannot match something he has found. For this reason, we
do not feel our customers are at a disadvantage when we
agree to handle their catalyst management.
BARKER:
We have not embraced the cradle-to-grave alliance
approach due to several concerns, including liability con-
siderations, limitations on the introduction of new tech-
nology available from competition, dealing with multiple
contractors during turnarounds, and reduced price com-
petition. We find it difficult to get past these issues.
DAVIS:
I have to agree with Ms. Barker.
C. Energy Management
Process Heaters
Question 36.
We have two furnaces with air preheaters equipped
with glass tubes. Although we follow the manufac-
turer’s recommended washing procedure, we repeat-
edly experience breakage of these tubes. What have
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
other refiners experiences been with these types of air
preheaters?
JACKSON:
Yes, we have experience with air preheaters with the
glass tubes, and we too have suffered from the tubes
cracking. We have put the problem down to one or more
of a number of issues:
• washing the tubes too hot;
• vibration of the tubes in operation;
• breakage at the point of contact of the supports;
• hardening of the PTFE tubesheets;
• aging and cycling of the glass; and
• poorly designed tubes that break through thermal
expansion.
When the glass cracks, the inlet air bypasses the tubes
and exits via the stack. We would typically install sampling
points on the flue gas side upstream and downstream of
the preheater. Once a month, the flue gas would be
sampled and the difference in oxygen content checked. If
the tubes are broken, then there will be more oxygen in
the downstream flue gas section.
One company has introduced a glass lined metal tube,
and it claims that the supporting of the tubes and the tube
sheet system give a better and more reliable design. BP has
no experience with these designs to date.
BP is also looking into Open Channel Air preheaters.
These are plate type constructions and are being consid-
ered for service in one of our refineries.
ARNDT:
One of our ex-Chevron refineries uses glass tubes in a
furnace air preheater. By and large they have performed
well. Some breakage has occurred on-line. It is believed
that the cause is due to sucking in cold rainwater into their
fan and the water runs down the ducting shocking the glass
tubes. The tube failures have been mainly on the outer ring
of tubes. Another problem is the gradual hardening of the
support material, reducing the flexibility of the tubes to
withstand stresses.
Question 37.
We have experienced persistent mechanical failure of
our soot blowers in our vacuum furnace. The compo-
nents which normally fail are the limit switches and
line steam admission valve, which fail during soot
blowing operation. What are other refiners’ experi-
ence with soot blowers?
DAVIS:
A survey of the CENEX maintenance staff finds the
limit switches to be the most frequent failure. They do feel,
however, that the 2 year life expectancy they are experienc-
ing is satisfactory.
221
TOC/INDEX
LEMMON:
One Tosco refinery has experienced persistent me-
chanical failure of soot blowers in several furnaces. The
problem is related to insufficient air pressure to the air
motors that drive the lances in and out of the furnace.
They are going to upgrade the control system from pneu-
matic to electrical to get more consistent air pressure to
the drive motors.
SMITH:
For commiseration, we have additional problems to
offer. We have packing leaks on the lance. We have break-
ing chains on sprockets, drives and carriage in one of our
refineries. We have erosion of the extended tube services
(studs) and surrounding tube damage, and damage to the
convection section refractory near the soot blower. Of
course, the intrinsic design and the severe operating con-
ditions make these problems likely. The only control
parameter we have found to help ensure a better operation
is to make sure that your steam is as dry as possible. Wet
steam will cause erosion problems in the lance as well as
in the nearby furnace components.
RONALD E. MARRELLI (Phillips Petroleum):
This question does not pertain to the previous two
process heaters you have talked about, but it pertains to
heaters in general and it is a development that has come
up recently. Does anyone in the audience or on the panel
have any experience with emissivity coatings inside fire
boxes to improve efficiency and reduce fuel costs on
process heaters?
JACKSON:
We considered this at one of our refineries, but instead
we focused our attention on better, more efficient burners.
We are not convinced that it would pay back for all of the
effort it requires.
CHARLES LeROY (CITGO Petroleum Corporation):
We have a refinery down in Corpus Christi that is
getting ready install some electromagnetic devices on the
piping right near the burner tips. The firm supplying this
claims that it can increase burner efficiencies by 10%. I
have not heard of this before, and am curious if anybody
has any knowledge of successful applications. I have no
idea how it works. It seems a little bit like snake oil to me.
I was just curious if anybody in the audience or the panel
had heard of this before or could comment on this.
JACKSON:
First and foremost, I have heard of it, but I do not have
the details. It does do something and it has something to
do with the effect on the molecules. I do not know the
specific details.
222 Energy and Environmental Management
Exchangers
Question 38.
We have come across some reference of refineries
replacing air fin cooler blades from aluminum to
hollow FRP which permits different blade pitch angles
to be used for increased air flow at a lower power
consumption due to much lower weight of the hollow
FRP blades. What is the general experience regarding
use of FRP fan blades in process units with particular
reference to use of hollow FRP blades?
LEMMON:
We have used Hudson brand high efficiency FRP
blades at one of our refinery cooling towers. The manu-
facturer claimed the fans would give 10% to 15% more
air flow at constant power, which was our interest. We did
not have the electrical power supply capacity to go to a
larger fan. We needed a more efficient one.
Following installation, tests did show that the cooling
water from the cells with the high efficiency fans had lower
temperature, so we were getting more airflow. The reliabil-
ity of FRP fan blades has been excellent: no failures in the
4 years they have been in service. I cannot comment on
the benefits of reduced weight or see how that might
contribute to better efficiency.
JACKSON:
I agree with my colleague. BP uses plastic blades in
some refineries. We have found the ones we have installed
to be beneficial from an air flow point of view, due to
profiling changes, and no real improvement due to lighter
weight.
We have dealings with Hudson, Texas, USA and Stork,
Holland. New FRP designs include new special profiled
blades that are low noise blades, but they are more expen-
sive than the standard FRP designs.
Would we install FRP blades? Yes, to increase the air
flow across the air fin. When we look at power savings on
air fins we look in other areas:
• hub seal to prevent air recirculation;
• minimizing clearances between fan and hood; and
• belt drives, types and tightness.
DAVIS:
CENEX has converted all of their cooling towers to the
FRP style plastic blades. All of our new Hudson fin fans
are FRP bladed as well, with the benefits as described by
the other panelists. The only known consideration for not
using FRP fans are temperature factors.
GENTRY:
Our chief mechanical engineer had a problem with the
inference that the lighter weight of FRP fan blades alters
the fan power. The blade weight and power are not directly
TOC/INDEX
related, he says, but light weight FRP blades may allow for
more air flow by permitting higher aerodynamic loads
while reducing the centrifugal blade stresses. In any case,
modern FRP blades do perform more efficiently than
aluminum, permitting more power to go toward moving
the air rather than heating it. Obviously, FRP blades are
widely used for air cooled heat exchanger fans for new
installations and have been used for some time on cooling
water towers. API 661 provides some general guidelines
on materials for fan blades and related components.
JACKSON:
We are looking at new technologies here, but get your
process engineer and your operators to look at how you
can improve the efficiency of your air fins first of all. I agree
that going for a different profile blade is very worthwhile,
but also look at the hub seal and try to prevent air
recirculation. Try minimizing clearances between the fan
and the hood. Then look at belts, the type, the drive itself,
and also check for tightness. Little things will make a big
difference to your efficiency and the amount of air you can
push through.
Mr. Hunkus just whispered in my ear that when you
install the FRP blades, make sure you take the ladder out,
because that will also affect the efficiency.
Question 39.
Does anyone have experience using water sprays on
fin fans in extreme/y hot weather to gain additional
cooling?
HUNKUS:
We have tried sprayed on, misted on from the bottom,
from the top, with distribution headers and on shells and
run down piping. You can also mix in air with the water
and produce a fine mist that achieves most of the benefit
without getting excess water on the equipment.
You should really look at cooling tower performance,
bypassing water coolers, piping changes, and adding fin
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
fans or additional cooling surface area for long-term solu-
tions. Water sprays do come in handy for us, especially
during the months of July and August.
We have had success at our refinery, especially using
sprays on fin fan coolers and water cooler shells. The key
is that you use a very fine stream of water, and a mist is the
absolute best. At most, you just need to keep the surface
wet. Any water that runs or drops off is wasted. I used to
tune the flows myself, but now we have several master
craftsmen of Arkansas Coolers, Mississippi Sprinklers and
Texas Foggers. It rains all summer at our plant in Memphis
regardless of the weather.
Steel makers also use a combination of air and water
through a controlled air mist nozzle. This confines the
drop in size and ensures the best cooling for the amount
of water sprayed. One drawback of using this type of
supplemental cooling is potential fouling from corrosion
products and the solids in the water, especially if you let
the water evaporate off the equipment.
If this method of direct spray were used for any length
of time, it would be best to use a purified water source,
such as demineralized water condensate or softened water,
to prevent mineral buildup. Memphis has some of the best
water in the world as evidenced by our Coors brewery, so
we have few problems in this area.
Additionally, a corrosion inhibitor, such as an ortho-
phosphate, polyphosphate and zinc, would help control
external corrosion deposit. Also, a periodic dose of inhib-
ited oxidizing biocide (dry chlorine/bromine) would help
if you develop an elaborate system on lube oil skids like
we have on all of ours.
JACKSON:
BP uses water cooling on our air fins in a number of
locations in Europe, Australasia and the U.S. Some of our
refineries are still reluctant to install this type of cooling
enhancement technique, because of the maintenance is-
sue when the system and equipment beneath the air fins
are not designed for these water flows. The potential
benefits due to increase in duty are massive though and
should not be quickly dismissed. We would recommend
that the refiner first look at the simple fixes; belts, drives,
hub seals, fan/hood clearances, and motor sizes to in-
crease the exchanger duty. Then the use of spray water can
be considered.
Purpose built spray systems are recommended and not
simply a grid of holes in pipes. BP is currently looking at
installing sonic fogging systems on some of their air fins.
These systems produce a very, very fine spray that can be
linked to a temperature controller to minimize water
usage.
SMITH:
We have a bit of experience with extreme hot weather
in Saudi Arabia. The experience is very similar to what has
223
TOC/INDEX
been described here, but I will go ahead and go through
some of this. Several of our refineries in Arabia have used
fire water to assist fin fan cooling on hot summer days.
The water is run over the floor beneath the fin fan. Some
of the water may be picked up by air. However, the air
velocities near the water stream are low.
We expect that most of the benefit is from reduced air
temperature resulting in direct contact and evaporative
cooling. However, this is a practice of last resort and it is
an inefficient application of water which is a valuable
resource in our part of the world. In addition, for some
refineries, fire water is sea water which will corrode rebar
on the concrete floor and structural support pedestals in
the area.
In the humid coastal areas, this practice has resulted in
as much as a 5° product outlet temperature drop on very
hot days which has meant the difference between main-
taining or dropping rate. Actual improvement is very
dependent on the rate and ambient conditions, tempera-
ture and humidity. However, we emphasize that this is a
method of last resort due to the destructive nature of the
application.
One of our inland gas plants has had more significant
reductions in temperatures due to a higher evaporative
cooling effect of the dry desert air. It is estimated that the
air temperature is reduced from 125°F to 90°F, and the
corresponding process side temperature drop is about
10°F to 15°F for fin fans operating in the 140°F range.
However, even though the water is only 1900 TDS,
the long-term usage of this technique is not recom-
mended as substantial damage to surrounding equip-
ment, motors and pumps, etc., and to the fin fan tubes
themselves would occur.
Electrical Systems
Question 40.
Discuss experiences with auto-tap transformers with
regard to potential summer-time low-voltage power
supply from public utility companies?
BARKER:
At one of our refineries, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
is our backup electrical supply. This supplements our
cogeneration facility which produces all our power, except
during our summer-time peak load occurrences. We have
not had any problems with low voltages that any of our
electricians can remember, but do note that in our circum-
stance the residential supply is first browned out and
industry is left unaffected.
SMITH:
The auto-tap transformers we use provide a plus and
minus 2.5% voltage control from 10 tap points, 5 up, 5
224 Energy and Environmental Management
down, stages at 0.5% increments from normal. No auto-
matic tap charger problems have been attributed to sum-
mer-time low-voltage conditions. In-house generation
minimizes these problems.
Question 41.
Is anyone using high current/low voltage electrical
tracing on heavy oil process lines in lieu of steam
tracing?
DiCAMILLO:
I canvassed customers I thought might be using electri-
cal tracing and managed to find a refinery that is almost
100% electrical. It is the Shell Scotford refinery in Edmon-
ton, Alberta.
From the customers I talked to, the one key problem
seemed to be that it took them a while to find the proper
tracing for their application. Everybody seemed to have a
common problem about not finding robust enough trac-
ing when they started this procedure, and after several trial
and errors, they finally hit upon a tracing that was rugged
enough to withstand service in the refinery.
Having done that, the next thing you need to pay
attention to is the power distribution systems and your
temperature control and monitoring to ensure that the
system will work in a reliable fashion. I have been told
centralized control for electrical tracing is getting more
attention. But in a retrofit situation, that is difficult to do.
It is more appropriate for a grassroots assembly.
DAVIS:
CENEX uses 480 volt, 50 to 80 watt per foot tracing
with mineral insulation on our pitch line for our PDA
unit. Maintenance is difficult at best. Custom lengths to
fit our lines are required for replacement.
KOOIMAN:
That is kind of an interesting approach to use the
electrical tracing, especially in the Northern refineries. In
some cases, I know of plants that are at the steam produc-
tion limit in the wintertime
I saw an interesting article in Chemical Engineering in
May of 1996 with regard to impedance heating using a
technology that plumbers use when hooking up welding
electrodes to a pipe. “Understanding Impedance Heat-
ing”; Chemical Engineering; pp 112-118; May 1996; Ep-
stein, Fred S. and White, Gary L.; Indeeco.
TOC/INDEX
VI. PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSING
A. Ethylene
Question 1.
What processes are recommended for hydrotreating
a debutanized aromatic concentrate (high heat re-
lease) from an ethylene cracker?
BALDASSARI:
My name is Mario Baldassari. I have been with ABB
Lummus for 22 years. Currently I am Technology Man-
ager for Hydroprocessing and Resid Hydrocracking.
For the purpose of hydrotreating debutanized pyrolysis
gasoline, Lummus licenses the DPG process. This can be
configured in either a single reaction stage or two reaction
stages depending on the end use of the product. In the first
stage diolefins and some of the olefins are converted at
moderate conditions in a liquid phase reactor with hydro-
gen, using liquid recycle to control the exotherm.
Typically, the operating pressure ranges from 400 to
600 psig. pressure and the operating temperature ranges
from 175°F to 350°F.
If the product is feedstock to an aromatic extraction
unit, a second stage is added which converts the remainder
of the olefins and desulfurizes the feed to the aromatics
unit. This stage typically operates between 520°F to 700°F
DiCAMILLO:
In the first stage unit, there is a variety of catalysts that
can be used depending on the feed quality. They can be
either palladium on alumina or sulfided nickel on alumina
catalysts. The big concern in processing pyrolysis gas is
feed quality. You need to pay attention to the feed quality
and stability to maximize your cycle length. The feed has
a high olefin and diolefin content, so it is very unstable.
Unless you take methods to stabilize it, you need to take
corrective actions to clean up the feed before you send it
to the unit or you can foul it up very quickly.
Question 2.
What catalyst performance advantages have been
made in the area of hydrogenating acetylene to ethyl-
ene in the ethylene furnace produced gas?
BALDASSARI:
Catalyst manufacturers have developed more selective
catalysts to convert acetylene to ethylene without having
to add CO as an inhibitor. Presently there are two options;
a CO moderated catalyst and a new silver promoted CO
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
non-moderated catalyst to inject CO and a CO non-mod-
erated catalyst. Currently, we use either of these in our
processing scheme depending on the source of the hydro-
gen. If the hydrogen contains some CO impurities, we will
use the CO moderated catalyst, whereas if PSA hydrogen
is used, then we will use the CO non-moderated catalyst.
DiCAMILLO:
The catalysts performance targets that we are working
on for acetylene hydrogenation catalysts include improved
selectivity to ethylene, catalysts that work at lower operat-
ing temperatures, and improved stability of the catalysts.
Another thing that we are looking at is lowering the green
oil byproduct formation which is a polymer type product.
The catalyst we market now does not use CO moderation
and we would like to stick with that.
Question 3.
What methods are used to control fouling in ethylene
unit depropanizers?
GENTRY:
The design approach to controlling ethylene plant
depropanizer fouling is to lower the operating temperature
of the column to reduce the rate of polymerization of the
diolefins and acetylene that are present.
Two approaches are used. The first uses a refrigerated
column with a 65°F to 70°F overhead temperature. The
second uses a split pressure column where the bottom
section operates at a low pressure and the top operates at
sufficient pressure to use a cooling water condenser. In
both cases, the objective is to set the maximum operating
temperature at about 185°F or less. The refrigerated
225
TOC/INDEX

column has a significantly lower capital cost and is less

complex operationally, but it has a slightly higher operat-
ing cost.
In the depropanizer reboiler of either design, the steam
side pressure should be kept to a minimum to reduce
surface temperatures. Condensate pumps or steam traps
can be used to recover the condensate. These design
considerations have been shown to be effective in reduc-
ing fouling in the depropanizer. In addition, most oper-
ating plants also inject antifoulant chemicals to reduce
fouling rates and extend intervals between required re-
boiler cleanings.

BALDASSARI:
We have successfully controlled the polymerization of
diolefins by (1) limiting depropanizer bottoms tempera-
ture to 180°F and (2) by addition of antifoulants. We have
had good success with commercially available antifou-
lants. We find that dosing in the range of 50 ppm to 100
ppm controls the diolefin polymerization reactions.
FEARNSIDE:
We currently treat over 128 ethylene unit depropaniz-
ers. Through the years we have come to develop a four part
program. The first part consists of using an antipolymer-
ant from our Actrine® family of antipolymerants to stop
polymerization; second, anti-oxidants to retard polymeri-
zation from oxygen or peroxides; third, metal deactivators
to kelate with the metal to stop any of the reactions from
the peroxy radicals; and, finally, dispersants to keep any of
the polymers moving through the column.
To give you an example of performance improvement,
before treating, typical run lengths were approximately a
year. After treating, run lengths are in excess of 5 years and
some of them are up to 8 years without problems.
Question 4.
What advances have been made in programs to con-
trol coking in ethylene steam cracking furnaces? Are
any commercial data available? What sulfur com-
pounds have been used to affect coking in ethylene
furnaces? What is the experience using polysulfides?
FEARNSIDE:
In the past, we have had chemical programs to control
coking in ethylene steam cracking furnaces. The old tech-
nology, when it initially was used, would take runs from
some 30 days up to about 120 days. However, there were
problems associated with that particular chemistry. Cor-
rosion rates in certain units would be unacceptably high
and the generation of a phosphene downstream catalyst
poison was also unacceptable.
I can tell you today we are currently conducting a trial
with a new type of chemistry. The only results I can relate
to you at this point are that there are no further increases
in corrosion and also there is no phosphene generation.
BALDASSARI:
Although some ethylene plants have tried to use addi-
tives to extend cracking heater run lengths, we think that
the results to date have been inconclusive and there has
not been any one additive that has shown that it can
increase run lengths significantly.
Concerning the second part of the question, sulfur
compounds have been added to cracking furnaces to
passivate the nickel steels and suppress the formation of
CO. To our knowledge, these compounds have not had
any significant effect on cracking furnace run lengths.
GENTRY:
There are several fronts on which coking is being
attacked, such as the use of additives to reduce coking, the
selection of metallurgies to reduce surface activity and
coke adhesion, and tube coatings to do the same. Phillips,
Amoco, and, of course, Nalco, among others, have been
involved in the development of additives and have done
some commercial testing. Commercial data may be avail-
able from certain of these companies, but is likely to be
proprietary at this time.
Some of the additives have shown favorable results, and
we may be on the verge of seeing breakthroughs in this
area of technology. With regard to sulfiding agents, the
most common compounds remain dimethyl sulfide and
dimethyl disulfide, with mercaptans, H2S and others also
in use. We have no specific experience with the use of
polysulfides.
G. DARRELL SCRUGGS (KTI Corporation):
There have been a number of programs suggested to
reduce coke formation or coke adherence to the tube walls
in ethylene furnaces, i.e., things ranging from additives, as
mentioned by the panel, lining the tubes with gasification
catalyst or using special metalurigcal formation. I think
most commercial data is on using bimetallic cast tubes

226 Petrochemical Processing

TOC/INDEX
with either high chromium, a low nickel lining or a high
aluminum lining known as alonizing. While these tubes
have shown a much improved initial elongation of the run
in the first one or so cycles, they deteriorate very rapidly
to the point where the runs get so short that people have
shut down and replaced the tubes just because they could
not get sufficient onstream time.
The effect of sulfur doping in the feed to a range of 30
ppm to 150 ppm affecting run length is anecdotal since
sometimes it seems to help and sometimes it does not.
What probably is most important is initial passivation
before startup to passivate the nickel.
MARK D. SCHARRE (Phillips Petroleum Company):
We have tested our own proprietary antifoulant tech-
nology in our facilities at Sweeny, Texas since December
of last year and have used it in a facility in Korea since June
of last year. We are doing further testing now. Results were
presented at RLPAsia 96 in Singapore in September 1996.
HENRY JO (Tetra Engineering and Technology Inc.):
We have special chemical additives that have been
tested in Kellogg’s pilot plant for naphtha feed. The run
lengths have been more than 10 times compared to a blank
run for naphtha feed and it has more room to run, but we
purposely stopped the tests after ten times the run lengths.
So if anyone is interested in this area, we are offering
the commercial application. Right now we do not have a
commercial application. Yet, it has proved to provide a
good measure to prevent coking.
Question 5.
What methods are used to control fouling in ethylene
dilution steam systems?
FEARNSIDE:
We currently treat over 40 ethylene plants and through
hard work, trial and error, have come up with a three step
recommendation. You need to minimize the total organic
carbon and oil and grease levels and keep them at or below
200 weight ppm with the use of emulsion breakers.
The second step is to maintain a steady pH by using
neutralizing amines, not caustic or ammonia, so that iron
levels stay below 0.5 ppm. If warranted, the third step is
the use of an oxygen scavenger.
BALDASSARI:
It is not Lummus Global’s practice to use any antifou-
lants or chemical addition other than sodium hydroxide
for pH control. We find that adjusting the blowdown rate
from the dilution steam system (i.e. usually set between
7% and 10%) and avoiding hydrocarbon carryover from
the quench tower by providing sufficient settling time in
the bottom of the quench tower effectively controls dilu-
tion steam fouling.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
GENTRY:
Controlling the pH in the quench water separator in
the mild acid range tends to improve operation and avoid
emulsion formation. Other additives may also be helpful
in breaking emulsions and improving the separation.
Of course, sufficient settling time must be provided to
allow separation of heavy oils. Filtering, coalescing and
steam stripping of the net process condensate water stream
provide further clean up of the stream. Use of direct steam
injection for stripping instead of a reboiler eliminates a
potential fouling site. Some investigation upstream of the
quench water system may be necessary because some
contaminants can complicate the chemistry and make the
oil water separation more difficult.
Question 6.
Are there experiences using LVGO as steam cracker
feed? Can recommendations be given about the speci-
fications, such as boiling range, sulfur, nitrogen,
PONA?
GENTRY:
Vacuum gas oil has been used as a commercial steam
cracker feed at Nova Chemical in Sarnia, Ontario. A
Kellogg Millisecond pyrolysis furnace is used to success-
fully crack VGO with an end point of greater than 1000°F
and a volume average boiling point of 885°F. This feed-
stock is desulfurized to contain approximately 0.7% sul-
fur. It has an API gravity of 23° and contains over 40%
aromatics. Nova has seen a significant economic benefit
as a result of this VGO cracking capability. The primary
concern with respect to VGO cracking is the reliable
vaporization of the heavy feed. A specially designed con-
vection section to provide flexibility to process feeds rang-
ing from naphtha to VGO was part of Kellogg’s design for
this furnace.
BALDASSARI:
Lummus Global has licensed several ethylene units
using VGO or hydrocracked VGO feedstock. The key
parameter we monitor is the BMCI (i.e Bureau of Mines
Correlating Index). This is a measure of the aromatic
content of the feed or conversely the parafinicity of the
feed. The lower the BMCI, the lower the aromatics con-
tent and the higher is the ethylene yield. Normally, the
BMCI should be less than 20 and preferably it between
10 and 15. Typically the feedstocks we have processed have
a boiling range of 650°F to 750°F.
DiCAMILLO:
I would like to reiterate what Mr. Baldassari has just
said. A good rule of thumb in regards feed quality and
ethylene yield is that paraffins > iso-paraffins > naphthenes
> aromatics.
227
TOC/INDEX
G. DARRELL SCRUGGS (KTI Corp.):
KTI has operating experience using LVGO and HAGO
steam cracking feeds to cracking furnaces for ethylene
plants where design and operating experience is 40 days
run length. As asked in the question, the boiling range was
IBP of 572°F to 680°F and EBP of 986°F to 1004°F. Sulfur
content was approximately 1.0 wt% and nitrogen was 5
to 20 PPB. The PONA was 35% paraffins, 45%
naphthenes and 20% aromatics. We would agree with the
panel comment that a key to the success is a proper design
of the injection nozzles at the vaporization point.
B. Styrene
Question 7.
Can the newly marketed distillation inhibitors with
higher activity, prevent polymerization problems dur-
ing an unplanned plant outage?
DiCAMILLO:
Most of the inhibitors available on the market are what
can be classified as true inhibitors; they have inhibition
action but are not designed for upset conditions in the
unit. There are programs available that are combinations
of inhibitors that will give both inhibition plus some relief
during upset conditions. The additive companies that
maintain good technical support groups can help a cus-
tomer custom design a package to do both things.
FEARNSIDE:
The key to the program is to make sure that you do a
detailed study up front to understand the dynamics of the
particular column in question. What you have to ensure
is an adequate amount of the inhibitors in the column that
will cover the timeframe between upset condition and the
time the column finally cools down to ambient condi-
tions. This is the same methodology used with the more
common retarders and is extremely effective.
Question 8.
Does the steam-to-oil ratio affect catalyst (ethyl ben-
zene dehydrogenation) life more than the tempera-
ture, assuming no excursions from specified
operating conditions?
DiCAMILLO:
The simple answer here is yes. Steam-to-oil ratio has
the largest effect on styrene catalyst performance. If the
steam-to-oil ratio changes, it will upset the temperature
balance and you will have to change operating tempera-
tures. If the steam-to-oil ratio goes down, temperatures
will have to increase and you will accelerate the level of
coke formation which will accelerate the deactivation of
the catalyst. On a unit that is operating at a high linear
228 Petrochemical Processing
velocity, you might see some benefits of reducing steam-
to-oil ratio, however, because you will find a reduction in
catalyst attrition.
Having said all that, different styrene catalysts respond
differently to steam-to-oil ratio and some are more robust
than others.
JOHNSON:
Typical designs for classic dehydrogenation units run
at molar steam-to-oil ratios of around 1.5. UOP represents
life between 1.0 and 1.5 years under these conditions.
Higher levels of steam (dilution) represent milder opera-
tion. Thus, at steam-to-oil ratio between 1.7 and 1.9, life
can increase to around 3 years. Temperature is typically
adjusted only as a response to deactivation. However,
higher temperatures do contribute to further deactivation.
Lower steam-to-oil ratios would have a more direct impact
on deactivation. Once temperatures are increased to end-
of-run levels (to maintain conversion), temperature deac-
tivation may become a significant influence.
JOE E. PELATI (The Dow Chemical Company):
The deactivation rate is dependent upon the chosen run
conditions and the catalyst, and falls into separate regimes.
Generally, we feel at the higher steam-to-oil ratios, the
temperature increases will bring about more deactivation
versus a reduction in your steam-to-oil ratio.
At a lower steam-to-oil regime, a cross over point of
temperature and steam-to-oil can be identified in some
cases. But to get the best handle on deactivation and avoid
surprises as you evaluate new catalysts, we prefer to use a
model developed from a long run in an adiabatic pilot
plant. We feel that is superior to the laboratory studies on
new catalysts in making catalyst choices.
Question 9.
What is the best catalyst to use to achieve high selec-
tivity and a long run time?
DiCAMILLO:
This is the perfect lead in for a vendor. I had everybody
in the office take a lie detector test to prove they did not
submit this question and they all passed. So I do not feel
guilty about plugging our materials here.
Criterion markets a styrene catalyst called Versicat that
was introduced in 1995 that has the highest selectivity of
any styrene catalyst on the market right now. Selectivity
is better than 97% and it operates at steam-to-oil ratios
as low as 6. It is currently installed in 2 units. One has
been operating for 5 months and one has been operating
for 16 months.
JOHNSON:
UOP is alligned with UCI as the preferred dehydroge-
nation catalyst supplier for our conventional styrene and
TOC/INDEX
SMART processes. The most recent application is the
styromax 4 catalyst.
Question 10.
What are the factors preventing the use of alternative
feedstocks/routes to produce styrene (such as butadi-
ene or toluene/methanol)?
JOHNSON:
Both technologies appear interesting, but the econom-
ics are unattractive for both; more so for butadiene due to
the high prices that the butadiene raw materials com-
mand. The primary issue for the methanol alkylation with
toluene was a catalyst selectivity problem.
DiCAMILLO:
The main concern here is economy of scale. The po-
tential alternative feedstocks are not as readily available as
ethylbenzene. So the process is not economically competi-
tive. One exception could be if styrene is produced as a
byproduct of another process.
GENTRY:
There are two basic factors inhibiting the use of alter-
native feedstocks and processes for the production of
styrene monomer. The first one, the availability and cost
of feedstocks, has been covered already by the panel.
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
The second major factor is technical. Styrene producers
using new feedstocks and new process technologies run the
risk of introducing new and different byproducts into the
monomer product. Suppliers to the styrene merchant mar-
ket need to produce styrene with the same composition,
meeting the same specifications as conventionally pro-
duced material. The composition is the key factor lest some
trace byproduct should cause an unanticipated problem in
downstream processing. Commodity monomer producers
and users are extremely reluctant to introduce new tech-
nology with new trace byproducts into the market without
extensive, (and expensive) testing and prequalification.
These concerns can be addressed, but not without a sub-
stantial commitment to a demonstration facility.
JOE E. PELATI (The Dow Chemical Company):
Dow developed its own styrene catalyst and uses it
internally. We believe we have the best sryrene catalyst for
selectivity and lifetime. However, we have some techniques
and some data that identify the theoretical limit to catalyst
development, and have an idea of where the ultimate
styrene catalyst performance can be found. We believe we
are near that chemical optimum. We recognize that this
process, ethyl benzene to styrene, has been optimized for
many years and that perhaps all the manufacturers of the
styrene catalysts will be converging at this point.
229
TOC/INDEX

Stephen P. Frayne Nalco Chemical Company

MEMORANDUM D. Michael Geehan
Tony S. Go
Shell Synthetic Fuels
Baker Industrial Chemicals
Martin P. Grosboll Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
The comments contained in the transcript for the 1996 Dan Hartley D. H. Associates
NPRA Question and Answer Session on Refining and William E. Heck Energy Biosystems Corp.
Gerald O. Henderson Ashland Petroleum Company
Petrochemical Technology, which was held October 15- Peter T. Jackson UOP
17, in Anaheim, California, have been edited by the William F. Johns Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.
panelists and conferees who commented during the Ses- John Kassarjian KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc.
sion. Mark R. Keim The Costal Corporation
Patrick Laabs Star Enterprise
The Question and Answer Session on Refining and Charles F. LeRoy CITGO Petroleum Corporation
Petrochemical Technology is under the cognizance of the Warren S. Letzsch Stone & Webster Technology Corp.
NPRA Manufacturing Committee listed as follows: L. E. Lew Phillips Petroleum Company
Glenn C. Liolios STRATCO, INC.
NPRA MANUFACTURING COMMITTEE Charles S. McCoy Chevron - Retired
Christina McDowell Unocal/76 Products Company
Paul D. Fritz, Chairman Pennzoil Products Company
John E. Miller Tosco Refining Company
Jean E. Neuberger, Vice Chairman Hunt Refining Company
David R. Morris Chevron Research and Technology Co.
Kevin Brown Sinclair Oil Corporation
Alan J. Cabodi U. S. Oil & Refining Co. Brian M. Moyse Haldor Topsoe, Inc.
Richard J. Duszynski Basis Petroleum, Inc. Roger O. Pelham Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions
John M. Ehlen Koch Refining Company George P. Quinn Amoco Petroleum Products
Robert J. Frazier Union Texas Petrochemicals J. B. Roddey Roddey Engineering Services, Inc.
Ronnie D. Jackson Cross Oil and Refining Company, Inc. Jack Sigan Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment Co.
Anthony P. Johnson Mobil Oil Corporation G. Andrew Smith INTERCAT, Inc.
Robert E. Kerns Diamond Shamrock, Inc. George A. Smith Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
Virgil R. Langford Navajo Refining Company Charles W. Stanger Akzo Catalysts
John J. Lipinski Coastal Corporation Gary A. Stephens TRICAT, Inc.
Charles B. Miller Ashland Petroleum Company Arthur J. Suchanek Criterion Catalyst Company L.P.
John Miller Ultramar Inc. Kenneth G. Tasker IFP Enterprises, Inc./HRI, Inc.
William G. Miller MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc. Delbert F. Tolen Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment Co.
David R. Morris Chevron Research and Technology Co. A. Witoshkin Engelhard Corporation
Ronald E. Pletcher CENEX, Inc.
Alvin Prebula CITGO Petroleum Corporation Attendance at the 1996 Q&A Session totaled 1,337
Allen C. Randle Unocal Corporation conferees representing the petroleum refining and petro-
Kenneth Roane National Cooperative Refinery Assn.
J. A. Ross Phillips Petroleum Co. chemical industries, supply and service organizations, gov-
Randall M. Trembly Crown Central Petroleum Corporation ernment and members of the press who came from 33
Jeff K. Utley Flying J Inc. states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Two
David L. Uzzell Tosco Refining and Marketing Company
Milam J. Williams Lion Oil Company
hundred conferees came from the following 32 countries:
Maurice H. McBride National Petroleum Refiners Association Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada,
Terrence S. Higgins National Petroleum Refiners Association Chile, Curacao, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany,
Each year the Manufacturing Committee selects the Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Lux-
panelists and appoints a Screening Committee to select the embourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Oman,
questions submitted by individuals and companies regard- Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain,
less of membership in the Association. The Screening Trinidad, United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Committee consolidates questions, eliminates duplicates The 14 member panel was joined by 147 conferees in
and arranges the questions in the correct category and commenting on the 211 questions during the 21⁄2 day
sequence so that the maximum number of questions can exchange of technical information on modern petroleum
be considered in the 21⁄2 days of sessions. This year, from refining and petrochemical technology. The following table
some 779 questions submitted, 211 questions were selected is comparison of the attendance for the past five years:
by the panelists and the following Screening Committee Wash- San
Members: Anaheim Dallas Anaheim
ington Antonio
1992 1993 1996
1994 1995
SCREENING COMMITTEE No. of Member Companies 185 164 180 171 171
Member Conferees 1,245 1,191 1,158 1,255 1,221
Peter G. Andrews Conoco Inc.(retired)
Others 127 112 115 117 116
R. C. Barlow BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group
David B. Bartholic BAR-CO Processes Joint Venture TOTAL 1,372 1,303 1,273 1,372 1,337
Carlos A. Cabrera UOP No. of Conferees Commenting 172 169 176 162 147
Robert E. Davis R. E. Davis Chemical Corporation
John Deaton Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc.
Timothy J. Dougan Grace Davison Terrence S. Higgins
B. W. Feltrop Petrolite Corporation Technical Director

230 Memorandum
TOC/INDEX

PANEL BIOGRAPHIES

JOHN H. ARNDT — Process Coordinator, Chevron Products, Richmond, California. John is

responsible for coordinating technical and operating principles in hydrocracking, hydrotreating,
and hydrogen manufacture for the Chevron refineries. Since joining Chevron in 1963, he has held
a wide variety of technical and management positions involving process design, project design,
plant support, process development, and process licensing in Chevron. John holds B.S. and M.S.
degrees from Cal Tech, Pasadena.

MARIO C. BALDASSARI — Technology Manager — LC-Fining and Hydroprocessing, ABB

Lummus Global, Bloomfield, New Jersey. Mario has been with ABB Lummus Global for over 22
years holding various process engineering positions in Refining and Synthetic Fuels. He has been
Process Design Manager for LC-Fining, and served as Technical Manager of Refining before
assuming his current position. He began his career with PSE&G as a process engineer working
with Synthetic Natural Gas. Mario holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Stevens
Institute of Technology and a M.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from New Jersey Institute of
Technology.

ELLEN S. BARKER — Advising Engineer, 76 Products Company, Unocal Corporation, Rodeo,

California. Ellen has primary engineering responsibility for the Unicracker complex. In her 15
years with Unocal she has had positions as Operations, Planning and Analysis Supervisor,
Steam/Power Plant Project Engineer, and Gasoline/Diesel Unionfiner Engineer. Ellen is a Chemical
Engineering graduate of the University of Arizona and a Professional Engineer in California.

TOM W. DAVIS — Process Engineer, CENEX, Laurel Montana. Tom’s assignments at CENEX
have involved him in all areas of process design, construction, startup, and troubleshooting. Recent
projects have included heater throughput and efficiency upgrades, Gas Oil HDS/Hydrogen
Complex start-up, and Diesel HDS low sulfur revamp. He spent two years as a process engineer
at the Chemplex ethylene plant in Clinton, Iowa before joining CENEX. Tom holds a B.S. degree
in Chemical Engineering from Montana State University.

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 231

TOC/INDEX

DAVID J. DiCAMILLO — Technical Service Coordinator, Criterion Catalyst Company L.P.,

Houston, Texas. Dave specializes in distillate hydrotreating and specialty catalyst applications. In
this role, he participated in the basic design and commercial start-up of the five currently operating
SynSat — deep desulfurization and aromatics saturation — units. Prior to transferring to Crite-
rion, Dave worked for 16 years in the catalyst Research Department of American Cyanamid
Company. Assignments there included development and commercialization of hydrotreating
catalysts and supervision of Cyanamid’s catalyst testing facility. Dave holds a B.S. degree in
Chemical Engineering from the University of Connecticut and a B.A. degree in Engineering from
Fairfield University.

PAUL FEARNSIDE — Senior Technical Services Engineer, Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P.,
Sugar Land, Texas. Paul has been responsible for trouble shooting specialty chemical applications
with relation to increasing refinery profitability for the past 5 years. He has more than 18 years
experience in the refining industry. He began his career as a startup Engineer for UOP with various
assignments on FCCUs, Hydrocrackers, Reformers, Alkylation, Hydrotreater, and Sulfur Removal
units before moving into marketing. Paul holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

ARTHUR R. GENTRY — Product Director, Petroleum Refining, The M.W. Kellogg Technology
Company, Houston, Texas. Art leads the Petroleum Refining Business Team which has responsi-
bility for the management, development, acquisition, and marketing of proprietary Kellogg
petroleum refining technologies. He has over 26 years experience in the field of process design,
management, and development of petroleum refining technologies, having worked with Texaco’s
Engineering department and Amoco’s Refining and Transportation Engineering Department prior
to joining The M. W. Kellogg Company. He holds B.A. and M.Ch.E. degrees in Chemical
Engineering from Rice University.

232 Panel Biographies

TOC/INDEX

STEPHEN F. HUNKUS — General Manager of Operations, MAPCO PETROLEUM, Inc.,

Memphis, Tennessee. In this position, Steve is responsible for the safe and efficient operation of
MAPCO’s Mid South Refinery. He and his team also have direct responsibility for environmental
&airs, safety, maintenance, training, process engineering, and quality control. Prior to joining
MAPCO, Steve was co-founder and President of Warren Industries, which manufactured ASME
code vessels and environmental equipment primarily in support of the petroleum industry. He
began his career with Shell Oil Company as an engineer in their head office group focusing on cat
crackers, reformers, hydrotreaters, and computer programs; and later served as Manager of Strategic
Planning and Economics, and Manager of Project Engineering for United Refining Company.
Steve holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Michigan State University.

LAN JACKSON — FCC Refinery Support Manager, BP Oil, based in the BP Oil Oil Technology
Centre in Sunbury, UK. Ian leads a team of engineers that support all the FCCs within the BP Oil
group and some third party refineries. His career began with Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
as a process engineer working on a number of oil refinery projects and included overseas site
operation and commissioning work. He joined BP Oil in 1989 and has recently returned from
3 1/2 years at the BP Oil refinery in Western Australia leading a team responsible for the technical
and operational support of the Residue FCCU complex. He has a first class honours degree in
Chemical Engineering from Bradford University, UK and is a Chartered Engineer and Member
of the Institute of Chemical Engineers. He has written and presented several papers at Licensor
and Catalyst Supplier Symposia.

BRIAN H. JOHNSON — Manager, Operating Technical Services, UOP, Des Plaines, Illinois.
Brian is responsible for a group of Process Specialists who provide technical service support to UOP
licensed technologies in the Light Fuels, Detergents, and Heavy Oil areas. He has been with UOP
for 27 years working in several departments, such as Experimental Development, Field Operating
Services, Continuing Services, Platforming Services, Isomerization Services, and his current
position as Manager of Light and Heavy Ends Processing. Brian holds a B.S degree in Chemical
Engineering from Washington State University.

1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 233

TOC/INDEX

MICHAEL R. KIMBRELL — Process Specialist, ARCO Products Company, Anaheim, Califor-

nia. Based at the Engineering and Technology Center, Mike is currently responsible for crude/vac-
uum unit, coker and sulfur plant for ARCO’s refineries. Additional responsibilities are crude oil
information for the Products Company, amine systems, Claus plant and tail gas unit process design.
Mike has also served as an Operations Superintendent in crude, coker and sulfur plant areas, a
Maintenance Superintendent in planning and contracting, an Operations Superintendent in the
hydrotreating and reforming area and an Operations Supervisor in the crude area. He also has
experience in process design, project engineering and the manufacture of vinyl chloride monomer.
Mike holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Washington State University and is a
licensed Professional Engineer in California.

RANDALL R. KOOIMAN — Consultant, Koch Development Group of Koch Industries, Inc.,

Wichita, Kansas. Prior to accepting this position he was, Manager, Operations and Oil Movements
at Murphy Oil USA, Inc. Over his 16 year career in the refining industry Randy has held a variety
of operations, engineering, and supervisory positions with Chevron USA, Inc. in El Paso, Texas
and worked as a process engineer for Champlin (now CITGO) in Corpus Christi, Texas. He joined
Murphy as Operations Area Superintendent, before assuming his current responsibilities. Randy
holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota, Institute of
Technology.

CHARLES B. LEMMON — Technical Services Manager, Tosco Refining Company, Avon Re-
finery, Martinez, California. Chaz is currently responsible for the supervision of technical services
engineers who provide unit monitoring, catalyst evaluation, chemical treatment, trouble shooting,
optimization and turnaround support. Prior to assuming his current responsibilities he held
operations supervisory assignments at the FCC, hydrocracker, hydrogen and alkylation units, and
worked in process engineering where he managed the refinery’s energy conservation program. Chaz
holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.

TERRY R. SMITH — Engineering Division Head, Saudi Aramco, Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia. In
his current position he has represented the refinery as senior representative for the Ras Tanura
Refinery Upgrade Project which adds world scale conversion facilities the Ras Tanura complex. He
has held Division Head positions in engineering and operations and has been in charge of all
engineering and technical services for the refinery. He has been a technical investigator for several
large loss incidents for the company and was a member of the team performing due diligence
during the joint venture acquisition of Star Enterprise. He began his career as a process engineer
with Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation. Terry holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from
Texas A&I University.

234 Panel Biographies

TOC/INDEX
Al-Rehaili, Khalid, 184, 189
Allen, Frank, 35, 185
Bacon, T.R. (Tom), 127, 211
Bartakovitz, Roger, 61
Berg, John, 59, 62
Binford, Mark S., 17, 30
Birnbaum, Rick W., 197
Brahn, Michael, 107
Bredehoft, Ronald, 129
Brierley, Robert, 12, 211
Brunson, Ross, 121
Buercklin, Keith, 193
Buziuk, Frank, 203
Carlisle, Edwin A., 181
Catchpole, Steve, 121, 123, 126
Charles, Winston B., 201
Chow, Thomas K., 205, 210
Christensen, Jonathan T., 27
Christie, Patricia, 137
Citarella, V.A., 196
Collins, Tom, 12, 18, 33, 93
Conrad, Jon, 198
Cook, John D., 185
Cromarty, Benjamin, 127
Dardeer, Salah H., 30, 54, 142
Daughtry, James L., 198
Dharia, Dilip, 84
Dixon, Peter, 112
Donahue, Michael, 141
Dorn, David, 200
Drake, Peter, 84
Eaton, Paul, 30, 33
Ellis, Paul, 116
Embry, John, 60
Fahey, William F., 16
Fischer, Steven M., 133, 143, 174
Frederickson, Lewis A., 84
Fritsche, G. Ray, 67
Fritz, Paul, 74
Furfaro, Angelo P., 181, 189
George, Joe, 199
Geren, Philip, 174
Gibbons, William Joseph, 210
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Index
Godwin, Roy S., 145 Marrelli, Ronald E., 28, 140, 175,
Gonzalez, Rene, 44 177, 181, 222
Goolsbee, Andy, 13 McCaffrey, David S., 78
Gregory, Collin A., 95 McCoy, Charles, 53
Grieb, Ben, 146, 149 McLean, Joseph B., 103
Guglietta, Glenn, 91 Menheere, Bill, 190
Haley, John T., 102 - 103 Menon, Raghu, 80, 89, 121
Miller, David J., 194
Harris, Everette C., 133
Moretta, Jon C., 118
Heimbaugh, William, 11, 13
Morgan, Charles L., 179, 195
Himes, Frank, 176
Moyse, Brian M., 133, 145
Hlozek, Robert, 195
Nagele, Marc, 141
Hoh, Patrick, 190
Nash, Richard M., 53 - 54, 179,
Howard, Neil, 60, 134, 138 193
Hughes, Gary, 109, 113 Niccum, Phillip K., 85, 91
Husted, Don A., 175 Nielsen, Anders, 56, 121, 124 - 126
Jenkins, James, 201 Nocca, Jean-Luc, 95, 172, 186, 194
Jo, Henry, 227 Orlando, Charles T., 134, 202
Jones, James W., 189 Owen, Ozie S., 144, 153
Kelly, Tom, 184 Palmer, R. E. (Ed), 50, 117, 161,
Kessler, Randy, 128 163, 188, 200
Khurana, Vinay, 125 Parekh, Uday N., 80, 205
Kim, Hak N., 86, 88 Paspek, Steve, 16, 112, 114, 117 -
118
King, David L., 122, 124 - 130
Pavel, Stephen K., 98
King, Thomas, 210
Pelati, Joe E., 228 - 229
Kliesch, Howard C., 49, 169
Peries, Jean-Pierre, 133, 155 - 156
Kruse, Charles J., 114
Peterman, Raymond W., 84
Lacijan, Lawrence A., 74, 85
Picioccio, Kathy, 130
Lane, Philip, 102, 104
Powell, Bob, 46
Le, Binh, 20 Proops, Kevin R., 201
LeRoy, Charles, 204, 222 Quinn, George P., 87
Letzsch, Warren S., 80, 92 Raina, J.L., 11, 19, 27 - 28, 33, 35,
Leuenberger, Ernest L., 95 37, 40, 71, 113, 167, 184, 210
Lucena, Rene, 177, 179, 218 Rajagopalan, K. Raj, 97
Maghazel, Hassan A., 22 - 23, 51, Ramirez, Daniel, 118 - 119
187 Revell, Kenneth P., 202 - 203, 205,
Malik, Tariq, 52, 59 - 61, 114, 118, 210
205 Roberts, David, 141
Manoharan, C., 19, 27 - 28, 62, 70, Roddey, J.B., 54, 134, 143, 180 -
74, 118, 126, 200 181, 188
Marak, Dan, 38 Ronnander, James C., 200
Marks, Chad L., 206, 209 Roundtree, Eugene, 116
Marquez, Luis E., 113, 116, 212 Roy, Michel, 134 - 135
235
TOC/INDEX
Scharre, Mark D., 227
Schendel, Ron, 204
Scruggs, G. Darrell, 128 - 129, 226,
228
Sheckler, John, 174
Sheth, Pari B., 97, 133
Sims, Peggy L., 61
Sloan, H. David, 93, 111
Sloley, Andrew W., 106
Smith, Jonah, 75, 104
Smith, G. Andrew, 71, 92, 95, 104
Spurrell, Chris H., 218
236
Stephens, Gary A., 181
Suchanek, Arthur J., 139
Tasker, Kenneth G., 53, 137, 145,
148, 150, 152, 190
Thompson, Ralph T., 43 - 44
Turpin, Lee E., 38, 49, 181, 186
Vadekar, Mo, 134, 176, 197, 200 -
201
Valentine, Julie, 40
Virag, Alios, 212
Ward, John W., 45 - 46, 49
Participant Index
Weith, James D., 70, 74, 76, 81, 86,
89, 117
Wells, Jan W., 27
Willcox, Christine, 144
Wilson, Joseph W. (Bill), 65, 77 -
78, 85, 90 - 91
Wimberly, Mark O., 197
Winger, Lloyd, 78, 103, 175
Witzig, Bill, 134
Wizig, Herbert W., 33, 196 - 198
Zetlmeisl, Michael J., 30, 33, 137
Zudkevitch, David, 214
TOC/INDEX
Index to Topics Discussed at
1996
NPRA
Q&A Sessions on Technology
The next several pages comprise an index of the tran-
script of the 1996 NPRA question-and-answer sessions on
refining and petrochemical technology.
Availability. Readers who do not have access to this
volume may obtain it by writing: NPRA, Suite 1000, 1899
L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, Attention: Pub-
lications. Price is $25.00 plus postage.
Using the Index. The index follows a hierarchal format,
which is broken down into:
1. Subjects
2. Subheadings
3. Words
Two general guides should be kept in mind by the
searcher for making the index easier to use:
• The index is oriented primarily (but not entirely)
toward specific refining processes. Under each proc-
ess 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 “main-
tenance” 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 alpha-
betical location of the material.
Four large all-purpose subjects are “additives,” “chemi-
cals” (which can cover feedstock materials, contaminants,
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 “pollu-
tion control,” also under the subheading “cat cracking”
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.
237
TOC/INDEX

SUBJECT HEADINGS FOR INDEX

Additives Fractionation
Air Pollution Control Fuels
Alkylation Gasoline
—Hydrofluoric Acid Hydrogen Production
—Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Hydrotreating
Analysis Inspection
—Testing & Analytical Methods
Instrumentation (Metering, Monitoring & Control)
Biological Treating & Microorganisms
Isomerization
Blending
Jet Fuel
Catalysts
—Poisons & Poisoning Kerosine
Charge Stocks Lube Oils (as Products)
Chemicals & Chemical Elements & Metals Naphtha
—Sulfur and Mercaptans and Sulfur Compounds Oils
Coke (Coke Production) Oxygenates
—Delayed Coking Petrochemicals
Coking (fouling) Polymer Unit
Combustion Pressure
—Promoters
Refinery Economics & Refinery Practices
Computer Control
Reforming
Control —Catalytic
Corrosion & Equipment Problems —Steam
Cracking Resids
—Fluid Cat Cracking (FCC)
—Hydrocracking Safety & Industrial Hygiene
Crude Oil Processing Simulations
Crude Oils Slurry
Data Reconciliation Software
Deasphalting Staffing
Desulfurization Storage
Diesel Oils Sulfur Plant
Distillation Tankage
Energy Recovery & Conservation Training
Entrainment Treating
Environmental Controls Turnaround
Equipment Visbreaking
—Maintenance Waste Disposal
Extraction Waste Water
Foaming Water Pollution Control
Fouling & Deposits —Water Re-use

238 Subject Index

TOC/INDEX

Index
1996 NPRA Q&A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
ADDITIVES FCC Demetallization Data on Metal Removal 98-96
FCC Catalyst CO Promoter Impregnated on Catalyst 104-96 FCC Demetallization Demetallization Technology Enhanced 98-96
FCC Catalyst Pros & Cons of Separate Additive Additions 102-96 FCC Disposal Two Techniques Lessen Problem 97-96
FCC Catalyst Separate Additive Addition Best 103-96 H2Cat. Loading “Sweep Brush” Loading Described, Evaluated 127-96
Pour Point Effectiveness of Depressant 19-96 H2 Prereforming Starts Reaction at Lower Temperature 123-96
SOX Role in FCC Sulfate Formation Is Complex 70-96 H2Reformer Tubes “Sweep Brush” Loading Described, Evaluated 127-96
Sulfur Reduction Bottoms Cracking Additive Works 102-96 Hydrotreating Monitoring Purchased Catalyst 139-96
Hydrotreating New Regulations on Spent Cat. Classification 144-96
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL Iso-Dewaxing Deactivation by Ni, V, Nitrogen and Sulfur Compounds 21-96
Amine Surge Tanks Reduction of H2S Emissions 196-96 Isomerization Experience With I-12 Catalyst 191-96
Hydrogen Plants Control of NOX 129-96 New CCR Catalyst Does Not Improve Aromatics Yield 186-96
Passivator Compressor Constraint 89-96
ALKYLATION Presulfiding Three Techniques for Hydrocracking Cat. Compared 143-96
—HYDROFLUORIC ACID Presulfiding Chemicals Experience With Non-Toxic, Low Odor Material 140-96
Acid Entrainment HF Should Be Above 88 wt% to Avoid 172-96 Spent Dimersol Catalyst Neutralization, Handling 190-96
Acid Entrainment Settler Velocity of 1.5 to 1.8 fpm 172-96 Spent Hydrotreating Could Be Classified As Hazardous Waste 144-96
Acid Entrainment When a Problem, How Monitored 171-96 Steam Reforming Performance Limited by Tube Life, Not Cat. 128-96
Acid-Soluble Oils Color Chart to Determine Contaminants 169-96 Styrene Best Catalyst for Selectivity & Run Time 228-96
Acid-Soluble Oils Contaminant Each Color Denotes 169-96 Styrene Effect of Steam-to-Oil Ratio 228-96
Dry-Outs After Turnaround Hot Air, Hot Isobutane, Hot Nitrogen 177-96 Supply & Disposal Experience With Alliance to Handle All Activity 221-96
Exchanger Bundle Acidizing Technique to Facilitate Extraction 175-96 —POISONS & POISONING
Exercising, Testing Key Valves Method, Frequency, Priorities 172-96 V Control Advances in Technology and Benefits 96-96
H2O Content of Acid Around 1% Is Optional 175-96
iC4 Management Multivariable Predictive Constraint Controller 169-96 CHARGE STOCKS
iC4 Management Ranges From Simple Practices to Multivariable Process Control 168-96 High in Na Desalt or Dehydrate in Tankage 92-96
iC4 Management Things to Know or Understand Before Installing MVPC 168-96 Lube to FCC Is Done but Can Pose Problems 91-96
New Technology Status of Solid Acid Process 174-96 LVGO to Steam Cracker Used In a Number of Plants 227-96
On-Line Acid Analyzer None Used 175-96 Main FCC Feed Desalting Even 2 ppm Feed Can Give Payout 93-96
Pentenes Conditions When Fed to Alky Hydrotreater, Result & Effect 172-96 SDA to Coker Effect on Yields and Operations 21-96
Pulling Feed At Acid Concentration of 78 to 82% 173-96 V in FCC Feed V Control and Benefits 96-96
Rapid De-Inventory System Being Installed 175-96
Scale Buildup 600 lb. of Iron Recovered After 12-18 Month Run 176-96 CHEMICALS & CHEMICAL ELEMENTS & METALS
Scale Buildup Fluoride Scale Buildup Big Problem 176-96 Amine Effect of Organic S Compounds on Claus Unit 196-96
Turnaround 4-5 Year Equipment Condition When Opened 173-96 Amine Selectivity for Organic S Compounds; Amount Removed 196-96
Turnaround Cycles Operating & Maintenance Practices to Achieve 4-5-Year Cycle 173-96 Amine Carryover Should Be Close to Solubility Limits 198-96
—SULFURIC ACID ALKYLATION Amine Carryover Solution to Problems 198-96
Acid Emulsion Level Measured With Density Profile System 166-96 Amine Carryover Typical Amounts in Extraction Towers 198-96
Block, Isolation Valves Chrome, Alloy 20 Seats, Teflon-Lined: Have All Leaked 165-96 Amine Foaming Causes; Charcoal Filter Strategies 199-96
Block Values Alloy 20 and Teflon 165-96 Amine Foaming From Thick Emulsion Layer 200-96
DIB Fouling Preventative Measures 162-96 Amine Foaming Keep Amine Hot to Prevent Hydrocarbon Foaming 200-96
Isolation Valves Alloy 20 Used Only When Chlorides Present 166-96 Amine Loss Contactors Pushed Beyond Design 199-96
Moisture Analyzer Experience With Upstream of Alkylation Unit 160-96 Amine Loss Three Major Reasons 198-96
Operating Costs Mechanical or Process Factors Studied to Reduce 163-96 Amine Surge Tanks Reduction of H2S Emissions 196-96
Oxygenates in Feed Effectiveness of Removal by Water Wash 160-96 Amine Units Heat Stable Salts 201-96
Oxygenates in Feed Typical Levels 160-96 Amine Units Turnaround Cycle 201-96
Premixing Feed Several Refiners Mix C4 Recycle and Olefin Feed 161-96 Aromatics New Solvents for Extraction 189-96
Reactor Corrosion Acid & MTBE React to Form Water 167-96 FCC Catalyst Demetallization Data on Metal Removal 98-96
Reactor Corrosion Control by Treating MTBE Unit Carryover 166-96 FCC Catalyst Demetallization Data on Metal Removal 100-96
Reactor Corrosion Increase When Upstream Oxygenate Unit On-Line 166-96 FCC Catalyst Demetallization Yield and Performance Variables 98-96
Reactor Corrosion No Increase After MTBE Unit Went On-Line 167-96 Formic Acid Effect on H2 Plant Operations and Equipment 125-96
Reactor Seals Double Liquid Cartridge Seal Gives Big Life Increase 165-96 MDEA Systems High CO2 Absorption and Associated Corrosion 195-96
Reactor Seals Experience With and Life 164-96 Refinery Ethylene Process or Catalyst Technology to Increase Production 104-96
Reactor Seals Standard vs. Double Liquid Seals Compared 164-96 Vanadium May Not Be Entire Reason for Poisoning 101-96
Recycle Pump Problems From Acid Freezing Propyl Sulfates 163-96 —SULFUR AND MERCAPTANS AND SULFUR COMPOUNDS
Reducing Operating Cost Extensive List of Items Covered 163-96 Catalysts and Process Reduction in Gasoline Sulfur 101-96
Refrigerant Recycle Pumps Repeated Problems Experienced 162-96 COS & CS2 Control, Role of Fuel Gas Composition 205-96
Type Block Valves Alloy 20 Recommended 165-96 Liquid S Storage Above Ground vs. Pits 202-96
Water Wash DIB Procedures Described 161-96 Sulfur Elemental vs. Conversion to H2SO4 210-96

ANALYSIS COKE (COKE PRODUCTION)

—TESTING & ANALYTICAL METHODS SDA Bottoms Effect on Yield and Operations 22-96
Cu Strip Corrosion Sulfur & NH3& CO2 Content of Gasoline 20-96 —DELAYED COKING
Near Infrared Numerous Applications for Blending & Analysis 35-96 Automated Drum Unheading/Heading 107-96
On-Line Analyzers Require Serious Commitment 38-96 Automating Process Entire Process 107-96
On-Line S Analyzers Hydrotreater Reactor Control 150-96 Coke Fines Coke Catchers & Low Gravity Feed 114-96
Sulfur in Products (NH4)2S Causes Failure of Cu Strip Test 20-96 Coke Fines Designs to Reduce Problems 114-96
Sulfur in Products Elemental S Causes Failure of Cu Strip Test 20-96 Coking vs. Deasphalting Deasphalting Cheaper 111-96
Combination Bits Description of Drill Head 109-96
BIOLOGICAL TREATING & MICROORGANISMS Cut Coke Make Lower Drum Pressure, Minimize Recycle Rate 114-96
Waste H2O to Cooling Tower Microbial Control Key Parameter 213-96 Cycle Time 10 to 8.5 Hr. In Small Drums 111-96
Cycle Time Hours for Each of Seven Steps 110-96
BLENDING Cycle Time Shortest is 14 to 16 Hr 109-96
Heavy FCC Naphtha Into Jet Fuel 43-96 Cycle Time Shortest, Safety Issues, Drum Life 109-96
Heavy FCC Naphtha Into Jet Fuel 44-96 Drill Bits Experience With Combination Bits 107-96
Near Infrared Tool for Blending 35-96 Drum Quench Automated Technologies Available 112-96
Drum Vapor Velocity Limits and Effect of Excess Velocity 113-96
CATALYSTS Heavy Resids Coker Fractionator Temperature 118-96
Butamer & Penex Units Incidents of CO2/CO Cat. Poisoning, Source, Solution 192-96 Heavy Resids Steam for Velocity in Furnace 118-96
C2H2 to CH2CH2 Performance Advantages 225-96 High Concarbon Feeds Design Features Required for Processing 115-96
Catalysts & V Control V Traps, Zeolites, and Matrices 97-96 Poor Quality Feed Better to Cut Coke, Up Liquids 114-96
Catalytic Reforming Cut Temps. Quickly After Sulfur Shot 188-96 Quench Shorten Quench & Lower Drum Stress 112-96
Catalytic Reforming Fine Generation 185-96 Recycle Ratio Lowest Acceptable With Vac. Resid 112-96
Catalytic Reforming Pros & Cons of Ex Situ and In Situ Regeneration 180-96 Shot Coke Difficult to Predict 116-96
Catalytic Reforming Regeneration: Pt Redistribution Step Described 181-96 Shot Coke Ways to Estimate Shot Coke Tendency of Resids 115-96
Catalytic Reforming Spent Cat. Oxychlorinated After Coke Burn 181-96 Sludges Feed to Coker 116-96
Claus Publication on Deactivation Mechanism 209-96 Sludges Feed to Unit 116-96
Claus Typical Life and Reasons for Changeout 207-96 Sludges Preparation for Injection In Unit 116-96
Claus Unit Regeneration Not Recommended 207-96 Technology Advances Eight Are Listed 111-96
Ex Situ Presulfided Cat. Advantages 141-96
Ex Situ Presulfided Cat. Can Become Sulfur Deficient With Delay 142-96 COKING (FOULING)
Ex Situ Presulfided Cat. Hydrotreating Experience 141-96 Ethylene Cracking Furnaces Advances to Control 226-96
Ex Situ Sulfided SO2 If Liberated Could Inhibit Loading Monitoring 143-96
FCC Catalysts Poisoning Not Always Due to Va 101-96 COMBUSTION
FCC Demetallization Catalyst Yield and Performance Variables 98-96 —PROMOTERS
FCC Demetallization Data on Leachates 100-96 Fluid Cat Cracking Ensures CO/CO2 Ratio 75-96

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 239

TOC/INDEX

COMPUTER CONTROL Post Riser Quench Effect of Post Riser Reactions on Yield 86-96
Future Functions Computers or People 48-96 Rate vs. Conversion Graphical Presentation of Variables 89-96
Simulation Non-Traditional Use Grows 45-96 Regeneration Temperature Controlled With High Rare Earth Catalyst 72-96
Regenerator CO2/CO Best Way to Get Ratio Between 3 and 10 75-96
CONTROL Riser Temperatures Low Temperature Alarm and Trips 83-96
Future Functions Computer or People 48-96 Riser Temperatures There Is Range for Low Temperatures 83-96
Types of Controllers Five Types Defined 44-96 Run Length Regenerator Cyclone Inlet Velocity for 3- to 4-Year Run 78-96
Safety Shut-Off Fire Eye or Flame Rod vs. Operator Observation 67-96
CORROSION & EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS Safety Shut-Off Use Flame Detectors but Don’t Tie into Shutdown Logic 67-96
Alkylation Reactor Caused by MTBE Plant Carryover 167-96 Safety Shut-Off Violet Flicker Type Best Flame Detector 68-96
Crude Overhead Continuous Water Washing Results in Big Improvement 30-96 Slurry Metering Best Practice 65-96
Crude Overhead Controlling Salt Deposition and Under Deposit Corrosion 29-96 Slurry Metering Close Coupled DP Cells Specified 65-96
Crude Overhead Heavier Crudes Tax Capability of Neutralizing Amines 29-96 Slurry Metering Eccentric Orifice 66-96
Crude Overhead Major Refiner Controls Without Films or Neutralizers 31-96 Slurry Metering Keep BS & W as Low As Possible 66-96
Crude Overhead New Neutralizers for Corrosion & Fouling 30-96 Sulfate Formation SOX Additive May Not Help in Full Burn Unit 70-96
Crude Overhead On-Line pH Analyzer is Key to Control 29-96 Temperature Excursions Actions to Control 83-96
HF Alkylation Fluoride Scale Results From Corrosion 176-96 Temperature Runaway Air Blower Option at 2000° F 86-96
HF Alkylation Impurity Limits for Carbon Steel 176-96 Temperature Runaway Air Blower Shutdown Not Good Option 84-96
Hydrotreater Metallurgy for Ammonium Bisulfide Problem 137-96 Temperature Runaway Important Principles to Consider 84-96
Hydrotreater Washwater Design guide to Reduce 138-96 Temperature Runaway Last Resort: Shut Down Air Blower 83-96
Hydrotreating Balanced Header Design Lowers Corrosion 138-96 Temperature Runaway Oil-Soaked Catalyst Dangerous 85-96
Hydrotreating Experience In Fluorided Operating Environment 139-96 Temperature Runaway Pull Feed, Steam, Run Blower 85-96
Hydrotreating Reactor Protecting From Ammonium Salts 135-96 Temperature Runaway Temperatures 2000° F.+ Estimated 85-96
MDEA Systems High CO2 Absorption Can Be Cause 195-96 Temperature Runaway Unit Operators Play Major Control Role 86-96
Naphthenic Crudes Methods to Prevent Acid Attack 32-96 Upgrading Cycle Oil Processes to Upgrade Cetane 154-96
Preheat Exchanger Settling Crude After Desalting Eliminates Corrosion & Fouling 30-96 Used Lube Feed Chlorides and Metals Pose Problems 92-96
Sour Water Stripper Control Condenser Outlet Temp to Prevent Corrosion 219-96 Used Lube Feed Is Processed After Distillation 91-96
Tank Bottom Use of Acoustic Emission for Leak, Corrosion Detection 55-96 V Traps List of Available Products 96-96
Unanticipated In Structured Packing, Vacuum Unit 34-96 Wet Gas Scrubber Online Before Putting Oil Feed to Reactor 69-96
Unanticipated Naphthenic Acid May Be Culprit 34-96 —HYDROCRACKING
Catalyst Activation Experience With Three Different 142-96
CRACKING Depressure Reactor Degassing Not Required for 3 Chrome Vanadium Steel 148-96
—FLUID CAT CRACKING (FCC) Depressure Reactor Minimum Pressuring Temperature of Steel First Consideration 147-96
Aeration Air vs. Steam Steam Does Not Fluidize Catalysts Well 91-96 Ebullating Bed Pros & Cons for Cold & Hot Reactor Walls 148-96
Air Preheater Start-Up Equipped With Fire Eyes 68-96 Ebullating Pumps Back-Up Power Supply Important 150-96
Air Preheater Start-Up No Fire Eyes; Operator Standby 68-97 Ex Situ Sulfided Cat. SO2 if Liberated Could Inhibit Loading Monitoring 143-96
Burn Mode Full Burn Easier to Run 80-96 Feed & Ebullating Pumps Reliability 149-96
Carbon on Catalyst Do Not Underestimate Effect 86-96 Fractionator Bottoms Reducing Cloud Point to Diesel Quality 158-96
Carbon on Catalyst Effect on Selectivity Disputed 80-96 Mild Hydrocracking For FCC Feed Pretreatment 153-96
Carbon on Catalyst Start-Up With 7.0 wt% on Catalyst 85-96 Mild Operation Advances That Increase Conversion 158-96
Catalyst CO Promoter Impregnated on Catalyst 104-96 Mild Operation Has Drawbacks 158-96
Catalyst Demetallization Catalyst Yield and Performance Variables 98-96 NH3 In Second Stage Strongly Decreases Hydrocracking 155-96
Catalyst Demetallization Data on Leachates 100-96 Old Reactors Replaced Because of High Preheat Temperatures 53-96
Catalyst Demetallization Data on Metal Removal 98-96 Old Reactors Replacement Considerations 51-96
Catalyst Demetallization Technology Enhanced 98-96 Presulfiding Do Not Introduce Cracked Material Immediately 143-96
Catalyst Disposal Two Techniques Lessen Problem 97-96 Presulfiding In Situ Gas, In Situ Liquid & Ex Situ Compound 143-96
Catalyst Entrainment Distribution of Air In Regenerator Important 78-96 Radial Temperatures Target Spread 52-96
Catalyst Entrainment Options to Lower Dilute Phase Entrainment 77-96 Reactor Quench Design & Operating Strategies to Ensure Quench Availability 156-96
Catalyst Stripping Best Practices and Criteria for Effectiveness 81-96 Reactor Temperature Advances in Measuring Technology 145-96
Catalyst Stripping Judging Stripper Performance 81-96 Reactor Thermocouple Flexible Type May Not Be Insertable After Cat. Dump 145-96
Catalyst Stripping Performance Indicators 82-96 Safe Furnace Outlet Temp. When Heating Recycle Gas 156-96
Catalyst Stripping Practices and Designs to Improve Stripping 82-96 Separator Cleanup Preparing High Pressure Vessels for Cleanup 159-96
Catalyst Stripping Three Variables Influence Stripping 81-96 Thermocouple Flexible, “Snaky” Thermocouples Effective 145-96
Catalyst Stripping Typical Stripping Rates 82-96 Troubleshooting Distribution Variation In Internal Couples & Skin Couple 146-96
Ceramic Materials Used in Nozzles, Cyclone Internals, Tube Linings 63-96
Chilling Air More Air or O2 Enrichment Better Than Chilling 80-96 CRUDE OIL PROCESSING
Chill Regenerator Air Results for Capacity or Conversion 79-96 BS & W Less Than 1.5% 17-96
CO2/CO Unit Operates at Ratio of 3 to 4 With No Promoter 76-96 Desalting Specific Techniques for –20° API Crudes 8-96
Combustion Mode Back and Forth Between Complete Combustion and Partial Burn 76-96 Dewatering Performance of Automatic Devices 18-96
Compressor Constraint Try Passivators 88-96 Dewatering Precautions Taken for Automatic System 19-96
Conversion Feed Rate vs. Conversion 88-96 Dewatering Tank Sludge Prevents Draining 19-96
Converter Section Use of Ceramic Materials 63-96 Fractionation Best Data to Monitor Performance 34-96
Cool Air Cooler on Air Blower Gave 30% Rate of Return 79-96 Heavy Crude Test Results to Design Desalter for 11.6° API Crude 13-96
Dense Bed Temperature Quantifying Method to Raise Temperature 73-96 Naphthenic Crudes Methods to Prevent Acid Attack 32-96
Dense Bed Temperature Questionable Ways of Raising Temperature 72-96 Naphthenic Crudes TAN Numbers Not Infallible Indicators 33-96
Dense Bed Temperature Use of Air Heater to Raise Temperature Hazardous 73-96 Naphthenic Crudes Three Element Program Copes With Acid Attack 32-96
Dense Bed Temperature Ways to Raise Temperature When Feed Is Hydrotreated 71-96 Near Infrared Coupled to Advanced Control on Crude Unit 35-96
Dilute Phase Shorter Time or Lower Temperature Best 87-96 Unanticipated Corrosion In Structured Packing, Vacuum Unit 34-96
Dry Gas Make Closed Cyclones Reduce Make 88-96 Water Decant or Mix 17-96
Electrostatic Separators Produce Slurry Oil With Less Than 10 ppm Particulate 67-96
ESP Commissioning Energize Prior to Lining Out FCC Unit 69-96 CRUDE OILS
ESP Commissioning On Unit Start-Up: Yes & No 68-96 Contaminated Crude Analysis for & Control of Delivered Crude 31-96
FCC Catalyst Add Additives Separately or In Catalyst 102-96 Naphthenic Crudes Methods to Prevent Acid Attacks 32-96
FCC Catalyst AMF Indicates Pore Blockage, Not V, Deactivates 101-96 Quality Analysis for & Control of Contaminated Delivered Crude 31-96
Feed Pretreatment Hydrotreating Compared to Mild Hydrocracking 153-96 Yield Accounting Improves Overall Refining Operations 46-96
Feed Pretreatment Mild Hydrocracking Can Cut FCC Yield 154-96
Feed Rate Feed Rate vs. Conversion 88-96 DATA RECONCILIATION
Feed Vaporization Riser, Regenerator Temperatures 83-96 Analyze Data Keeps LP Models and Plant Simulators Current 46-96
Filters Backwash vs. Electrostatic 66-96 Benchmarking Improves Unit Performance 46-96
Filters Experience With Various Types 66-96 Primary Uses Identify Errors and Provide Calibration Input 47-96
Filters Operation Requirements for Various Types 66-96
H2O Invection Hydrothermal Deactivation 81-96 DEASPHALTING
High Na Feed Desalt or Dehydrate in Tankage 92-96 Level Instruments Liquid-Liquid Interfaces in Main Treaters/Extractors 22-96
Hydrotreated Feed Five Quality Parameters Important 152-96 Resid Upgrading Lower Cost Option Than Coking 111-96
Inert Level Hoppers Can Control Excess Inerts 90-96 SDA Bottoms Effect as Feed to Delayed Coker 21-96
Inert Level Operations, Equipment That Affects Level 89-96
Low Regenerator Temperature Problem Depends on Partial or Full Burn 73-96 DESULFURIZATION
Main Fractionators Complete H2O Removal After Flush is Critical 69-96 H2S In Recycle Gas Drop In Cat. Activity but No Effect on Yield 155-96
Main Fractionators Dry Out Procedures on Start-Up 69-96 H2S In Recycle Gas Negative Effect on Cat. Activity 155-96
Modify Air Blower Several Options Available 79-96
Na in Feed Desalter Justified at 2 ppm Content 93-96 DIESEL OILS
Naphtha Pumparound Installation: Benefits and Considerations 106-96 Aromatic Reduction Aromatic Reduction Unit 151-96
Naphtha Pumparound Means to Unload Overhead Condensers 105-96 Cetane Index Hydrotreating Mixed VGO & Cracked Stocks 152-96
Near Infrared On-Line, Real-Time Analysis of Feed & Product 35-96 Dearomatizing Four Units Described 151-96
Oil-Soaked Catalyst Dangers 85-96 High Acid Processes to Remove Acid 33-96
Oil-Soaked Catalyst Regenerator Temperature Excursions 83-96 Fractionator Bottoms Inclusion In Diesel Fuel 158-96
Olefins in Gasoline Best Way to Reduce to Meet CARB 93-96
Olefins in Gasoline Catalysts Play Role In Reducing Olefins 94-96 DISTILLATION
Olefins in Gasoline Higher Riser Temperatures Cut Olefins 94-96 Crude Oil Fouling Prevention and Reduction 23-96
Olefins in Gasoline Low-Cost Options to Curb 95-96 Crude Oil Prevent Preheater Fouling by Operational Means 25-96
Partial Burn Carbon Run-Away Can Be Serious -96 Crude Oil Prevent Preheater Fouling by Exchanger Design 24-96
Post Rise Quench Decreases Unwanted Thermal Reactions 87-96 Crude Oil Prevent Preheater Fouling With Baffle in Exchanger 26-96
Post Riser Quench AMOCO Major User 86-96 Crude Oil Prevent Preheater Fouling With Tube Inserts 25-96
Post Riser Quench Cuts Dry Gas, Increases Gasoline 86-96 Crude Oil Sodium Tolerant Antifoulant for Preheater 27-96
Post Riser Quench Compared to Couple Cyclones 87-96 Crude Oil Split Exchange Trains to Deal With Fouling 24-96

240 Subject Index

TOC/INDEX

ENERGY RECOVERY & CONSERVATION Olefins in CARB Fuel Higher Riser Temperatures Cut Olefins In FCC Gasoline 94-96
Air Fan Cooler Blades Experience In Use of FRP Blades 222-96 Reformulated EPA Waivers vs. Exemptions 40-96
Fin Fans Results From Using Water Spray on Fans 223-96 Sulfur Reduction Process on Catalyst Variables to Accomplish 102-96

ENTRAINMENT HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

Hydrofluoric Acid Conditions That Promote 172-96 Auxiliary Boiler In Furnace Convection Section 128-96
Cell Temperature Balance Result of Proper Cat. Loading 121-96
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS Cell Temperature Manually Balanced to Within 50°F–75°F of Each Other 121-96
Amine Surge Tanks Reduction of H2S Emissions 196-96 Cell Temperature Reason Balance Needed 122-96
Asphalt Tank Odors Activated Charcoal for Removal of H2S 211-96 Feed to PSA Hydrocarbon Recovery Before or After PSA 129-96
Fugitive Emissions Converted to DNF on Covered API Separator Channels 218-96 Formic Acid Collects in Process Condensate 125-96
H2S From Tank Amine Scrub Followed by Charcoal 211-96 Formic Acid Discussion of Formation in Shift Section 126-96
Heavy Oil Odor Caustic Scrubber Will Not Eliminate Problem 212-96 Formic Acid Not Normally Found in Gas from Shift Section 126-96
Hydrocarbons & H2S Best Tank for Sour Water Storage 211-96 HP Reformer Tube Characteristics, Performance Described 124-96
Hydrocyclones Separate Oil-Water, Oil-Solids, Water-Solids 213-96 HP Tubes Long-Lived, Stronger, Thinner Walls, Hold More Cat. 124-96
Hydrogen Plants Control of NOX 129-96 Low pH Condensate Neutralization Problem 126-96
Radioactive Material Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material in Crude & Products 219-96 Nox Emissions Control by Various Designs 129-96
Sour Water Emissions O2 & NH4 Will Cause Problems In Amine System 211-96 Nox Emissions Limits Vary 128-96
Tank Odors Emissions From Hot, Heavy-Fuel Tanks 210-96 Prereformer Guards Against Sulfur, Other Contaminants 123-96
Tank Odors Purge and Scrub Vent Gas 211-96 Prereformer Increased H2 Production 8 to 10% 123-96
Waste Water Lowering Benzene in Desalter Effluent 15-96 Prereformer Initiates Reaction at Lower Temperature 123-96
Waste Water Steam Strip Desalter H2O Effluent to Cut Benzene 16-96 Prereformer Three Applications Detailed 123-96
Pressure, Outlet Temperature 145 to 410 psig; About 1500°F 120-96
EQUIPMENT PSA Adsorbent Has Long Life 130-96
Air Fan Cooler Blades Experience In Use of FRP Blades 222-96 Reformer Tubes Micro-Alloy HP Tube Unqualified Success 124-96
Alkylation Valves Different Types Are Compared 165-96 Steam-to-Carbon Ratio Below 3 to 1 Can Present Problems 126-96
Cooling Tower Boiler Blowdown Water As Makeup 214-96 Tube Temperature Measured Infrared and Optical Pyrometers 122-96
Cooling Tower Control Sludge, Remove Sludge 215-96 Type Plants CO2 Liquid Wash & PSA 122-96
Cooling Tower Evaluation of Cooling Tower Thermal Efficiency 212-96
Cooling Tower Send 20% of Treated Waste Water to Cooling Water 213-96 HYDROTREATING
Depressure Reactor H2 Release From Thick Wall Can Pose Risk 147-96 Catalyst Monitoring Purchased Catalyst 139-96
Depressure Reactor Protection From Brittle Fracture First Concern 147-96 Catalyst New Regulations on Spent Cat. Classification 144-96
Electrical Type Reliability Programs 56-96 Cetane Index Co-Processing Mixed VGO & Cracked Stocks 152-96
Electrical Tracing Used In Lieu of Steam Tracing on Heavy Oil Lines 224-96 Corrosion Balanced Header Design Lowers Corrosion 138-96
Filters Process Side Filters, Location & Effectiveness 59-96 Corrosion Design Guide to Reduce Ammonium Bisulfide Problem 138-96
Fin Fans Results From Using Water Spray on Fans 223-96 Corrosion Experience In Fluorided Operating Environment 139-96
Flotation Unit Air, N2 or Natural Gas for NESHAPS Coverage 218-96 Corrosion Model Predicts Ammonium Salt Points 137-96
HF Alkylation Acidizing Program for Exchanger Bundle Extraction 175-96 Debutanized Concentrate Process for This Ethylene Cracker Stream 225-96
HF Alkylation Acidizing Technique for Exchanger Bundle Extraction 175-96 Depressure Reactor Criteria to Determine When 147-96
HF Alkylation Valves Exercising & Testing 172-96 Depressure Reactor H2 Release From Thick Wall Can Pose Risk 147-96
High Pressure Separators Preparing for Entry During Turnarounds and Inspections 159-96 Distribution Problems Non-Invasive Methods to Troubleshoot 146-96
Hydrocracking Feed & Ebullating Pump Reliability 149-96 Effluent/Air Cooler System Protecting From Ammonium Salt 135-96
Hydrocracking Reactors Advances in Temperature Measuring 145-96 Ex Situ Presulfided Cat. Advantages 141-96
Old Reactors No Advantage in Replacing With Same Size New 51-96 Ex Situ Presulfided Cat. Can Become Sulfur Deficient With Delay 142-96
Old Reactors Replaced because of High Preheat Temperatures 53-96 Ex Situ Presulfided Cat. Experience 141-96
Old Reactors Strategies to Maintain Safe Operation 51-96 FCC Feed Aromatic Saturation Biggest Impact on FCC Yield 153-96
Piping & Furnaces New Cleaning Techniques; “Pigging” 61-96 FCC Feed Defining Treater’s Performance 153-96
Sour Water Stripper Control Corrosion With Temp 220-96 Fluorided Environment Avoid Fluorided Catalysts 139-96
Steam Reforming Integrating Auxiliary Boiler in Unit 127-96 Fluorided Environment If Dosage at Proper Level, No Problems 139-96
Sulfuric Acid Alky. Valves Type Block Valves Recommended 165-96 H2S In Recycle Gas Drop In Cat. Activity but No Effect on Yield 155-96
Vacuum Tower Bundles Cleaning Techniques 62-96 H2S In Recycle Gas Negative Effect on Cat. Activity 155-96
Vacuum Furnace Reasons for Failure of Soot Blowers 221-96 H2S In Recycle Gas Some Is Necessary 156-96
Valves Pilot Operated in High Pressure Service 58-96 NH4HS Corrosion Six Important Considerations to Reduce 136-96
—MAINTENANCE On-Line S Analyzers Mixed Experience With Instruments 150-96
Alky Recycle Pumps Repeated Problems in Sulfuric Acid Units 163-96 On-Line S Analyzers To Control Reactor Inlet Pump 150-96
Electrical Equipment Type Reliability Programs 56-96 Presulfiding Chemicals Experience With Non-Toxic, Low Odor Materials 140-96
Furnace Air Preheaters Breakage of Glass Tubes 221-96 Reactor Plugging Avoid Skimming 133-96
Furnace Preheaters Glass Tubes Causes of Breakage 221-96 Reactor Plugging Causes and Corrections 130-96
HF Alkylation Implementation of API 751 170-96 Reactor Plugging Cracked Stock Caused Fouling 131-96
Piping & Furnaces New Cleaning Techniques; “Pigging” 61-96 Reactor Plugging Do Not Install Trash Bucket if Flow Two Phase 134-96
Reactor Failure In Cat. Reformer 53-96 Reactor Plugging Effectiveness of Hot Hydrogen Strip 134-96
Vacuum Tower Bundles Cleaning Techniques 62-96 Reactor Plugging From Low H2 Partial Pressure 132-96
Reactor Plugging O2 in Feed: 2 ppm Too Much 134-96
EXTRACTION Reactor Plugging O2 in Fuel Causes Iron Sulfide Scale 132-96
Aromatics New Solvents 189-96 Reactor Plugging Prevent With Filters 133-96
Sulfolane Coping With and Preventing Degradation Products 190-96 Reactor Plugging Shock Dosages of Disbursing Chemicals Help 132-96
Reactor Plugging Spread Scale by Cat. Grading & Selection 132-96
FOAMING Reactor Plugging Trash, Iron, Coke, & Fines 130-96
Amine Causes; Charcoal Filter Strategies 199-96 Resid Hydroprocessing Experience With High Metals, Sulfur & Carbon Residue Fuels 152-96
Amine From Thick Emulsion Layer 200-96 Resid in Low Pressure Unit Resid Quality and Conditions 153-96
Amine Keep Amine Hot to Prevent Hydrocarbon Foaming 200-96 Resid, VGO Mix In Low Pressure Unit 153-96
Delayed Coking Relationship to Drum Vapor Velocity 113-96 Spent Cat. Could Be Classified As Hazardous Waste 144-96
Troubleshooting Distribution Catalyst Activity Test 146-96
FOULING & DEPOSITS Troubleshooting Distribution Radioactive Tracer Test 146-96
Cat. Reformer Techniques and Considerations for Coping With NH4Cl 178-96
Crude Overhead Continuous Water Washing Results in Big Improvement 30-96 INSPECTION
Crude Overhead Major Refiner Controls Without Film on Neutralizers 31-96 Acoustic Emission For Tank Bottom Leak 55-96
Crude Overhead New Neutralizers for Corrosion & Fouling 30-96 Alloys & Stainless Positive Material Identification (PM) 58-96
Crude Overhead Problem is Dilemma Solved by Rigorous Model 30-96 Dead End, Dead Leg Frequency, Type, Corrective Action 53-96
Crude Units Fouling Prevention & Reduction 23-96 Electrical Equipment Type Reliability Programs 56-96
Crude Units Prevent Preheater Fouling by Exchanger Design 24-96 H2S Vessel Cracks Frequency, Type Inspections 50-96
Crude Units Prevent Preheater Fouling by Operational Means 25-96 High-Pressure Vessels Multi-Layer Type & Frequency of Inspection 54-96
Crude Units Prevent Preheater Fouling With Baffle in Exchanger 26-96 Old Reactors Strategies to Maintain Safe Operation 51-96
Crude Units Prevent Preheater Fouling with Tube Inserts 25-96 Small Bore Piping, Fittings Procedures & Testing Methods 56-96
Crude Units Sodium Tolerant Antifoulant for Preheater 27-96 Sphere Cracking Frequency & Type 50-96
Crude Units Split Exchange Trains to Deal With Fouling 24-96 Tank Bottom Use of Acoustic Emission for Leaks, Corrosion 55-96
Dilution Steam System Methods to Control In Ethylene Plants 227-96
Ethylene Units Fouling In Depropanizer 225-96 INSTRUMENTATION (METERING, MONITORING & CONTROL)
Exchangers Cleans OK with Inserts in Place 28-96 Advanced Systems Maintenance Requires Instrument Mechanics & Technicians 39-96
FCC Inserts in Pumparound on Main Column 27-96 Advanced Systems Organizational Changes & Skill Development to Cope With 39-96
Preheat Exchanger Settling Crude After Desalting Eliminates Corrosion & Fouling 30-96 Custody Transfers Coriolis Meter 40-96
Sulfuric Acid Alky. Measures to Reduce in DIB 162-96 Custody Transfers Jetty Loading 40-96
Custody Transfers Meters vs. Tank Gauging 40-96
FRACTIONATION Custody Transfers Transfers of Products & Crude 39-96
FCC Naphtha Pumparound: Benefits, Considerations 106-96 Level Liquid/Liquid Interfaces in Main Treaters 22-96
Near Infrared Analysis of FCC Feed & Product 35-96
FUELS Near Infrared Coupled to Advanced Control on Crude Unit 35-96
A-21 Blend H2O + Naphtha Impact on Refining Industry 41-96 Near Infrared Hardware & Chemometrics Maintenance 36-96
Dearomatized Diesel Four Dearomatization Units Described 151-96 Near Infrared Has Application in Almost All Refining Processes 35-96
FCC Heavy Naphtha Process, Blending Options 42-96 Near Infrared On-Line Analyzers Still Being Backed Up by Lab 38-96
Near Infrared Analysis One Analyzer Analyses Three Different Streams 36-96
GASOLINE Near Infrared Analysis Topological Modeling Enhances On-Line NIR 36-96
A-21 Blend H2O + Naphtha Impact on Refining Industry 41-96 On-Line Analyzers Analyzers Require Serious Commitment 38-96
Olefins in CARB Fuel Best Ways to Reduce FCC Gasoline Olefins 93-96 Specialized Instrumentation Empower Employees for Effective Maintenance 37-96
Olefins in CARB Fuel Catalysts Play Role in Reducing Olefins 94-96 Specialized Instrumentation Maintenance Problems & Reliability 37-96

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 241

TOC/INDEX

Specialized Instrumentation On-Line Analyzers Key to Benefits of Control & Optimization 37-96 Low pH Condensate Neutralization Problem 126-96
Staffing Work Force & Organization for Maintenance 39-96 Nox Emissions Control by Various Designs 129-96
Nox Emissions Limits Vary 128-96
ISOMERIZATION Prereformer Increased H2 Production 8 to 10% 123-96
Butamer & Penex Units Incidents of CO2/CO Cat. Poisoning, Source, Solution 192-96 Prereformer Initiates Reaction at Lower Temperature 123-96
Catalyst Experience With I-12 Catalyst 191-96 Prereformer Three Applications Detailed 123-96
Corrosion, Mech. Problems Identification, Solutions 191-96 Pressure, Outlet Temp. 145 to 410 psig; About 1500°C 120-96
Molecular Sieves Life, S Removal, Regeneration and Conditions 192-96 PSA Adsorbent Has Long Life 130-96
Sulfur Sulfur Analyzer 192-96 Steam-to-Carbon Ratio Below 3 to 1 Can Present Problems 126-96
Tube Loading “Sweep Brush” Loading 127-96
JET FUEL
Heavy FCC Blending into Jet Fuel 43-96 RESIDS
Heavy FCC Blending into Jet Fuel Requires Anti-Oxidant 43-96 Bubble Tower Max. Tower Bottoms Temp. for Heavy Material 118-96
Heavy FCC Blending Up to 15% into Jet Fuel 44-96 Delayed Coking Best Strategy to Poor Quality Residua 114-96
Hydroprocessing Processing High Metals, Sulfur & Conradson Carbon Material 152-96
KEROSINE Quality Analysis of Imported Residues at Refinery 31-96
Caustic Treaters UOP & Merichem Treaters Compared 34-96
High Acid Processes to Remove Acid 33-96 SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
H2S Vessel Cracks Frequency, Type Inspections, Causes 50-96
LUBE OILS (AS PRODUCTS) Old Reactors Strategies to Maintain Safe Operation 51-96
Base Oil Haze Problems With Hydrocracked Oil 21-96 Reactor Failure In Cat. Reformer 53-96
Sphere Cracking Frequency & Techniques for Internal Inspections 50-96
NAPHTHA Valves Pilot Operated in High Pressure Service 58-96
FCC Naphtha Crackable With Sufficient Severity 43-96
FCC Naphtha Hydrocrack to Lighter Material 43-96 SIMULATIONS
Heavy FCC Blending into Jet Fuel 43-96 Dynamic Models Operator Training 46-96
Heavy FCC Blending Up to 15% into Jet Fuel 44-96 Model/Simulator Optimizes Entire Naphtha Processing Section 45-96
Heavy FCC Process, Blending Options 42-96 Optimization Successful Application for Gasoline Blending & FCCUs 49-96
T90 & Sulfur Limits Options for Treating or Using FCC Heavy Naphtha 42-96 Real-Time Optimization Has Benefits for Basic Petrochemical Processes 49-96
Real-Time Optimization Success Rate Low for Refinery Application 48-96
OILS Steady State Package Majority for FCCUs, Reformers & Hydrocrackers 46-96
Diesel Processes to Remove Acid Compounds 33-96 Uses For Revamps, Optimization, Studies, Training 45-96
Uses Mode Processes, Trouble Shooting, Debottlenecking, Monitoring 45-96
OXYGENATES
TAME, ETBE, TABE Commercial Status of These Ethers 193-96 SLURRY
Delayed Coker Feed Effects and Consideration 117-96
PETROCHEMICALS
Ethylene Feedstock VGO is Used in Plants 227-96 SOFTWARE
Hydrotreating Arom. Stream Debutanized Concentrate From Ethylene Cracker 225-96 Models For FCCUs, Reformers & Hydrocrackers 46-96
Styrene Best Catalyst for Selectivity and Run Time 228-96 Optimization Successful Application for Gasoline Blending & FCCUs 49-96
Styrene Inhibitors to Prevent Polymerization During Outage 228-96 Process Control Types Constraint, Inferred, Multivariable, Smart, Neural Networks 44-96
Styrene Catalyst Effect of Steam to Oil Ratio 228-96 Real-Time Optimization Has Benefits for Basic Petrochemical Processes 48-96
Real-Time Optimization Success Rate Low for Refining Applications 48-96
POLYMER UNIT Simulation For Revamps, Optimization Studies, Training and Compliance 44-96
Spent Dimersol Catalyst Neutralization, Handling 190-96
STAFFING
PRESSURE Operators Future Role & Required Qualifications 48-96
Valves Pilot Operated in High Pressure Service 58-96 Refinery Future Organization 48-96
REFINERY ECONOMICS & REFINERY PRACTICES STORAGE
Communications Lotus Notes 47-96 Liquid Sulfur Operation, Maintenance of Tanks & Pits 202-96
Communications Mobile Phones, E-mail, Lotus Notes, Hand-held Computers 47-96
Communications Plantwide Video 47-96 SULFUR PLANT
Communications Systems Going in Mobile Phones, E-mail, Lotus Notes, Video, Computers 46-97 Blockage in Sour Gas Line High Concentration of H2S & CO2 Together May Form Hydrate 197-96
Communications Worldwide Virtual FCC Team 47-96 Castable Refractory Failure “Steerhorn” Attachment 203-96
Operators Future Role & Required Qualifications 48-96 Claus Catalyst Typical Life and Reasons for Changeout 207-96
Staffing Future Organizational Structure 48-96 Claus Converter Temp. Lowest Temperature Permissible Before Sour Gas Bed 206-96
COS and CS2 Control, Role of Feed Gas Composition on Formation 205-96
REFORMING Filters Effective on Amine Streams 59-96
—CATALYTIC Furnace Refractory Use of Castable Refractory +
202-96
Aromatics Extraction New Solvents 189-96 H2S Conversion Combination of Claus & Tail Gas Gets 99 % 210-96
Catalyst Regeneration Ex Situ vs. In Situ 180-96 H2S Conversion Three Bed Claus Gets 98% 210-96
Catalyst Regeneration For Speed, jump O2 to 5% During Second Burn 184-96 Liquid Sulfur Above Ground Storage vs. Pits for Storage 202-96
Catalyst Regeneration Higher Pressure Generally Means Regeneration 184-96 Liquid Sulfur Storage Corrosion in Above-Ground Tanks 202-96
Catalyst Regeneration Pt Redistribution Described 181-96 Liquid Sulfur Storage Disposition of Purge Gas 202-96
Catalyst Regeneration Spent Catalyst Oxychlorinated Ex Situ After Coke Burn 181-96 Liquid Sulfur Storage Maintenance of Tanks & Pits 202-96
Catalyst Technology Advances in Several Areas 185-96 Liquid Sulfur Storage Operation of Tanks & Pits 202-96
Choked Compressor Strainer Possible Causes, Parallel Solution 188-96 Liquid Sulfur Storage Run Acid Resistance Test on Concrete to Be Used 202-96
Cleaning Exchanges Chemical Cleaning of Dubious Effectiveness 187-96 O2 Enrichment 28% to 75% O2 Gives Capability Boosts of 20% to 120% 204-96
Conversion to Hybrid CCR Mixed Opinions on Value 186-96 O2 Enrichment 100% Capacity Increase With 60% O2 Level 204-96
New CCR Catalyst Fines Generation 185-96 O2 Enrichment Above 28% Requires Changes in Burners, Refractory 204-96
New CCR Catalyst Does Not Improve Aromatics Yield 186-96 O2 Enrichment Can Have Negative Impact on Waste Heat Boiler 204-96
NH4Cl Fouling Alumina Based Absorbent Works Well 179-96 O2 Enrichment Experience, Limitations 203-96
NH4Cl Fouling Do Not Use Neutralizing Amine in DIB Column 179-96 Organic S Compounds No Problem for Claus Unit 196-96
NH4Cl Fouling Limit Nitrogen Level in Feed 178-96 Pilots for Burners Retractable Types 207-96
NH4Cl Fouling Relationship to Coker Naphtha 179-96 Pilots for Burners Solutions to Short Operating Life 206-96
NH4Cl Fouling Techniques and Considerations for Coping with NH4Cl 178-96 Regenerator Acid Gas Subcoding to Remove H2O Not Done 197-96
Reactor Failure Mechanism Was Third Stage Creep 53-96 SO3 Formation Monitoring & Problems Indicated & Caused 208-96
Reactor Scale & Plugging From Iron & Coke in First Reactor 179-96 Solids in S Condensers Cement-Like Material is (NH4)2SO4 205-96
Recycle Gas H2O Moisture Analyzer More Important Than Recycle 182-96 Tail Gas Treater Technology for Less Than 10 ppm H2S 210-96
Recycle HCl Continuous Measurement Not Necessary 182-96 Tail Gas Unit Keep H2S Incinerators On Hot Standby 209-96
Regeneration Short Coke Burn Could Mean Hidden Problem 184-96 Tail Gas Unit Temperature Control in Stretford Solutions 209-96
Semiregenerative Dry Out Amps In Recycle Compressor Indicate Completion 183-96 Turnarounds Frequency, Shutdown Procedures, Regeneration, Restarts 207-96
Semiregenerative Shutdowns Average Time From “Oil Out” to “Oil In” 183-96
Semiregenerative Shutdowns Key Steps in Reducing Regeneration Time 183-96 TANKAGE
Semiregenerative Turnaround Top Operations Lead Regeneration 184-96 H2S Service & Cracks Type, Frequency of Inspection & Cause 50-96
Speedy Regeneration Typical H2 to Hydrocarbon Ratio for Quick Burn 185-96 Inspection Acoustic Emission for Tank Bottom Leaks 55-96
Stability of Naphtha Feed Bromine Index of 50 to 100 OK, O2 Bigger Problem 186-96 Sphere Cracking Frequency & Technique for Internal Inspections 50-96
Staged Catalyst Reasons for Staging 189-96
Sulfolane Extraction Coping With and Preventing Degradation Products 190-96 TRAINING
Sulfur in Feed Cut Temp Quickly 188-96 Simulation Products Use for Cross Training 44-96
Sulfur Poisoning Can Be Stripped Without Cat. Damage 188-96
Sulfur Poisoning Stripping With Hot H2or Clean Feed 188-96 TREATING
—STEAM Crude Oil BS & W Limit 17-96
Auxiliary Boiler Integrating in Furnace Convection Section 128-96 Crude Oil Decant Water or Mix Before Desalting 17-96
Catalyst Volume Performance Limited by Tube Life, Not Cat. 128-96 Crude Oil Desalting, Decanting, Settling 17-96
Cell Temperature Balance Result of Proper Cat. Loading 121-96 Crude Oil Performance of Automatic Dewatering Devices 18-96
Cell Temperature Manually Balanced to Within 50°F–75°F of Each Other 121-96 Crude Oil Tankage Dehydrogenation Program 18-96
Cell Temperature Reason Balance Needed 122-96 Crude Oil Dewatering Tank Sludge Prevents Draining 19-96
Formic Acid Collects in Process Condensate 125-96 Desalters Hydrocyclones Benefit Desalter Operation 213-96
Formic Acid Discussion of Formation in Shift Section 126-96 Desalters Important Mechanical Features for Heavy Crude Service 12-96
Formic Acid Not Normally Found in Gas From Shift Section 126-96 Desalters Keeping Scale Off Strainers 16-96
H2Reformer Tubes HP Modified 124-96 Desalters Mud Equipment Important for Heavy Crude 13-96
HP Reformer Tube Characteristics, Performance Described 124-96 Desalters Role of Other Operations in Heavy Crude Treating 13-96
HP Tubes Long-Lived, Stronger, Thinner Walls, Hold More Cat 124-96 Desalters Specific Techniques for -20° API Crudes 8-96

242 Subject Index

TOC/INDEX

Desalters Test results for Design of 11.6° API Crude Desalter 13-96
Desalting Air Strip to Meet Benzene NESHAP in Effluent 16-96
Desalting Asphatene & Polymer Problem 12-96
Desalting Drill Hole Surfactants Upset Desalter 10-96
Desalting Drilling Mud Stabilizers Efficiency 10-96
Desalting High Temperature Not Always Better for Heavy Crudes 11-96
Desalting Inject Emulsion Above H2O Interface With Heavy Crudes 11-96
Desalting Lower Temperature May Cut Benzene in Brine 17-96
Desalting Monitor Pressure Drop Across 11-96
Desalting Special Requirement for Naphthenic Crudes 11-96
Desalting Stream strip Desalter Effluent H2O to Reduce Benzene 16-96
Desalting Steps to Meet Benzene NESHAP in Desalter Effluent 15-96
Desalting Use of Condensate and Stripped H2O 11-96
Desalting Use of Recycled vs. Fresh H2O 11-96
FCC Feed Gas Oils Not Desalted 17-96
FCC Gas Oil Tankage Dehydrogenation Program 18-96
Heavy Crudes Important Desalting Parameters 9-96
Heavy Crudes Seven Techniques for Desalting 10-96
Heavy Crudes Temperature, Gravity 8-96
Heavy Crudes When to Use Single or Two-Stage Desalter 9-96
Sweetening Processes Problems from NH3 with Trace of H2S 19-96

TURNAROUND
Cat. Reformer Average Time “Oil Out” to “Oil In” and Key Steps 183-96
Cat. Reformer Top Operators Lead Regeneration 184-96

VISBREAKING
Gas Oil Advantages of Recovering With Vac. Flash 117-96
Naphthenic Acid Coping With Fractionator pH 118-96
Vac. Flash Considerations for Installing Downstream 117-96

WASTE DISPOSAL
Spent Cat. New Regulations Could Classify As Hazardous Waste 144-96

WASTE WATER
Activated Carbon Entire Waste Water Stream Treated 217-96
Activated Carbon Regeneration 217-96
Control NH4 Activated Sludge Process 216-96
Control NH4 Use NH4 As Nutrient in Waste Water Plant 215-96
Control NH4 Use Upstream Stripper and Extended Aeration 215-96
Desalters Brine Cycle Helps Reduce Benzene Emissions 50% 16-96
Desalters Lower Temperature May Cut Benzene in Brine 17-96
Desalters Steam Strip H2O Effluent to Cut Benzene 16-96
Desalters Effluent Lowering Benzene to NESHAP Requirement 15-96
Desalting Brine Cycle Helps Reduce Benzene Emissions 50% 16-96
Oil Removal Residence Time In Sour Water Surge Tanks 220-96
Reduction of Phenol Treatment Methods and Tests for Content 217-96
Treatment Plants Experience With Contractors to Run 216-96

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

—WATER RE-USE
Boiler Blowdown To Cooling Tower 214-96
Treated H2O To Cooling Tower 213-96

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 243

TOC/INDEX

References

The next several pages provide a list of references by I. ALKYLATION

subject from the publications Chemical Engineering,
Hoffman, H.L., “Refining catalyst market ’91,” Hydrocarbon
Hydrocarbon Processing, and Oil & Gas Journal. The Sub- Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
ject Index for the References is organized as follows. “Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
I. Alkylation “NPRA Q&A - 2: HF alkylation drawn process, safety ques-
II. Hydrocracking tions,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1991, p. 48.
III. Catalytic Cracking “Alkylation unit scheduled for Ufa refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
IV. Hydrotreating/Hydrorefining Sept. 2, 1991, p. 24.
V. Reforming Lerner, H. and Citarella, V.A., “Improve alkylation efficiency,”
VI. Treating and Desalting Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 89.
VII. Crude Distillation “Alkylation of MTBE raffinate increases octane, unloads alky
VIII. Petrochemical unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 99.
IX. Delayed Coking Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
X. Environmental Controls b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
XI. Instrumentation, Product Blending, Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
and Quality Control Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
XII. Miscellaneous Chang, E.J. and Lelby, S.M., “Ethers help gasoline quality,”
XIII. Lube Oil and Waxes Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb. 1992, p. 41.
XIV. Maintenance Nierlich, F., “Oligomerize for better gasoline,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Feb. 1992, p. 45.
XV. Piping
Abraham, O.C. and Prescott, G.F., “Make isobutylene from
XVI. Furnaces & Heat TBA,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb. 1992, p. 51.
XVII. Storage and Transfer “Group pursuing new alkylation process,” Oil & Gas Journal,
XVIII. Corrosion Feb. 10, 1992, p. 40.
XIX. Energy Conservation “H2SO4 alkylation shows promise for upgrading gasoline pen-
XX. General tenes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 72.
XXI. Light-Oil Cat Processing “Refiners discuss HF alkylation process and issues,” Oil & Gas
XXII. Isomerization Journal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 67.
XXIII. Aromatics Extraction “Refiners look at H2SO4 alkylation, catalytic reforming,” Oil &
XXIV. Visbreaking Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 45.
XXV. Hydrogen Production Chaput, G., et al., “Pretreat alkylation feed,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
XXVI. Sulfur Plant Operations essing, Sept. 1992, p. 51.
XXVII. Polymerization Scott, B., “Identify alkylation hazards,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
XXVIII. Hydrogen Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 77.
“New processes and catalysts solve problems of feed contami-
nants,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Pescarollo, E., et al., “Etherify light gasolines,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 53.
Sloley, Andrew W. and Golden, Scott W., “Analysis key to
correcting debutanizer design flaws,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
8, 1993, p. 50.
“New HF alky unit key to Navajo’s $50-million expansion,” Oil
& Gas Journal, June 14, 1993, p. 42.
“Spanish refinery starts up HF alky unit,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 22, 1993, p. 77.
Jezak, A., “C5 alkylate: a superior blending component,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 47.

244 References
TOC/INDEX
“NPRA Q&A: Refiners focus on FCC, hydroprocessing, and
alkylation catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 28, 1994, p. 41.
“U.S. refiners must increase alkylation capacity to meet de-
mand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22, 1994, p. 49.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Searches for new alkylation catalysts, proc-
esses forge ahead,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22, 1994, p. 52.
Rhodes, Anne K., “New process schemes, retrofits, fine tune
alkylation capabilities,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22, 1994,
p. 56.
Sheckler, John C., Ross, Larry J., and Comey, Kenneth R. III,
“New process additive reduces HF cloud-forming potential,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 22, 1994, p. 60.
“Refining Processes ’94,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No.
11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
“Alkylation safety major topic at Oil & Gas Journal seminar,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 16, 1995, p. 33.
“Petrochemical Processes ’95,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 03, Mar. 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.
“Portuguese refiner starts up new gasoline complex,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 13, 1995, p. 95.
“European gasoline survey shows decreasing lead, MON,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 77.
“New HF detector accepted for use by refining consortium,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 19, 1996, p. 46.
“Pilot-plant results in on fixed-bed alkylation process,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1996, p. 69.
“NPRA Q&A — 2: Catalyst issues stir interest at technology
meeting,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 1996, p. 45.
Rao, Pradip, and Vatcha, Sorab R., “Solid-acid alkylation proc-
ess development is at crucial stage,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
9, 1996, p. 56.
II. HYDROCRACKING
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
“Acoustic tests during cooldown find cracks in reactors at Gulf
Coast refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
“Texas refinery gets two reactors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 7,
1992, p. 30.
Ladeur, Peter and Bijwaard, Harry, “Shell plans $2.2-billion
renovation of Dutch refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 26,
1993, p. 64.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 Processing,
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 catalysts,”
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.
III. CATALYTIC CRACKING
Hoffman, H.L., “Refining catalyst market ’91,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Sadeghbeigi, R., “Estimating hydrogen of FCC coke,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 38.
McLean, J.B. and Moorehead, E.L., “Steaming affects FCC
catalyst,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991,
p. 41.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
Humphries, A., et al., “Catalyst helps reformulation,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 69.
Hoek, A., Huizinga, T., Esener, A.A., Maxwell, I.E., Stork, W.,
van de Meerakker, F.J., and Sy, O., “New catalyst improves
heavy feedstock hydrocracking,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22,
1991, p. 77.
Jazayeri, B., “Optimize FCC riser design,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 93.
Letzsch, W.S., et al., “Passivate nickel in FCC feeds,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, June 1991, p. 89.
Elvin, F.J. and Pavel, S.K., “Metals removal of FCC catalyst
operating in refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 22, 1991, p. 94.
“Additives play important role in FCC development,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 23, 1991, p. 50.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, S.M., “FCC COR-
ROSION - 1: Basic steps lead to successful FCC corrosion
control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 81.
245
TOC/INDEX
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, S.M., “FCC COR-
ROSION - Conclusion: Basic corrosion control methods solve
varied problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7, 1991, p. 86.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Johnson, T.E., “Improve regenerator heat removal,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 55.
Krishna, A.S., et al., “Additives improve FCC process,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 59.
Golden, S.W. and Martin, G.R., “Improve HVGO quality and
cutpoint,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov.
1991, p. 69.
O’Connor, P., et al., “Improve resid processing,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 76.
Sloan, H.D., “Process heavier crude blends,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Nov. 1991, p. 99.
Schmitt, Rodolphe, “FCC catalyst find three safe reuse outlet in
Europe,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 101.
Rowlands, Gareth, Konuk, Aydin, and Kleinschrodt, Frank,
“FCCU advanced controls increase feed rate and column
stability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 25, 1991, p. 64.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
McDonald, G.W.G., “Upgrading FCC VRU can yield attractive
payoff,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 79.
“Presulfiding, FCC olefins focus of catalyst sessions,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 37.
“UOP to end operations in FCC catalyst manufacture,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 46.
Leiby, Susan, “FCC catalyst technologies expand limits of proc-
ess capability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 49.
Eriksson, Per-Olof, Tomlins, Aric, and Dash, Sachindra,
“FCCU advanced control system achieves 2-month payout,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 62.
Brahn, Michael G., “Olefin recovery from FCC offgas can pay
off,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 20, 1992, p. 94.
Perez de Haro, Juan, Berlanga Gonzales, Aantonio J., Schroder,
Nina, and Stenberg, Olle, “O2 enrichment increases FCC
operating flexibility,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 40.
Reichle, A.D., “Fluid catalytic cracking hits 50 year mark on the
run,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 41.
Aalund, Leo, “Human element key to FCC success,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 46.
Murphy, James R., “Evolutionary design changes mark FCC
process,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 49.
Avidan, Amos A., “FCC is far from being a mature technology,”
Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 59.
Murcia, Alvaro A., “Numerous changes mark FCC technology
advance,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, 1992, p. 68.
Rajagopalan, K. and Habib, H.P., Jr., “Understand FCC matrix
technology,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Sept. 1992, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
246 References
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 compressor surge
problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 11, 1993, p. 29.
Sarrazin, Patrick, Cameron, Charles J., Barthel, Yves, and Mor-
rison, 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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 77.
Lin, T.D.V., “FCCU advanced control and optimization,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 107.
“NPRA Q&A—2: Catalytic cracking receives heavy attention
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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 monitor-
ing system,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb.
1994, p. 73.
Murphy, Martin A., “Analysis, calculation techniques predict
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 problems,
coking operations,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 2, 1994, p. 110.
Dziewulski, T.A., “Tune-up your FCCU expander,” Hydrocar-
bon 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.
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.
TOC/INDEX
Aguilar-Rodriguez, Enrique, Ortiz-Estrada, Ciro, and Aguilera-
Lopez, Matin, “Thermal analysis finds optimum FCCU re-
vamp 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 frac-
tionators,” 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 con-
trols 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 catalysts,”
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 Jour-
nal, 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, Ramachandran,
Ram, Hull, Randall, and Watson, Richard, “FCC O2
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.
Harris, J. R., “Use desalting for FCC feedstocks,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 63.
Stanger, C. W., et al, “Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,” Hydro-
carbon 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.
IV. HYDROTREATING AND HYDROREFINING
Hoffman, H.L., “Refining catalyst market ’91,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
“Hydrotreating unit installed in Texaco’s Wales refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1991, p. 36.
LeRoy, C.F., Hanshaw, M.J., Fischer, S.M., Malik, T., and
Kooiman R., “HYDROTREATING OPTIMIZATION - 1:
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Refiner conducts full scale VGO hydrotreating study,” Oil &
Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 49.
LeRoy, C.F., Hanshaw, M.J., Fischer, S.M., Malik, T., and
Kooiman R., “HYDROTREATING OPTIMIZATION -
Conclusion: Optimization of catalyst system reaps economic
benefits,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 3, 1991, p. 87.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Plantenga, Frans L., Inoue, Yoshimasa, and Torihara, Naoyuki,
“Specialized guard-bed technology can improve resid unit
operation,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 21, 1991, p. 74.
“Ashland refinery starts up two sulfur units,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 28, 1991, p. 95.
“End seen for high sulfur fuel oil in Europe,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 2, 1991, p. 21.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Single and dual stage hydrotreating can up diesel cetane,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 88.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
“New processes and catalysts solve problems of feed contami-
nants,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 51.
“Process passivates spent catalyst to allow unloading under air,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 56.
Desai, P.H., et al., “Enhance gasoline yield and quality,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
“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 hardware
has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
“Ashland refinery units take shape,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 19,
1993, p. 20.
Cooper, B.H., et al., “Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel aromat-
ics 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 hydrotreating
of diesel can cause fuel-injector pump failure,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 71.
Gorra, Filippo, Scribano, Giorgio, Christensen, Preben, An-
dersen, 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.
247
TOC/INDEX
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 hydro-
treaters,” 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.
Ernest, J. B. and Depew, C. A., “Use dynamic simulation to
model HPU reactor depressuring,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995, p. 72.
Kwang, Vincent and Meissner, Roland E., “Rounding up sul-
fur,” 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 desul-
furization 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 catalysts,”
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 Kumagai,
Hideaki, “RESID DESULFURIZATION — 1: Japanese re-
finer solves problems in resid desulfurization unit,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 13, 1995, p. 82.
Koyama, Hiroki, Nagai, Eiichi, Torii, Hidenobu, and Kumagai,
Hideaki, “RESID DESULFURIZATION — Conclusion:
Simple changes reduce catalyst deactivation, pressure-drop
buildup,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 20, 1995, p. 68.
“Grangemouth hydrofiner near start-up,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 1, 1996, p. 32.
248 References
Groce, Bernard C., “Chemical, mechanical treatment options
reduce hydroprocessor fouling,” Oil & Gas Journal, 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,” Hydro-
carbon 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.
V. REFORMING
Hoffman, H.L., “Refining catalyst market ’91,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
“Acoustic tests during cooldown find cracks in reactors at Gulf
Coast refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Japanese refinery starts up UOP Platforming unit,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 32.
“Refiners look at H2SO4 alkylation, catalytic reforming,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 45.
Hennico, Alphonse, Mank, Larry, Mansuy, Christophe, and
Smith, D.H., “Texas reformer designed for two-step expan-
sion,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 8, 1992, p. 54.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Baade, W.F., et al., “Generate hydrogen for reformulated gaso-
line and clean diesel,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01,
Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, 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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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.
TOC/INDEX
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., “Improve syngas produc-
tion using autothermal reforming,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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.
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 desul-
furization of reformer feedstock,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 3,
1995, p. 48.
Blashka, Stephen R., Welch, J. Gary, Nite, Kelly, and Furfaro,
Angelo P., “Catalyst separation method reduces Platformer
turnaround costs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 18, 1995, p. 62.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
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.
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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,” Hy-
drocarbon 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.
VI. TREATING AND DESALTING
Hoffman, H.L., “Refining catalyst market ’91,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
Duke, R.B., “Water content test for EOR crude simulates
desalter,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 25, 1991, p. 40.
Motiee, M., “Estimate possibility of hydrates,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991, p. 98.
Yamanlar, S., et al., “Control hydrate formation,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sept. 1991, p. 155.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Dillion, E.T., “Triazines sweeten gas easier,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 65.
Minikkinen, Ari, Larue, Joseph Y.M., Patel, Suru, and Levier,
Jean-Francois, “Methanol gas-treating scheme offers econom-
ics, versatility,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1, 1992, p. 65.
Desai, P.H., et al., “Enhance gasoline yield and quality,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
“Filtration method efficiently desalts crude in commercial test,”
Oil & Gas Journal, May 17, 1993, p. 59.
Felten, J.R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environment,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June 1993, p. 82B.
Cooper, B.H., et al., “Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel aromat-
ics 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,” Hydrocarbon
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 solvent
losses, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May
1994, p. 67.
Stewart, E.J. and Lanning, R.A., “Reduce amine plant solvent
losses, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 06, June
1994, p. 51.
Tamburrano, F., “Disposal of heavy oil residues, Part 1,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 79.
Tamburrano, F., “Disposal of heavy oil residues, Part 2,” Hydro-
carbon 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 Processing,
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-effective
natural gas processing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No.
04, Apr. 1995, p. 79.
Guida, J. W. and Fruge, D. E., “Improve wastewater treatment,”
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.
249
TOC/INDEX
Hennessey, P. M., et al, “Use coalescing methods to solve emul-
sion problems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov.
1995, p. 107.
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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 ex-
changers,” 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 adsorp-
tion system protects LPG storage sphere,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 1, 1996.
Harris, J. R., “Use desalting for FCC feedstocks,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 63.
Stanger, C. W., et al, “Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,” Hydro-
carbon 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.
VII. CRUDE DISTILLATION
Parrott, K.S., “Better crude oil sample systems,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 63.
Manriquez, L., Moreno, A., and Anaya, C.G., “EXPORT
CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Assays for important Mexican
crudes updated,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 4, 1991, p. 41.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
Hower, T.C., Jr., and Kister, H.Z., “Solve process column prob-
lems, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May
1991, p. 89.
“EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Alba is first heavy North
Sea crude,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 94.
Hower, T.C. Jr., and Kister, H.Z., “Solve process column prob-
lems, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, June
1991, p. 83.
“EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Commingled crude
from the Brent and Ninian streams assayed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 8, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, A.K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Assay of
Forties stream updated,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 15, 1991,
p. 53.
250
Bruening, I.M.R.d.A., “Crude oil polarity measures quality,
products behavior,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 5, 1991, p. 38.
Lieberman, N.P. and Lieberman, E.T., “Design, installation
pitfalls appear in vac tower retrofit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.
26, 1991, p. 57.
Rhodes, Anne K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: Char-
acteristics of North Sea’s Flotta crude updated,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 2, 1991, p. 90.
Swain, E.J., “U.S. crude slate gets heavier, higher in sulfur,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 9, 1991, p. 59.
Rhodes, Anne K., “EXPORT CRUDES FOR THE ’90s: North
Sea Emerald crude oil assayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 16,
1991, p. 84.
Ashcroft, S.J., et al., “Find shrinkage of spiked crudes,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 109.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.K. North Sea’s Kittiwake crude assayed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 55.
Golden, S.W. and Martin, G.R., “Improve HVGO quality and
cutpoint,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov.
1991, p. 69.
Sloan, H.D., “Process heavier crude blends,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 99.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Two important Saudi crudes assayed,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 64.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., “East Zeit Mix and Dulang crudes assayed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 46.
“Koch to construct sour crude unit at Corpus Christi,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 56.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Four California OCS crudes assayed,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 67.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Malaysian, Canadian, Saudi crudes assayed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 44.
“Tyumen due U.S. topping unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 15,
1992, p. 25.
“Lyondell plans to hike heavy crude runs at Houston,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 41.
Jamialahmadi, Mohamad, and Muller-Steinhagen, Hans,
“Computer program designs packed columns,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 33.
Golden Scott W., and Sloley, Andrew W., “Simple methods solve
vacuum column programs using plant data,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 14, 1992, p. 74.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Assays of two Saudi crudes updated,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 91.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Lieberman, Norman P. and Lieberman, Elizabeth T., “Inade-
quate inspection cause of flawed vac tower revamp,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 14, 1992, p. 33.
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.
References
TOC/INDEX
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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 77.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert F., “Visbreaker hardware
has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
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 corrosion
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 overhead
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 Process-
ing, 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 efficient?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 37.
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 petroleum
fractions, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12,
Dec. 1993, p. 101.
Miquel, J. and Castells, F., “Easy characterization of petroleum
fractions, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan.
1994, p. 99.
Ghoshal, P.C. and Mukhopadhyay, S., “Improve glycol dehydra-
tion unit efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03,
Mar. 1994, p. 75.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994, p. 77.
Martin, G. R., et al, “Understand vacuum system fundamentals,”
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 Journal, Oct.
31, 1994, p. 46.
“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 frac-
tionators,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 21, 1994, p. 72.
San, Yip Poh, Landells, Keith ., and Mackay, David C., “IN-
FERENTIAL 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., “INFER-
ENTIAL CONTROL—Conclusion: Crude unit controls re-
duce 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 QUAL-
ITY—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 as-
sayed,” 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 Argen-
tine 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 con-
trols pay out in 6 weeks at Texas refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 19, 1995, p. 46.
Boduszynski, Mieczyslaw M., Grudoski, David A., Rechsteiner,
Carl E., and Iwamoto, Josie D., “Deep-cut assay reveals
additional yields of high-value VGO,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 11, 1995, p. 39.
251
TOC/INDEX
Moreno, Abel, del Consuelo Perez de Alba, Maria, Manriquez,
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: Colom-
bia’s new light, sweet Cusiana crude assayed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 11, 1995, p. 71.
Rhodes, Anne K., “GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Prelimi-
nary assay reveals quality of Mars blend,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 10, 1996, p. 67.
Harris, J. R., “Use desalting for FCC feedstocks,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 08, Aug. 1996, p. 63.
VIII. PETROCHEMICAL
Burns, K.G., et al., “Chemicals increase ethylene plant effi-
ciency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan. 1991,
p. 83.
Sundaram, K.M., et al., “Styrene plant simulation and optimi-
zation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan. 1991,
p. 93.
“Sabic details outlook for key petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Jan. 28, 1991.
Hummel, H.K., et al., “Optimization of EB plant by constraint
control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991,
p. 67.
“Petrochemical handbook ’91,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70,
No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 121.
“Pdvsa, ENI plan Venezuelan methanol plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 135.
“MTBE demand to soar if methanol available,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991.
“Iran pushing petrochemical industry growth,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 29.
“China targets doubling of ethylene capacity by 2000,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1991, p. 26.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991,
p. 69.
“Chinese downstream projects move forward,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Apr. 29, 1991, p. 40.
Ibn Salamah, I.A., “Saudi petrochemicals outlook,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 50C.
Brown, R.E. and Lee, F.M., “Way to purify cyclohexane,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 83.
Graham, J.F., “ISO QUALITY SYSTEM - Conclusion: Texas
petrochemical plant gets certification,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 13, 1991, p. 48.
Taylor, M.A., “Ethylene plant steam strips waste water to recover
benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 62.
“Union Texas eyes ethylene plant project,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 17, 1991, p. 19.
Halle, R.T., and Vadekar, M., “Rust catalyzed ethylene hydro-
genation causes temperature runaway,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 17, 1991, p. 33.
“UOP acquires acetylene conversion process,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, June 17, 1991, p. 46.
252
Di Cintio, R., et al., “Separate ethylene efficiently,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991, p. 83.
Al-Morished, M.H. and Lamb, M.Y., “Synthesize styrene,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 125.
“Demand for methanol will strain capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 19, 1991, p. 28.
Brockwell, H.L., et al., “Synthesize ethers,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sept. 1991, p. 133.
“Polyolefins operating rate seen staying at less than 90%,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 38.
Fulmer, J.W. and Graf, K.C., “Distill acetone in tower packing,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 87.
Abraham, O.C. and Chapman, G.L., “Hydrogenate benzene,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 95.
Armstrong, E.H., “Define olefins competition,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 116C.
“Beijing’s Sinopec adding plants in expansion program,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 26.
“Petrochem health, safety training at issue,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 21, 1991, p. 41.
“WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION REPORT: Petrochemi-
cals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 65.
“Statoil outlines MTBE development program,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 25, 1991, p. 37.
Gosling, C.D., et al., “Upgrade LPG to BTX products,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 69.
“MTBE key to Total’s octane campaign,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 16, 1991, p. 35.
“Shell plans MTBE units,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1991,
p. 35.
“Two petrochemical plants scheduled at Venezuelan sites,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 17.
Albano, John V., Olszewski, Edward F., and Fukushima, Toshi-
yuki, “Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene plant’s energy
needs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 55.
Schneider, R.V., “Choose optimum syngas route,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1992, p. 51.
Resetarits, M.R., “Trays inhibit foaming,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1992, p. 61.
Lee, J. and Wang, C.C., “Dehydrogenate cyclohexanol,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1992, p. 67.
Giacobbe, F.G., et al., “Increase hydrogen production,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1992, p. 69.
Farina, G.L. and Supp, E., “Produce syngas for methanol,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1992, p. 77.
Udengaard, Niels R., Bak Hansen, Jens-Henrick, Hanson,
David C., and Stal, Joseph A., “Sulfur passivated reforming
process lowers syngas H2/CO ratio,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
9, 1992, p. 62.
“Thai petrochemical boom on track,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
16, 1992, p. 29.
“S. Korean petchem exports to soar,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
30, 1992, p. 23.
Upchurch, James Alan, “Big Texas C3 splitter unites feedstock
suppliers with users,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 58.
Hausch, G.W., et al., “Structured packing at high pressure,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 4, Apr. 1992, p. 67.
“India approves big petchem project,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
6, 1992, p. 42.
References
TOC/INDEX
“Taiwanese companies expanding petrochemical investment,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 30.
“Polyolefins handling plant nears start-up,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 13, 1992, p. 52.
Brahn, Michael G., “Olefin recovery from FCC offgas can pay
off,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 20. 1992, p. 94.
“China schedules construction of polypropylene unit,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 29.
“New process produces alternative oxygenate from propylene,”
Oil & Gas Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 39.
Turpin, L.E., “Cut benzene out of reformate,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 6, June 1992, p. 81.
Amorelli, A.A., et al., “Estimate feedstock processability,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, June 1992, p. 93.
“BP-Enichem venture to dominate European polystyrene mar-
ket,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 8, 1992, p. 36.
“S. Korea moving up petrochem list,” Oil & Gas Journal, June
15, 1992, p. 17.
“MTBE plant planned at Mont Belvieu,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 15, 1992, p. 32.
Wagner, E.S. and Fromet, G.F., “Steam reforming analyzed,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 7, July 1992, p. 69.
“Cleaning up gasoline will increase refinery hydrogen demand,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 92.
Summers, Daniel R., Coleman, Steven T., and Venner, Ronald
M., “Ethylene fractionator revamp results in 25% capacity
increase,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 10, 1992, p. 52.
“Beijing project to use Texaco technology,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 17, 1992, p. 103.
“DOE to help fund methanol production project,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 31.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.S. refiners choose variety of routes to
MTBE,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 36.
“Novacor slates petrochem expansions, upgrades,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 14, 1992, p. 36.
“Shell, Montedison to form polyolefins joint venture,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 32.
“Petrochem industry expends North American MTBE capac-
ity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 34.
Gorra, Filippo, Breckenridge, Lee L., Guy, Wayne M., and
Sailor, Robert A., “Selective toluene disproportionation proc-
ess proven at Italian refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12,
1992, p. 60.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, p. 102.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
“IFP offers three new process technologies,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 23, p. 36.
Tomlinson, T.R., “Produce more LPG,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 75.
Baas, J. and Warner, R., “How much ‘life’ is left in your olefin
unit?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992,
p. 81.
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 feedstream?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 117.
Sarrazin, Patrick, Cameron, Charles J., Barthel, Yves, and Mor-
rison, M. Edward, “Processes prevent detrimental effects from
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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.
“Methanol plant design choices affect operations, costs, other
equipment,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 29, 1993, p. 53.
“New two-stage process converts butadiene to ethylbenzene,”
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 SURVEY-
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 copro-
duce 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 Jour-
nal, 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 op-
tions,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 92.
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., “Improve syngas produc-
tion using autothermal reforming,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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 Journal,
Mar. 7, 1994, p. 81.
“Total slates two ETBE units at its French refineries,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 14, 1994, p. 28.
253
TOC/INDEX
“Shell Nederland plans petrochem units,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 21, 1994, p. 48.
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 mar-
kets,” 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 In-
dustry,” 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 CONSTRUCTION
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, Tuppinger,
Dieter M., and Wilmsen, Wilhelm, “Austrian refiner benefits
from advanced control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1995,
p. 70.
“Thailand rapidly developing into world class petrochemical
producer,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 3, 1995, p. 23.
“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.
254 References
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
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 petro-
chemical 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 PROCESSING
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 catalysts,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
“China’s refining/petrochemical industry continues expansion,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 78.
“China’s refining/petrochemical industry continues expansion,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 78.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
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.
“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 polymer
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.
TOC/INDEX
“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 margin-
ally 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 Jour-
nal, 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.
Shanley, Anges, “Ammonia’s on the upswing,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Nov. 1996, p. 30.
IX. DELAYED COKING
Elliot, J.D., “Design, operation factors can up coker liquid
yields,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 4, 1991, p. 41.
Swain, E.J., “REFINERY COKE - 1: Major growth in coke
production takes place,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 6, 1991,
p. 100.
Swain, E.J., “REFINERY COKE - Conclusion: Power, cement
industries shape coke future,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 20,
1991.
Dymond, R.E., “World markets for petroleum coke,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sept. 1991, p. 162C.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Adams, W.V., “Assure delayed coking safety,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Mar. 1992, p. 109.
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 emissions,”
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,” Hydrocarbon
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 problems,
coking operations,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 2, 1994, p. 110.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
“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 frac-
tionators,” 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 QUAL-
ITY—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 profitabil-
ity,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June 1996, p. 99.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Kansas refiner starts up coke gasification
unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 5, 1996, p. 31.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Derks, Robert, “Be safe - eliminate PCBs from transformers,”
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1991, p. 133.
Poche, L.R., Derby, R.E., and Wagner, D.R., “Solvent extraction
of refinery wastes rates EPA BDAT,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan.
7, 1991, p. 73.
“Advanced filter system part of oily groundwater cleanup,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 14, 1991, p. 59.
Helishom, Elyse D., “Removing VOCs from contaminated
water - Part 1,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1991, p. 120.
Campbell, D. and Foundos, A., “Chromatographs meet envi-
ronmental needs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02,
Feb. 1991, p. 63.
“ARCO cites S. California clean air milestone,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 4, 1991, p. 63.
Brown, G.W., Roderick, D., and Nastri, A., “Dry scrubber
reduces SO2 in calciner flue gas,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 18,
1991, p. 41.
Helishom, Elyse D., “Removing VOCs from contaminated
water - Part 2,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1991, p. 152.
Matson, L., “Improve secondary containment,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 73.
Leite, O.C., “Smokeless, efficient, nontoxic flaring,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 77.
Singh, B., “Selecting nonasbestos sheet gasketing,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 79.
“Landfill closure cell completed at refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 1, 1991, p. 66.
Yaws, C.L. and Pan, Xiang, “New correlation calculates reliable
paraffin solubilities,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1991, p. 79.
255
TOC/INDEX
Adams, William V., “Sealing off fugitive emissions,” Chemical
Engineering, May 1991, p. 189.
Hyland, R.P., “Environment and maintenance: strategies for the
1990s,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991,
p. 113.
Ross, L.L., “CWRT pushes waste reduction,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 121.
“Sun outlines R&M environmental initiatives,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 13, 1991, p. 70.
Taylor, M.A., “Ethylene plant steam strips waste water to recover
benzene,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 62.
Spicer, G.W. and Woodward, C., “H2S control keeps gas from
big offshore field on spec,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991,
p. 76.
Heumann, William L., “Cyclone separators a family affair,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1991, p. 118.
Aalbersberg, H.G., “Health, safety, environment: a preconstruc-
tion focus,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, June
1991, p. 34B.
“Fina halts emission releases at Port Arthur plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 24, 1991, p. 31.
Li, K.Y. and Hsiao, K.J., “How to optimize an air stripper,”
Chemical Engineering, July 1991, p. 114.
Nyman, G.B.G. and Tokerud, A., “Seawater scrubbing removes
SO2 from refinery flue gases,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 1, 1991,
p. 52.
Norman, M.E., “Refinery primary sludge listing,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 53.
Daggett, J. and Brown, R., “Control compliance costs,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 61.
Shelby, S.E., et al., “Meet new NPDES permit limits,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 67.
Alkhatib, E.A. and Thiem, L.T., “Wastewater oil removal evalu-
ated,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991,
p. 77.
Hanson, T.P., et al., “How Shell reduced waste,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 83.
Fogman, C.B. and Brummer, T.A., “Ammonia storage for NOx
control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991,
p. 120.
Taylor, N.A., Hugill, J.A., van Kessel, M.M., and Verburg,
R.P.J., “Gas-desulfurization plant handles wide range of sour
gas compositions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 19, 1991, p. 57.
Berglund, R.L. and Lawson, C.T., “Preventing pollution in the
CPI - Part 1,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 120.
Benforado, D.M., Ridlehoover, G. and Gores, M.D., “Pollution
prevention: One firm’s experience - Part 2,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Sept. 1991, p. 130.
Pojasek, Robert B., “For pollution prevention: Be descriptive,
not prescriptive,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 136.
Couch, Robert O., “A guide to multiple-pipe containment,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 158.
Bosworth, Michael A., “Dilute-phase pneumatic conveying:
Instrument selection guide,” Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1991, p. 166.
Van Valkenburgh, Gary, “Storing hazardous wastes safely,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 203.
Newman, S.A., “Sour water design by charts, Part 1,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sept. 1991, p. 145.
256 References
de Filippi, R. and Markiewicz, J., “Propane extraction treats
refinery wastes to BDAT standards,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
9, 1991, p. 52.
Yaws, C.L., Pan, X., and Piper, D.G., Jr., “New correlation
accurately calculates naphthene water solubilities,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 16, 1991, p. 86.
Stucker, Thomas, “Tracking ever-shrinking emissions,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 90.
McGowan, Thomas and Ross, Richard, “Hazardous waste in-
cineration is going mobile,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1991,
p. 114.
Kelly, W.J., “Oversights and mythology in a HAZOP program,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 114.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
“Environmental costs close Wyoming refinery,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 21, 1991, p. 41.
Kurla, Matthew L. and Jones, Stephen C., “Air pollution per-
mits,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1991, p. 225.
Newman, S.A., “Sour water design by charts,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 131.
Newman, S.A., “Sour water design by charts, Part 3,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 139.
“French refiners grappling with new octane specs, environ-
mental rules,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 23.
“Union Carbide claims 99% effectiveness for flue gas scrubber,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 18, 1991, p. 118.
Sundin, David, “New options in transformer oils,” Chemical
Engineering, Dec. 1991, p. 125.
Ruzzo, W.P., “Prepare for stormwater regulations,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 105.
“Alternative auto fuels pose cost or technical challenge,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 9, 1991, p. 57.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Recent and pending regulations push refiners
to the limit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1991, p. 39.
“Industry hits California reformulation move,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 26.
Hartung, Robert, Marturana, David, “Water treatment: Invest
in quality program,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 98.
Egan, B., “Environment action game plan,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Jan. 1992, p. 99.
“NRC: Smog control off mark,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 6, 1992,
p. 40.
“U.S. refiners scramble to meet reformulated gasoline man-
date,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 21.
“Group pursuing new alkylation process,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Feb. 10, 1992, p. 40.
Nasato, Elmo, Goar, B. Gene, and Boorsboom, J., “Canadian
retrofit meets stiffer sulfur recovery regulations,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 61.
“CERA: Refiners can cope with CAA requirements,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“Lyondell to produce gasoline from used lubricating oil,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
TOC/INDEX
de Wind, Menno, Heinerman, J.J.L.(Hans), Lee, Seck Leong,
Plantenga, Frans, Johnson, Chris C., and Woodward, Debbie
C., “Air quality and economics spur use of presulfided cata-
lysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 49.
Princiotta, Frank, “Inside EPA research,” Chemical Engineering,
Mar. 1992, p. 153.
“EPA postpones effective date for benzene reduction rule,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 25.
“Chevron details Port Arthur revamp,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
16, 1992, p. 30.
Reynolds, B.E., “Clean gasoline via VRDS/RFCC,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Apr. 1992, p. 43.
Jones, D.W., “Lessons from HAZOP experience,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Apr. 1992, p. 77.
“Environmental regulatory vise squeezing U.S. refiners,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 21.
“Cogen plant first to use new high-temperature de-NOx proc-
ess,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 53.
Graham, J.F., “Understand ISO 9000’s application and require-
ments,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1992, p. 83.
Rock, K., “TAME: technology merits,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
May 1992, p. 86.
Davis, B.C., “Adventures in Clean Air Act amendments and
implementation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1992, p. 91.
Menon, K.R. and Mink, B.H., “Residue conversion options for
European refineries,” Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1992,
p. 100-i.
Hall, J.R., “Cleaner products: a refining challenge,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, May 1992, p. 100-c.
“U.S. refiners lament lack of final CAA rules,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 25, 1992, p. 26.
“New process produces alternative oxygenate from propylene,”
Oil & Gas Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 39.
Kobylinski, E.A. and Hunter, G.L., “Wastewater: Part I,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 74.
Seton, Waldermar, Fitterer, Richard S. and Harris, Thomas,
“Step up to the challenge: Hazmat storage,” Chemical Engi-
neering, June 1992, p. 118.
Kuryla, Matthew and Yahay, Stephen C., “New safety rules add
to plant managers’ worries,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992,
p. 153.
Norman, Michael E., Kapoor, Sunil, Smalley, G. Allan, Jr., and
Daniel, Bruce M., “U.S. regs cause refiners to rethink waste-
water systems,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1, 1992, p. 54.
“Chevron’s ‘clean’ diesel gets California nod; Unocal mostly opts
out of state’s diesel market,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 8, 1992,
p. 30.
“Mobil refineries reduce wastes,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 15,
1992, p. 29.
Norman, Michael E., Kapoor, Sunil, Smalley, G. Allan, Jr., and
Daniel, Bruce M., “Hazardous waste regs affect refinery waste-
water schemes,”Oil & Gas Journal, June 15, 1992, p. 45.
Norman, Michael E., Kapoor, Sunil, Smalley, G. Allan, Jr., and
Daniel, Bruce M., “Wastewater planning helps meet antici-
pated changes in regulations,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 29,
1992, p. 63.
Crowley, E.D. and Hart, D.G., “Minimize fugitive emissions,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, July 1992, p. 93.
“EPA moves to ease industrial air pollution rules,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 6, 1992, p. 26.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Lemanski, John, “Automated compressor-packing system meets
California emissions reg,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 6, 1992,
p. 71.
Sarmanian, S., “Improve regulatory compliance,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Aug. 1992, p. 56.
Gardner, J.F., “Control emissions from valves,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Aug. 1992, p. 49.
Kunz, R.G., “Control NOx from furnaces,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Aug. 1992, p. 57.
Oolman, T., “Biotreat oily refinery wastes,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Aug. 1992.
Freiman, J.P. and Hill, J., “Use dispersion modeling update,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug. 1992, p. 73.
Frayne, S.P., “Minimize plant wastewater,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Aug. 1992, p. 79.
Frank, L.D., “Lower plant noise with lagging,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Aug. 1992, p. 83.
McCluer, P.E. and Whittle, D.K., “Lessons learned from HA-
ZOP reviews,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Aug. 1992, p. 140-d.
“Oxygenates to hike gasoline price,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 3,
1992, p. 28.
“Ontario to stiffen water pollution rules,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 31, 1992, p. 27.
Sober, Ronald F. and Paul, Dibyendu, “Less-subjective odor
assessment,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 130.
Ozog, Henry and Stickles R., Peter, “What to do about process
safety audits,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 173.
Hyland, R.P. and Moore, J.F., “Beyond environmental and safety
compliance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Sept. 1992, p. 82-c.
“Ashland beats target in program to cut emissions,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 33.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.S. refiners choose variety of routes to
MTBE,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1992, p. 36.
Eble, Karen S., and Feathers, Jennifer, “Characterization of
streams first step in reuse scheme,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
21, 1992, p. 87.
“Two-step process treats variety of waste water streams,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 84.
Mak, H.Y., “Amine unit converted to MDEA,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Oct. 1992.
Diepolder, P., “Is ‘zero discharge’ realistic?,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 129.
Scott, B., “Identify alkylation hazards,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 77.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 122-C.
“Petrochem industry expands North American MTBE capac-
ity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 34.
Eble, Karen S., and Feathers, Jennifer, “Water reuse optimiza-
tion requires knowledge of cleanup methods,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 83.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Harris, Graham E., Fuchs, Michael R., and Holcombe, Larry J.,
“A guide to environmental testing,” Chemical Engineering,
Nov. 1992, p. 98.
Garg, Ashutosh, “Trimming NOx from furnaces,” Chemical
Engineering, Nov. 1992, p. 122.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 100-C.
257
TOC/INDEX
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
Fusselman, Deborah and Liposher, Dan, “Several technologies
available to cut refinery NOx,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2,
1992, p. 45.
Abrishamian, Ramin, Kabrick, Randolph, and Swett, Geoffrey,
“Two on site treatment methods reduce sludge waste quanti-
ties,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 51.
Broussard-Welther, Patricia, “Thermal desorption meets BDAT
standards at Louisiana refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2,
1992, p. 58.
“Bioremediation system treats contaminated soils in Canadian
winter,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1992, p. 68.
Cunha-Leite, Olavo, “FLARE SYSTEMS—Design alterna-
tives, components key to optimum flares,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 23, 1992, p. 70.
“New technology reduces SOx emissions,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 30, 1992, p. 54.
Higgins, T.S., “U.S. refiners will make tough decisions in 1993,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 33.
Luding, W., “Europe’s harried refiners face regulatory chal-
lenge,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992,
p. 34.
Lenz, L.J., “Global harmonization is chemical industry focus,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 36.
Tejml, E.L., “Commodity petrochemicals look to an uncertain
1993,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992,
p. 41.
Sutton, M., “HPI’s gas processors expect growing demand,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 44.
Evans, R.E., “Environmental technology can be cost effective,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 47.
Cunha-Leite, Olavo, “FLARE SYSTEMS—Safety, noise, and
emissions elements round out flare guidelines,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 7, p. 68.
“EPA issues clarification on rule governing benzene emissions,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 24.
“Tests show limits on oxygen content to be 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,” Chemi-
cal 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 processing,”
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.
258
Sadhukhan, P. and Bradford, M., “Fluidized bed incineration:
improved waste disposal method,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 61.
“Diesel fuel quality is improving in most European countries,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 54.
“Oxygenated fuel cuts emissions, EPA data show,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 32.
“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.
“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 wastewater?
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?,” Hydro-
carbon 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 jack-
eted pipes,” Chemical Engineering, June 1993, p. 110.
Jespersen, Chris, Jerger, Douglas and Exner, Jurgen, “Bioreme-
diation 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 environment,”
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 waste-
water,” 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 Journal, June 7,
1993, p. 46.
True, Warren R., “GLYCOL-REBOILER EMISSIONS—
Conclusion: PC program estimates BTEX, VOC emissions,”
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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 92-C.
References
TOC/INDEX
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.
Callahan, B. and McCaw, P.A., “Risk assessment alleviates envi-
ronmental liabilities,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08,
Aug. 1993, p. 61.
Anon, “Environmental Processes ’93,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 67.
Bergmann, E.P., “Approximate risk assessment prioritizes reme-
dial decisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug.
1993, p. 111.
Robinson, J.E., “Underground storage tank: removal vs. aban-
donment,” 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 manager,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1993, p. 161.
Martinson, B., “How to set up an environmental audit pro-
gram,” 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 success,”
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 alterna-
tive,” 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 elements
in environmental strategy,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 29, 1993,
p. 39.
Frayne, Stephen P., “Refinery operating experiences reveal com-
mon steam-stripper problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 29,
1993, p. 50.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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,” Chemi-
cal 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 refinery
K and F wastes in demo trial,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 10,
1994, p. 48.
Morelli, Janis A., “Performing environmental audits,” Chemical
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 monitor-
ing 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,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Mar. 1994, p. 112.
La Russo, Anthony, “Audit your environmental contractors,”
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 emis-
sions targets,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 11, 1994, p. 55.
Leahy, Maureen C. and Brown, Richard A., “Bioremediation:
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.
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-inva-
sively,” Chemical Engineering, June 1994, p. 84
259
TOC/INDEX
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 technol-
ogy,” 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 Processing, Vol.
73, No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 37.
Davis, M., “Use advanced methods to treat wastewater,” Hydro-
carbon 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 Processing,
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 European
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 correlation
accurately calculates water solubilities of aromatics,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Aug. 29, 1994, p. 80.
Law, Denny, “New MDEA design in gas plant improves sweet-
ening, reduces CO2,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 29, 1994, p. 83.
Cartwright, Peter, “Pollution prevention drives membrane tech-
nologies,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 84.
Barber, Terry A., and Miller, Brian D., “Pervaporation technol-
ogy: Fundamentals and environmental applications,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 88.
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 preparing
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.
260 References
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 re-
source 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 developed,”
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 selection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 76.
Yaws, Carl L., Bu, Li, and Nijhawan, Sachin, “Equation calcu-
lates activated carbon’s capacity for adsorbing pollutants,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 13, 1995, p. 64.
Badrock, John, Coutu, Robert, Johnson, Norman, and Martin,
Andrea, “Bulk, heating cleans paraffinic bottoms from crude
tanks,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 20, 1995, p. 66.
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 refineries,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 3, 1995, p. 64.
Straitz, John F. And Mendoza, Vincente A., “Keeping burners
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 process
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.
TOC/INDEX
Manuele, Vincent O., “Avoid dangerous surprises during site
cleanups,” Chemical Engineering, June 1995, p. 125.
Goyal, R. and Ramirez, R., “Reduce power outages,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 re-
moval,” 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,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, July 1995, p. 102.
Boffardi, Bennett P., and Smith, Alan L., “Chemical treatment
makes cooling water reusable,” Chemical Engineering, 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,” Chemical
Engineering, Aug. 1995, p. 78.
Netzel, James, Pecht, Glenn, and Kalodimos, Mike, “Gas lubri-
cated seals change pump choices,” Chemical Engineering, Aug.
1995, p. 82B.
Guida, J. W. and Fruge, D. E., “Improve wastewater treatment,”
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,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 67.
Siegell, J. H., “Control VOC emissions,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 77.
Brenneman, D. R. and Hattaway, D. R., “Incorporate pollution
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-va-
por collection and disposal system,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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 selection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1995, p. 53.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more catalysts,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
“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 contami-
nated soil,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1995, p. 175.
Hennessey, P. M., et al, “Use coalescing methods to solve emul-
sion 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.
Meier, Alan L., and Nikolic, Ognjen, “Croatian refiner meets
waste water treatment standards, reduces fines,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Nov. 27, 1995, p. 70.
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 storm-
water,” 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 standards 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 collection,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 80.
Hilaly, Ahmad, and Sikdar, Subhas, “Process tools for pollution
prevention,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 98.
Beedie, M., “Energy waste: A process quality defect?,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 84B.
Hunter, M. L., “How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater treat-
ing 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 Engineer-
ing, Mar. 1996, p. 30.
261
TOC/INDEX
Reynolds, John A., “Use minimum flow data to prolong cen-
trifugal pump life,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1996, p. 92.
Fahrer, Sharon, “Making sense of hte options,” Chemical Engi-
neering, , 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, Ramachandran,
Ram, Hull, Randall, and Watson, Richard, “FCC O2 EN-
RICHMENT — 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 Jour-
nal, 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 Processing, 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 contin-
ues,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 75.
Parkinson, Gerald, and Ondrey, Gerald, “Batteries not in-
cluded,” 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.
McManus, Anne Marie, “Get the most from environmental
audits,” Chemical Engineering, June 1996, p. 143.
262 References
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 re-
quired on MTBE,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1996, p. 25.
Geyer, Wayne, “How do your tanks measure up” Part 1: Under-
ground storage,” Chemical Engineering, July 1996, p. 84.
Reid, J. A. and McPhaul, D. R., “Control contaminants in olefin
feedstocks and products, Pt 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
75, No. 07, July 1996, p. 45.
Anderson, R., et al, “Use proactive permitting to expand capac-
ity,” 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.
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.
Tripathi, Paul, “Pinch technology reduces wastewater,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Nov. 1996, p. 87.
XI. INSTRUMENTATION, PRODUCT
BLENDING, AND QUALITY CONTROL
Boteler, Jack E. and Lapus, Benjamin V., “Meter flow with a
pump,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1991, p. 96.
Coker, A.K., “Equilibrium flash calculations quickly computed
on PC,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 14, 1991, p. 55.
Hall, G.F., “GC-directed control improves refining,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 47.
Hollrah, D.P. and Burns, A.M., “MMT increases octane while
reducing emissions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 11, 1991, p. 86.
Serpemen, Y., Wenzel, F.W., and Huebel, A., “MODERN
FUEL BLENDING - 1: Blending technology key to making
new gasolines,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 62.
“GM mounts push for reformulated fuel now,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 28.
Ginesi, Donald, “Choices abound in flow measurement,”
Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1991, p. 88.
TOC/INDEX
Gokhale, N.D., et al., “Advanced control of nonlinear processes,
Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991,
p. 75.
Serpemen, Y., Wenzel, F.W., and Huebel, A., “MODERN
FUEL BLENDING - Conclusion: Diesel blending system
cuts quality giveaway,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 1, 1991, p. 54.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE - 1:
U.S. Clean Air Act expands role for oxygenates,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 44.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE -
Conclusion: Oxygenate/hydrocarbon shift will rewrite gaso-
line recipes,” Apr. 29, 1991, p. 62.
“More MTBE, TAME plants due U.S.,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
29, 1991, p. 40.
Ginesi, Donald, “A raft of flowmeters on tap,” Chemical Engi-
neering, May 1991, p. 146.
“Coastal Chem breaks ground on MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 6, 1991, p. 30.
Schindler, G. and Lamprecht, J., “ISO QUALITY SYSTEMS -
1: E&P companies, suppliers move to international stand-
ards,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 6, 1991, p. 92.
Graham, J.F., “ISO QUALITY SYSTEMS -Conclusion: Texas
petrochemical plant gets certification,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 13, 1991, p. 48.
“Tenneco building Houston area MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1991, p. 25.
“Mobil, Chemvest study Saudi MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, May 20, 1991, p. 27.
“More U.S. oxygenates projects scheduled,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 27, 1991, p. 32.
Scherr, R.C., Smalley, G.A., Jr., and Norman, M.E., “REFIN-
ING IN THE ’90s - 1: Clean Air Act complicates refinery
planning,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 68.
“UOP develops new oxygenates process,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 3, 1991, p. 30.
“Acoustic tests during cooldown find cracks in reactors at Gulf
Coast refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 17, 1991, p. 47.
“Ethyl renews request for HiTEC 3000 approval by EPA,” Oil
& Gas Journal, July 22, 1991, p. 37.
Gardner, J.F., “Selecting valves for reduced emissions,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 87.
Setterlund, R.B., “Selecting process piping materials,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 93.
Miles, M.E., “Valve and piping safety factors,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p. 103.
Black, P. and Junier, R., “Precise valve position control improves
efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug.
1991, p. 109.
“Way clear for reformulated gasoline rule,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 26, 1991, p. 37.
Ottino, Charles, “Designing and laying out a control room,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 174.
“Advanced Process Control Handbook VI,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sept. 1991, p. 51.
“Exxon U.S.A. plans three MTBE plants,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 16, 1991, p. 34.
Khan, H.U., Mungali, M.M., Agrawal, K.M., and Joshi, G.C.,
“Graphical correlation calculates diesel properties from
known values,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 23, 1991, p. 47.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Dronoff, A. and Hammann, M., “Improve return on advanced
controls,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991,
p. 112.
Tu, F.C.U., “On-line process identification for SMPC,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 115.
Chatha, A., “Fieldbus begins new era in process control,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 59.
Senyard, C.P., “Control consultants address user questions,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 81.
Porter, Ted, “Upgrading control systems and the bottom line,”
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 137.
Elliott, J.D., “Maximize distillate liquid production,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01, Jan. 1992, p. 75.
Zhaohul, C. and Xinlu, F., “Use NMR spectroscopy for on-line
gasoline analysis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01,
Jan. 1992, p. 94.
Petersen, Kent, “Testing sensors for accuracy and speed,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Feb. 1992, p. 131.
Daneman, H.L., “Improve thermocouple temperature measure-
ment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 02, Feb. 1992,
p. 100.
“Auto-oil research finds no immediate benefits in use of gasoline-
methanol blend,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 46.
Yeager, R.L. and Davis, T.R., “Reduce process variation with
real-time SPC,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 03, Mar.
1992, p. 89.
Barreth, R., and Pankoff, “Training DCS operators,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 03, Mar. 1992, p. 95.
Eriksson, Per-Olof, Tomlins, Aric, and Dash, Sachindra,
“FCCU advanced control system achieves 2-month payout,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 62.
Muller, Alwin, “New method produces accurate octane blend-
ing values,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 80.
Berkowittz, P., “On-line optimal control improves gas process-
ing,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 04, Apr. 1992, p. 71.
Bhatt, Siddharth, “Process control ties into business: Part 1,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1992, p. 90.
Mehta, Chetan, “The business link,” Chemical Engineering, May
1992, p. 96.
Bell, R. Michael, “Find the hidden errors in batch flow meter-
ing,” Chemical Engineering, May 1992, p. 128.
Conley, R.C. and Clerrico, A.T., “Select and implement a
plantwide information system,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 05, May 1992, p. 47.
Stout, J.B., “Develop a strategic automation plan,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May 1992, p. 57.
Latour, P.R., “Quantify quality control’s intangible benefits,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May 1992, p. 61.
Kennedy, J.P., “Integrate real-time data with decision support,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May 1992, p. 69.
Gonzalez-Jeanne, P., “Statistical analysis updates on-line predic-
tive models,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May
1992, p. 75.
Wheatcroft, C., “Present and future refinery information sys-
tems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May 1992,
p. 101.
May, Donald L. and Payne, John Thurman, “Validate process
data automatically,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 112.
Kowalczyk, Stan W., “Root out the silent effects of electrical
noise,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 145.
263
TOC/INDEX
Ayral, T.E. and Melville, S.J., “Conduct a process control tech-
nology audit,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 06, June
1992, p. 43.
King, M.J., “How to lose money with advanced controls,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 06, June 1992, p. 47.
Devlin, J.F., “Fluid coker benefits from advanced control,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 06, June 1992, p. 55.
Fatora, F.C., “Successful closed loop and real-time operation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 06, June 1992, p. 65.
“On-line quality control for changing setpoints,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 06, June 1992, p. 75.
Morris, William E., “Simple calculation predicts hydrocarbon
loss from gasoline blends,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 22, 1992,
p. 68.
Roughton, James E., “Logging plant data without pencil and
paper,” Chemical Engineering, July 1992, p. 137.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “New correlation predicts density of pe-
troleum fractions,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 13, 1992, p. 49.
Kinm, W.H., “Improve process measurements with a least
squares filter,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug.
1992, p. 143.
Brown, Nigel P. and Heywood, Nigel I., “The right instrumen-
tation for slurries,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 107.
“Advanced Process Control Handbook VII,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 71, No. 09, Sept. 1992, p. 99.
“Amoco producing improved premium for Midwest market,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 38.
Hasselbaum, Robert, “Keeping tabs from afar,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Oct. 1992, p. 148.
Rohan, Thomas H., “Troubleshoot with quality-improvement
methods,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 161.
Friedman, Y.Z., “Avoid advanced control project mistakes,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 115.
Harris, Graham E., Fuchs, Michael R. and Holcombe, Larry J.,
“A guide to environmental testing,” Chemical Engineering,
Nov. 1992, p. 99.
Catena, D., Dietz, J.T. and Traubert, T.D., “Create intelligent
P&IDs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992,
p. 65.
Korchinski, W.J., et al., “FCCU advanced control in a DCS,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 73.
Beckman, L.V., “Optimum proof testing of programmable
safety systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov.
1992, p. 87.
White, John and Hall, Fred, “Gasoline blending optimization
cuts use of expensive components,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
9, p. 81.
Chou, Kelley, Clay, Roger M., Gamez, Jorge P., Berkowitz, P.N.,
and Papadopoulos, M.N., “Multivariable control system in-
stalled at ARCO West Texas gas plant,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 16, 1992, p. 53.
“Ashland cites savings in measuring octane,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 23, 1992, p. 23.
Rowlands, Gareth, Konuk, Aydin, and Kleinschrodt, Frank,
“FCCU advanced controls increase feed rate and column
stability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 25, 1992, p. 64.
Pakianathan, M.J., “P only or P+I in one controller,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 93.
264 References
Lubeck, Axel J. and Cook, Robert D., “Bromine number should
replace FIA in gasoline olefins testing,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 28, 1992, p. 86.
Mullally, Michael J. and Goens, Kathleen D., “Changing opera-
tions prompt major gas plant automation,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 28, 1992, p. 90.
Dailey, W.V., “Improve process analyzer availability,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 sys-
tems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993,
p. 71.
Kobyakov, A.I., “Include heuristics in protection systems,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993, p. 79.
Edalat, M., Bozar-Jomehri, R.B., and Mansoori, G.A., “Gener-
alized equation predicts vapor pressure of hydrocarbons,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 1, 1993, p. 39.
Lipták, Béla G., “Level measurement with problem liquids,”
Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1993, p. 130.
Golden, S.W., et al., “FCC main fractionator revamps,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 77.
Haq, I., “Improve machinery vibration data,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 94.
Forsell, K.A., “Protect motors with solid-state overloads,” Hy-
drocarbon 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 recovery
estimates,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr.
1993, p. 61.
Lin, T.D.V., “FCCU advanced control and optimization,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 107.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTS—Conclusion: Integrating
oil movement and data systems beefs project benefits,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
Kopple, L.B., “Information system master planning,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May 1993, p. 45.
Yoshimura, J.S., “Computer integrated manufacturing/process-
ing in the HPI,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 05, May
1993, p. 65.
Haskins, D.E., “How to justify small-refinery info/control sys-
tem 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.
TOC/INDEX
Quernemoen, B.L., “When is part substitution okay?,” Hydro-
carbon 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 limita-
tions,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 3, 1993, p. 87.
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 implementation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 49.
King, M.J. and Evans, H.N., “Assessing your competitors’ ap-
plication of CIM/CIP,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
07, July 1993, p. 57.
Roberson, C.G., et al., “Benefits of standardized advanced con-
trols,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993,
p. 63.
Pelham, R.O., “Process optimization in the HPI,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 07, July 1993, p. 69.
Riazi, Mohammad-Reza and Mansoori, G. Ali, “Simple equa-
tion of state accurately predicts hydrocarbon densities,” 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 Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 47.
Anon, “Advanced process control strategies ’93,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 77.
Wadi, I., “Take an integrated approach to refinery automation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept. 1993, p. 155.
Leibovici, C.F., et al., “Improve prediction with data reconcili-
ation,” 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., “Gaso-
line sampling technique crucial to ensuring Rvp compliance,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 30.
Valleur, M., “Integrate offsites management with information
systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 63.
Pugh, T., et al., “Improve heat exchanger leak detection,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 85.
Christie, D.A., “Improve plant performance with automation
studies,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993,
p. 103.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Gill, Milton R., Sisk, Linden B., Warren, Wayne F., and Simp-
son, Terry W., “PLC/PC monitoring, control systems 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 accurately 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 measure-
ment.” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1993, p. 78.
Lewis, Clifford W., “Accuracy in temperature measurements,”
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 information
systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994,
p. 63.
Page, E.A. and Berggren, J.C., “Improve predictive maintenance
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 gaso-
line 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,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 69.
Radigan, M.J., “How to select a continuous emission monitor-
ing system,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb.
1994, p. 73.
Jiskoot, R.J.J., “Improve natural gas sampling techniques,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 77.
Moon, J., “Monitor fluid density accurately,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 73, No. 02, Feb. 1994, p. 87.
Friedman, Y.Z., “Model-based control of crude product quali-
ties,” 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 variables,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 65.
265
TOC/INDEX
“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 con-
trol problem,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May
1994, p. 109.
Boyes, Walt, “Look at your process non-invasively,” Chemical
Engineering, June 1994, p. 84.
Edwards, L.A. and Kipper, J.P., “Computerization: problems
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 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 Engineer-
ing, 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 multivariable
systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994,
p. 51.
266 References
Lange, S. T., “Considerations for batch control,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 09, Sept. 1994, p. 61.
Perino, J. O., et al, “Process model-based multivariable control
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 controls
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, Lam-
bert, Didier, and Valleur, Marc, “On-line NIR analysis 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., “INFER-
ENTIAL CONTROL—Part 1: Crude unit advanced con-
trols pass accuracy and repeatability tests,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Nov. 28, 1994, p. 76.
Wenstrup, Robert A., “When control instruments ‘talk’, per-
formance improves,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1994, p. 80.
Nishikawa, Tadashi, Kobayashi, Takashi, et al., “Take pressure
sensing to new levels,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1994, p.
86.
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,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 101.
San, Yip Poh, Landells, Keith, and Mackay, David C., “INFER-
ENTIAL CONTROL—Conclusion: Crude unit controls re-
duce 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 selection,”
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.
TOC/INDEX
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, Tuppinger,
Dieter M., and Wilmsen, Wilhelm, “Austrian refiner benefits
from advanced control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 20, 1995,
p. 70.
Trotter, Remi, “The many measures of fine particles,” Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1995, p. 78.
Jung, C. S., et al, “MPC improves reformer control,” Hydrocar-
bon 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,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 108A.
“NPRA Q&A—2: Gasoline formulations draw interest at tech-
nical 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,” Hydro-
carbon 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 ana-
lyzed,” 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 con-
trols pay out in 6 weeks at Texas refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 19, 1995, p. 46.
Driedger, W. C., “Controlling centrifugal pumps,” Hydrocarbon
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 trans-
fer,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 07, July 1995, p. 61.
Verne, Tim, and Hall, Jim, “Advanced controls improve opera-
tion of lubes plant dewaxing unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, 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-va-
por collection and disposal system,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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-management
software as a guide,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1995, p.98.
“Advanced control and information systems ’95,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 67.
“Interkama/ISA Shows ’95,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 69.
Haxthausen, Niels, “The painkiller for batch control headaches,
Part 1: The batch,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1995, p. 119.
Jones, R. B., “Use reliability-centered maintenance to identify
real-world,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct.
1995, p. 57.
Friedman, Y. Z., “What’s wrong with unit closed loop optimi-
zation?,” 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 automation
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.
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 Processing,
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 requirements
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 treat-
ing 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,” Hy-
drocarbon 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.
267
TOC/INDEX
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.
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 coordination
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 Processing, Vol. 75,
No. 04, Apr. 1996, p. 79.
Liesenring Jr., Roger L., “Low sulfur diesel controversy contin-
ues,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 75.
Pomroy, James, “Selecting the right flowmeter,” Chemical Engi-
neering, 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,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 67.
Clevett, K. J., “Improve process analyzer performance,” Hydro-
carbon 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,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 06, June 1996, p. 47.
“Process design and optimization ’96,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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 control: a
future vision,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July
1996, p. 89.
“Integrating process design and control improves plant operabil-
ity,” 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.
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.
268 References
“Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Costimating,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 7, 1991, p. 92; Jan. 6, 1992, p. 82; Apr. 6, 1992, p. 62;
July 6, 1992, p. 84; Oct. 5, 1992, p. 86.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
“Fixed-bed reactor successful in fuels from coal synthesis,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 53.
de Wind, Menno, Heinerman, J.J.L. (Hans), Lee, Seck Leong,
Plantenga, Frans, Johnson, Chris C., and Woodward, Debbie
C., “Air quality and economics spur use of presulfided cata-
lysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 49.
“Presulfiding, FCC olefins focus of catalyst sessions,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 37.
Leiby, Susan, “FCC catalyst technologies expand limits of proc-
ess capability,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 49.
Koch, Pierre, “Simple program calculates partial liquid vol-
umes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 54.
“Texaco presses projects for gasification process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 6, 1992, p. 38.
Jamialahmadi, Mohamad, and Muller-Steinhagen, Hans,
“Computer program designs packed columns,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 33.
Jenkins, John H., “LP modeling pieces together reformulation
puzzle,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 16, 1992, p. 41.
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 equi-
librium 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., “Non-
cryogenic 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 Journal, Aug. 2,
1993, p. 71.
Connell, David E., Horth, Paul, and Powell, R.H.W., “Analysis
sets optimum C3 recovery for N. Sea gas 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.
“Syngas plant eyes anhydrous ammonia increase,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 13, 1995, p. 31.
TOC/INDEX
Butts, R. Clark, Chou, Kelley, and Slaton, Barbara, “Nitrogen-
rejection process developed for small fields,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, 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 treat-
ment installed on Dutch North Sea platform,” 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 re-
moval,” 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 absorp-
tion 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.
“Texas JV to burn residue gas in cogen unit,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 23, 1996, p. 43.
XIII. LUBE OIL & WAXES
“Lube oil catalysts go commercial,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8,
1991, p. 81.
Brinkman, D.W., “Large grassroots lube rerefinery in opera-
tion,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 19, 1991, p. 60.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Lyondell to produce gasoline from used lubricating oil,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“BP to make lubes in Vietnam,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2,
1992, p. 29.
“Conoco schedules consolidation of U.S. lubricants,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 26.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Refinery operating variables key to enhanced
lube oil quality,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 4, 1993, p. 45.
“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 lubricants
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 opera-
tion of lubes plant dewaxing unit,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 24,
1995, p. 25.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more catalysts,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996,
p. 68.
Hairston, Deborah, “Slip sliding in lubricants,”“ Chemical En-
gineering, Oct. 1996, p. 64.
XIV. MAINTENANCE
Bloch, H.P., “Use laser optics for on-stream alignment verifica-
tion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan. 1991,
p. 71.
Shull, W.W. and Church, M.L., “Field performance test: key to
pump savings,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan.
1991, p. 77.
“ARCO spells out cause of Channelview blast,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 14, 1991, p. 22.
Trenchard, A.J., Bull, V., and King, M.J., “Port study solves
refinery shipping bottleneck,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 21,
1991, p. 29.
Sattler, Frank J., “Success in managing nondestructive testing,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1991, p. 126.
Misra, L.N., “Emergency steam turbine rotor repair,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05, May 1991, p. 126.
Ramakrishna, P., “How often to clean an evaporator,” Chemical
Engineering, July 1991, p. 143.
Granere, V.R., “Understand torsional vibration,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991, p. 53.
269
TOC/INDEX
Gresh, M.T., “On-line cleaning restores compressor perform-
ance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991,
p. 65.
Croix, R. and Suarez, S., “Monitor cooling tower and cooler
fans,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991,
p. 71.
Dube, J.C., et al., “Reciprocating compressor bottle sizing,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991, p. 79.
Ludlam, R., “Automatic system drains tank water without prod-
uct loss,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 15, 1991, p. 64.
Berto, F.J., “Gauging data pose question on stability of reference
gauge heights,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 29, 1991, p. 78.
Lieberman, N.P. and Lieberman, E.T., “Design, installation
pitfalls appear in vac tower retrofit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.
26, 1991, p. 57.
Godse, A.G., “Implement machinery predictive maintenance,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 09, Sept. 1991, p. 163.
“OSHA levies fine on Citgo,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9, 1991,
p. 36.
“Refiners receive antispill orders,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 23,
1991, p. 14.
Strong, Russell C., Majestic, Veronica K., and Wilhelm, Mark
S., “Basic steps lead to successful FCC corrosion control,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 81.
Nasr Ali, “Extending the life of magnetic-drive pumps,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 159.
Strong, Russell C., Majestic, Veronica K., and Wilhelm, Mark
S., “Basic corrosion control methods solve varied problems,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7, 1991, p. 86.
“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.
“Petrochem health, safety training at issue,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 21, 1991, p. 41.
de Wit, Johannes, “Safe jack up method permits repairs of tank
bottoms and foundations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 4, 1991,
p. 76.
Ferguson, K.R., and Stutheit, A.G., “Weld overlay chosen for
corrosion repair at Texas CO2 plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.
2, 1991, p. 54.
Ray, J., “Fast-track retrofitting,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71,
No. 01, Jan. 1992, p. 45.
Petersen, P.R., “Improve corrosion control by computer simula-
tion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01, Jan. 1992,
p. 50.
Gresh, M.T., “Troubleshooting compressor performance,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01, Jan. 1992, p. 57.
Pennington, J., “Information key to on-line leak sealing,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01, Jan. 1992, p. 63.
Gandy, T. and Bailey, J., “Reduce costs with acoustic emission
cool-down monitoring,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No.
01, Jan. 1992, p. 66.
Chiu, C.H. and Murray, K.L., “Retrofit baseload LNG plants,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01, Jan. 1992, p. 69.
270
Junier, R. and Purvis, H., “Ceramic valves lower FCCU main-
tenance costs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 01, Jan.
1992, p. 72.
Ferguson, K.R., and Stutheit, A.G., “Unusual weld overlay
project stressed quality, safety,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 6,
1992, p. 69.
Ferguson, K.R., and Stutheit, A.G., “Extensive testing ensures
success of unusual weld-overlay project,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Jan. 13, 1992, p. 39.
“Survey updates amine stress corrosion cracking data,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 42.
Lester, L. et al., “Building a world class maintenance organiza-
tion,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 02, Feb. 1992, p.
98-c.
Hassan, Hassan M.K., “Sequential lifting of tank shell used to
repair floors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 3, 1992, p. 33.
“Kuwaiti refinery repairs eyed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 9, 1992,
p. 31.
Myers, Phillips, “Keeping above-ground storage tanks in top
shape,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1992, p. 161.
Granere, V.R., “Torsional vibration: Are your measurements
accurate?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 04, Apr.
1992, p. 71.
“Refiners discuss HF alkylation process and issues,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 67.
Ojala, Russell, “Keep ejectors on-line,” Chemical Engineering,
May 1992, p. 114.
Bellomo, P.J., “OSHA safety regulations calls for step-by-step
approach,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1, 1992, p. 49.
Kowalczyk, Stan W., “Root out the silent effects of electrical
noise,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 145.
Pless, Lowell, Bowman, John D., “Scanning columns with
gamma rays,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 127.
Hasselbaum, Robert, “Keeping tabs from afar,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Oct. 1992, p. 148.
“Process passivates spent catalyst to allow unloading under air,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 56.
“NPRA MAINTENANCE Q&A—Refiners focus on mainte-
nance inspection and analysis techniques,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 26, 1992, p. 86.
“Nelson-Farrar Cost Index,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1992,
p. 79; Dec. 7, 1992, p. 74; Jan. 4, 1993, p. 38; Feb. 1, 1993,
p. 44; Mar. 1, 1993, p. 70; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 62; May 3, 1993,
p. 96; June 7, 1993, p. 36; July 5, 1993, p. 50; Aug. 2, 1993,
p. 78.
Sheppard, B., “Determine bearing inner race defect length,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 101.
Kotnour, T.J., “Manage your time wisely,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992, p. 114.
Lieberman, Norman P. and Lieberman, Elizabeth T., “Inade-
quate inspection cause of flawed vac tower revamp,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 14, 1992, p. 33.
Pradhan, S., “Apply reliability centered maintenance to sealless
pumps,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993,
p. 43.
Singh, B., “Specifying clad CRA piping,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 51.
Peterson, J.R. and Davidse, G.J., “Consider pump cast refrac-
tory for critical linings,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No.
01, Jan. 1993, p. 55.
References
TOC/INDEX
Nelson, W.E., “Improve relief valve reliability,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 59.
Dailey, W.V., “Improve process analyzer availability,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 compressor 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 Engi-
neering, Mar. 1993, p. 149.
Haq, I., “Improve machinery vibration data,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 94.
Forsell, K.A., “Protect motors with solid-state overloads,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 100.
Karassik, I.J., “When to maintain centrifugal pumps,” Hydro-
carbon 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 bene-
fits,” 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.
Woollatt, D., “Factors affecting reciprocating compressor per-
formance,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 57.
Leonard, S.C., “Improve maintenance reliability,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 162-C.
El Sherif, A.H., “Monitor lube-oil quality in service,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 171.
Andrews, Robert and Weber, Paul, “High pressure operations:
Part 1: Upkeep of equipment,” Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1993, p. 98.
Hingoraney, Rajan, “Putting expert systems to work,” Chemical
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 vibration
monitors,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994,
p. 49.
Rayner, R.E., “Better metallurgy for process equipment,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994, p. 53.
Wittliff, M., et al., “Improve plant reliability with information
systems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 01, Jan. 1994,
p. 63.
Page, E.A. and Berggren, J.C., “Improve predictive maintenance
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.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
“NPRA MAINTENANCE Q&A: Engineers discuss mainte-
nance 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 predict
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,” Hydrocarbon
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 inspec-
tion,” 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.
Ricketts, Richard, “Survey points to practices that reduce refin-
ery 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 maintenance,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1994, p. 78.
Deley, Stephen J., and Graf, Kenneth, “Random packing debot-
tlenecks 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 pumping
systems: A guide to holistic design,” Chemical Engineering,
Jan. 1995, p. 87.
271
TOC/INDEX
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 align-
ment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 01, Jan. 1995,
p. 67.
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 Processing,
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 Engi-
neering, 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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 Process-
ing, 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 selection,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1995, p. 53.
Jones, R. B., “Use reliability-centered maintenance to identify
real-world,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 10, Oct.
1995, p. 57.
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.
272
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 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.
Mashburn, B. S. and Bailey, C. D., “A quality assurance program
for refurbished process plants,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 81.
Lamb, R. G., “Reengineer maintenance for corporate competi-
tiveness,” 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.
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 hydrogen
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 standards for
pumps,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996,
p. 117.
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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 cen-
trifugal 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 im-
prove reliability,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05,
May 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.
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,” Chemical
Engineering, Aug. 1996, p. 84.
Daintith E. and Glatt, P., “Reduce costs with laser shaft assign-
ment,” 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.
References
TOC/INDEX
Paxton, Nate, “Increasing longevity of valves,” Chemical Engi-
neering, 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 Engineering,
Oct. 1996, p. 132.
XV. PIPING
Peterson, D.J., “Better piping and expansion joint design,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan. 1991, p. 89.
Lewis, Sidney A., “Take the stress out of strainer selection,”
Chemical Engineering, June 1991, p. 110.
Anderson, Vaughn R., “Quarter-turn valves: Choose the right
one,” Chemical Engineering, July 1991, p. 78.
Hotchkiss, C., Jr., “The long arm of valve control,” Chemical
Engineering, Aug. 1991, p. 104.
Couch, Robert O., “A guide to multiple-pipe containment,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 158.
Cagle, Larry L., “Fiberglass pipe’s fringe benefit,” Chemical
Engineering, Nov. 1991, p. 170.
Singh, B., “Specifying high nickel alloy piping,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 109.
Ridey, Michael, “Relieving over-pressure,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, Dec. 1991, p. 98.
Alspach, W.J. and Maurer, G., “Consider digital valves,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 101.
“Flow improver eliminates bottleneck in refinery transfer pip-
ing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 47.
Wong, W.J., “PRV sizing for exchanger tube rupture,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 02, Feb. 1992, p. 59.
Grumstrup, Bruce, “Shut out leaks with bellows seal valves,”
Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1992, p. 124.
Escoe, A.K., “Maximum allowable pressure for nozzle openings,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May 1992, p. 95.
Brown, Nigel P. and Heywood, Nigel I., “The right instrumen-
tation for slurries,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 106.
Hassan, H.M.K., “Code check floating tank roofs,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992.
Henthorn, Greg and Lednicky, Randy, “Sealing tips for plastic-
lined pipe,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1992, p. 142.
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,” Chemi-
cal 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 jack-
eted 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 insulation,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 51.
Higoraney, Rajan, “Putting expert systems to work,” Chemical
Engineering, Jan. 1994, p. 121.
Clark, Ed and Littlefield, David, “Maximize centrifugal pump
reliability,” Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1994, p. 90.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Murphy, Martin A., “Analysis, calculation techniques predict
FCC erosion and fluidization,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 21,
1994, p. 54.
Yu, F.C., “Calculate optimum pipe size for vapor,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 99.
Sloane, B.A., “Select pipe size based on payback,” Hydrocarbon
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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994, p. 99.
Broyles, R. K., “Improve high-temperature expansion joint de-
sign,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 11, Nov. 1994,
p. 55.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “New equation predicts viscosity of un-
known hydrocarbon vapors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 6, 1995,
p. 60.
Cochran, T.W., “Simplifying piping network analysis,” Chemi-
cal 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 limiting
component,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May
1995, p. 59.
Daniels, Lawrence, “Dealing with two-phase flows,” Chemical
Engineering, June 1995, p. 70.
Baumann, Hans C., “What’s new in valve sizing,” Chemical
Engineering, June 1995, p. 104.
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-va-
por collection and disposal system,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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.
Talavera, P. G., “Calculate nonfluidized flow in cyclone diplegs
and transitio,” 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,” Chemical
Engineering, Apr. 1996, p. 98.
273
TOC/INDEX
Saravanan, S., et al, “Improve piping design,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 05, May 1996, p. 59.
Costello, Rocky C., “Pipeflow — A pressure drop calculator,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1996, p. 125.
Paxton, Nate, “Increasing longevity of valves,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Oct. 1996, p. 84.
Wetzel, Loren, “Proper piping for vacuum systems,” Chemical
Engineering, Nov. 1996, p. 104.
XVI. FURNACES & HEAT EXCHANGERS
Rossiter, A.P., et al., “Pinch technology identifies process im-
provements,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 01, Jan.
1991, p. 63.
Schad, M., et al., “How nuclear reactors can supply heat for the
HPI,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p.
120C.
Hernandez-Guerrero, A. and Macias-Machin, A., “How to de-
sign bayonet heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineering, Apr.
1991, p. 122.
Nieh, C.D. and Zhang, M.X., “Natural frequencies of ex-
changer U-tubes,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 05,
May 1991, p. 97.
Mart, Tony and Verhappen, Ian, “Improving fuel efficiency with
statistics,” Chemical Engineering, June 1991, p. 143.
Burley, James R., “Don’t overlook compact heat exchangers,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1991, p. 90.
Dotiwalla, K.K., “Process heating systems: Steam or thermal
fluid?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991,
p. 67.
Gross, P.G., “Prevent exchanger waterlogging,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 73.
Fehr, M., “Make the boiler part of the team,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70 No. 11, Nov. 1991, p. 131.
Miller, U.R., “Stress analysis and design of exchanger expansion
joints,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991,
p. 93.
Ancheyta, Jorge, Nares, Ruben, Moreno, Abel, and Anaya,
Carlos G., “New algorithm simplifies heat-exchanger calcula-
tions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1991, p. 70.
Crisi, Giovanni S., “Buying heat exchangers,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Feb. 1992, p. 94.
Albano, John V., Olszewski, Edward F., and Fukushima, Toshi-
yuki, “Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene plant’s energy
needs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 55.
Ghosh, H., “Improve your fired heaters,” Chemical Engineering,
Mar. 1992, p. 116.
Burd, Vladimir, “Squeezing clean energy from boilers and heat-
ers,” Chemical Engineering, Mar. 1992, p. 145.
Steinmeyer, D.E., “Optimum delta p and delta t in heat ex-
change,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 04, Apr. 1992,
p. 53.
Plants, Chester A., “Evaluate heat-exchanger performance—
Part 1,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 100.
Plants, Chester A., “Evaluate heat-exchanger performance—
Part 2,” Chemical Engineering, June 1992, p. 104.
Rubin, Frank L., “Heat transfer topics often overlooked,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 74.
Love, D.L., “No hassle reboiler selection,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 41.
274 References
Ganapathy V., “Fouling—the silent heat transfer thief,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 49.
Steinmeyer, D., “Save energy, without entropy,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 55.
O’Donnell, J., “Improve seawater cooling with titanium finned
tubes,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992,
p. 61.
Sloane, B.A., “Maximize your energy savings with proper insu-
lation size,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct.
1992, p. 67.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 122-c.
Garg, Ashutosh, “Trimming NOx from furnaces,” Chemical
Engineering, Nov. 1992, p. 122.
Ganapathy, V., “Effective use of heat-recovery steam gener-
ators,” 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.
Richardson, Kenneth W. and Taibi, Frank D., “Louisiana joint
venture starts up coke-fueled cogen plant,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 5, 1993, p. 38.
Boyer, John and Trumpfheller, Gary, “Specification tips to maxi-
mize heat transfer,” Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 90.
Campagne, W.v.L., “Use Ponchon-Savarit in your process simu-
lation, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 09, Sept.
1993, p. 41.
Liebert, T.C., “Distillation feed preheat—is it energy efficient?,”
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 insulation,”
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 Process-
ing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct. 1993, p. 59.
Campagne, W.v.L., “Use Ponchon-Savarit in your process simu-
lation, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 10, Oct.
1993, p. 63.
Kerner, Jeff, “Sizing plate heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, 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,” Hy-
drocarbon 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 produc-
tion using autothermal reforming,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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.
TOC/INDEX
Finn, Adrian, “Enhance gas processing with reflux heat-ex-
changers,” Chemical Engineering, May 1994, p. 142.
Hall, Stephen G. and Morgan, Steve W., “Heat exchanger
databases accelerate process design & costing,” Chemical En-
gineering, 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 refrigerants,”
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 charac-
teristics,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994,
p. 131.
Kals, W., “Air-cooled heat exchangers: conventional and uncon-
ventional,” 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 rejuve-
nate 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 Engi-
neering, 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,” Chemical
Engineering, May 1995, p. 66.
Trom, L., “Use spiral plate exchangers for various applications,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 73.
Cooley, D. H., “Steam condenser performance,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 83.
Kneile, R., “Anatomy of combustion calculations,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 87.
Shahani, G. H., et al, “Increase TPA production,” Hydrocarbon
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 stimu-
late thermosyphon..., Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74,
No. 06, June 1995, p. 101.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 Processing, 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 Engineering, Aug.
1995, p. 113.
Alesson, T., “All steam traps are not equal,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 123.
Ganapathy, V., “Recover heat from waste incineration,” Hydro-
carbon 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 thermody-
namic 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.
Mukherjee, R., “Conquer heat exchanger fouling,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 121.
Korchinski, W. J. and Turpin, L. E., “The five-minute chemical
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,” Chemi-
cal 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 accurately,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 81.
Beedie, M., “Energy waste: A process quality defect?,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 84B.
275
TOC/INDEX
Hunter, M. L., “How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater treat-
ing 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 dia-
grams,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996,
p. 77.
Driedger, W. C., “Controlling shell and tube exchangers,” Hy-
drocarbon 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 imped-
ance 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., “Constrained
optimization of heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineering, June
1996, p. 112.
Lynch, Joe T. and Pitman, Richard N., “Texas plant retrofit
improves the throughput, C2 recovery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
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 ex-
changers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July 1996,
p. 55.
Anderson, R., et al, “Use proactive permitting to expand capac-
ity,” 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.
Stanger, C. W., et al, “Hydroprocessing/FCC synergy,” Hydro-
carbon 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 trans-
fer coefficient,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 153.
Gulyani, B.B., “Estimating log mean temperature difference in
multi-pass exchangers,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1996,
p. 127.
XVII. STORAGE & TRANSFER
Margus, Edward, “Choosing thermoplastic pumps,” Chemical
Engineering, July 1991, p. 106.
Bosworth, Michael A., “Dilute-Phase Pneumatic Conveying:
Instrument selection guide,” Chemical Engineering, Sept.
1991, p. 166.
Van Valkenburgh, Gary, “Storing hazardous wastes safely,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991, p. 203.
276 References
Nasr Ali, “Extending the life of magnetic-drive pumps,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1991, p. 159.
de Wit, Johannes, “Safe jack up method permits repairs of tank
bottoms and foundations,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 4, 1991,
p. 76.
Doolin, James, Kawohl, Rudolf, et al., “Pumping difficult flu-
ids,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1991, p. 67.
“Flow improver eliminates bottleneck in refinery transfer pip-
ing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 47.
Bloch, Heinz P. and Noack, Pierre W., “Screw compressors,”
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 1992, p. 100.
Hassan, Hassan M.K., “Sequential lifting of tank shell used to
repair floors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 3, 1992, p. 33.
Adams, W.V., “Controlling fugitive emissions from mechanical
seals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 03, Mar. 1992,
p. 99.
Myers, Phillip, “Keeping above-ground storage tanks in top
shape,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1992, p. 161.
Koch, Pierre, “Simple program calculates partial liquid vol-
umes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 54.
Geyer, Wayne, “Bringing storage tanks to the surface,” Chemical
Engineering, July 1992, p. 94.
Hallam, J.L., “Commissioning compressors with gas seals,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 07, July 1992, p. 41.
Schmidt, W.A., “Rerate driver shafts using thermal analogy,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 07, July 1992, p. 49.
Clark, D. and Abbott, C., “Improve slurry pump life,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 07, July 1992, p. 53.
Scheithe, W., “Better bearing vibration analysis,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 07, July 1992, p. 57.
Mei, Kenneth W., “Accurate, automatic temperature measure-
ments reduces tank volume errors,” Oil & Gas Journal, July
20, 1992, p. 105.
Clark, Michael A., “Fluoropolymer linings: The low-cost advan-
tage,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 106.
Darby, Ron, Mun, Robert and Boger, David V., “Predict friction
loss in slurry pipes,” Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1992, p. 116.
Spivey, Marty, “Intermediate bulk containers,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Sept. 1992, p. 145.
Wiederuh, E. and Meinhart, D., “Isothermal compressors for
process gas,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 09, Sept.
1992, p. 58.
Wong, R.F., “Troubleshooting rotating equipment,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 123.
Sivaraman, Srini and Wallace, Richard I., “New tank calibration
method could be wave of the future,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
19, 1992, p. 81.
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.
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: Integrating
oil movement and data systems beefs project benefits,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 52.
TOC/INDEX
Blair, Hugo, “The environmental pluses of diaphragm pumps,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1993, p. 118.
Fruci, Leonard, “Pipeless plants boost batch processing,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, June 1993, p. 102.
Birgenheler, David B., Butzbach, Thomas L., et al., “Designing
steam-jet vacuum systems,” Chemical Engineering, July 1993,
p. 116.
Chen, C.C., “Cope with dissolved gases in pump calculations,”
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 dia-
phragm 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 measure-
ment research,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 7, 1994, p. 45.
“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.
Carson, John W., “Characterize bulk solids to ensure smooth
flow,” Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1994, p. 78.
“China Facing Revamp of Outmoded Crude Tanker Terminal
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.
Tihanyi, Laszlo, “Planning method for gas storage developed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 19, 1994, p. 109.
Nelson, William E. and Dufour, John W., “Problem-free pump-
ing systems: A guide to holistic design,” Chemical Engineering,
Jan. 1995, p. 87.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
Mei, Kenneth W., “Unslotted gauge wells cause tank-level meas-
urement errors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 30, 1995, p. 89.
Badrock, John, Coutu, Robert, Johnson, Norman, and Martin,
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 techniques
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,” Chemical
Engineering, Aug. 1995, p. 78
Netzel, James, Pecht, Glenn, and Kallodimos, Mike, “Gas lubri-
cated seals change pump choices,” Chemical Engineering, Aug.
1995, p. 82B.
Siegell, J. H., “Control VOC emissions,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, 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.
“Tank-cleaning method removes, processes F037 waste,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 86.
Shuai, Xiaoshan, and Meisen, Axel, “New correlations predict
physical properties of elemental sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 16, 1995, p. 50.
Kusha, A. A., “Lessons learned from relocation,” Hydrocarbon
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 cen-
trifugal 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.
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: Under-
ground storage,” Chemical Engineering, July 1996, p. 84.
Gothenquist, Carol A. and Rooker, Karen M., “Carbon adsorp-
tion system protects LPG storage sphere,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 1, 1996.
Caruthers, Steve, “Here are guidelines for inspecting AST ter-
minals,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 8, 1996, p. 52.
277
TOC/INDEX
Grainawi, Lorri, “Aboveground storage, Part 1: Decoding shop-
built tanks,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1996, p. 98.
Bays, Joseph N., “Minimizing wastes from vacuum pumping
systems,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 123.
Cameron, Donald B., “How fluid properties affect hydraulically
balanced metering pumps,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 1996,
p. 100.
XVIII. CORROSION
Imbalzano, J.F., Washburn, D.N. and Mehta, P.M., “Permeation
and stress cracking of fluoropolymers,” Chemical Engineering,
Jan. 1991, p. 105.
Stanislow, Lawrence, J. and Sheppard, Walter L., “Glass:
Stronger, lighter, more durable,” Chemical Engineering, Feb.
1991, p. 153.
Paciej, Richard, “How to foil the curse of corrosive gases,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1991, p. 158.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, S.M., “FCC COR-
ROSION—1: Basic steps lead to successful FCC corrosion
control,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 30, 1991, p. 81.
Strong, R.C., Majestic, V.K., and Wilhelm, S.M., “FCC COR-
ROSION— Conclusion: Basic corrosion control methods
solve varied problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 7, 1991, p. 86.
Whitecraft, Paul K., “High-tech steels to the rescue,” Chemical
Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 116.
“Survey updates amine stress corrosion cracking,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 42.
Dotiwalla, K.K., “Save energy with absorption chillers,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 02, Feb. 1992, p. 112.
Clark, Michael A., “Fluoropolymer linings: The low-cost advan-
tage,” Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1992, p. 107.
Pollock, Warren L., “What’s hot in metal alloys,” Chemical
Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 78.
Puyear, Robert B., “Pick the right material for process hard-
ware,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 90.
Pollock, Warren L., “Baffled by how alloys are labeled?,” Chemi-
cal Engineering, Oct. 1992, p. 169.
Scott, B., “Identify alkylation hazards,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 77.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 122-C.
Priest, David, “Measuring corrosion rates fast,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Nov. 1992, p. 169.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 100-C.
Sumbry, Louis C. and Bogner, Ben R., “Lining tank bottoms to
extend service life,” Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1993, p. 131.
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 mate-
rials, monitoring,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 1, 1993, p. 76.
Miller, W.A., “How to choose a fluoropolymer,” Chemical En-
gineering, Apr. 1993, p. 163.
278 References
DuPart, M.S., et al., “Understanding corrosion in alkanolamine
gas treating plants, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 75.
DuPart, M.S., et al., “Understanding corrosion in alkanolamine
gas treating plants, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 05, May 1993, p. 89.
French, Eddie C., “New inhibitor reduces crude-unit corrosion
problems at lower pH,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 24, 1993,
p. 45.
Lieberman, Norman P., “Four steps solve crude-tower overhead
corrosion problems,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 5, 1993, p. 47.
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 deposi-
tions,” 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 Engi-
neering, 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 Engineering,
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 Engi-
neering, Apr. 1995, p. 108.
Shahani, G. H., et al, “Increase TPA production,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 99.
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 Journal, Jan. 29,
1996, p. 81.
Wharry, Samuel R., “Transfer heat in a resin sheath,” Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 1996, p. 74.
Hohmann, F. W., “Improve steam reformer performance,” Hy-
drocarbon 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.
TOC/INDEX
Brooks, Kevin and Martin, Mark W., “Ceramics stand up to acid
service,” Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1996, p. 77.
XIX. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Ganapathy, V., “Evaluate deaerator steam requirements
quickly,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991,
p. 59.
Siegell, J.H., “Analyzing process energy efficiency,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 55.
Tripathi, P. and Shukla, D., “Environmentally responsible en-
ergy management,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10,
Oct. 1991, p. 45.
Szeto, E., “Prevent insulation from punking,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 51.
Ganapathy, V., “Maximize steam generation gas turbine
HRSGs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991,
p. 57.
Irwin, W., “Avoid common mistakes when insulating piping,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 64.
Newman, S.A., “Sour water design by charts, Pt. 2,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 10, Oct. 1991, p. 101.
Albano, John V., Olszewski, Edward F., and Fukushima, Toshi-
yuki, “Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene plant’s energy
needs,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 55.
Macek, Stanley J., “Putting a lid on evaporation costs,” Chemical
Engineering, Dec. 1992, p. 139.
Ganapathy, V., “Effective use of heat-recovery steam gener-
ators,” 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, “Con-
serve energy to cut operating costs,” Chemical Engineering,
Sept. 1993, p. 126.
Hahn, Glenn E., “Get the most out of steam,” Chemical Engi-
neering, 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 re-
finer’s bottom line,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 16, 1994, p. 53.
Nelson, Kenneth E., “A practical guide to energy accounting,”
Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1994, p. 122.
Anderson, Kenneth E., “BTU accounting: Showing results,”
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1994, p. 130.
Aguilar-Rodriguez, Enrique, Ortiz-Estrada, Ciro, and Aguilera-
Lopez, Matin, “Thermal analysis finds optimum FCCU re-
vamp 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.
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.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
“Texas JV to burn residue gas in cogen unit,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 23, 1996, p. 43.
Moore, Frank, “Cut steam-trap costs,” Chemical Engineering,
Oct. 1996, p. 131.
XX. GENERAL
Ozog, H. and Stickles, R.P., “Process hazard management docu-
ments, practices compared,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 28, 1991,
p. 86.
“Indian revamps strategy for refining capacity expansion,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Feb. 11, 1991, p. 32.
Burger, Robert, “Colder cooling water pays off,” Chemical En-
gineering, Mar. 1991, p. 177.
Richardson, T., “Learn from the Phillips explosion,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 03, Mar. 1991, p. 83.
“Shortfall looms as strike cripples Brazilian refineries,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 11, 1991, p. 40.
“Chevron revises Richmond refinery project,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 44.
Aalund, L.R., “ANNUAL REFINING REPORT: U.S. refining
industry has powerful configuration,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
18, 1991, p. 57.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
“GM mounts push for reformulated fuel now,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 28.
“Chevron settles fire safety case with OSHA,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 25, 1991, p. 32.
“Esso Thai refinery project, divestiture okayed,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 32.
Godbey, Thomas, “Brace your plant against a dust explosion,”
Chemical Engineering, Apr. 1991, p. 130.
“Mobil to add units at Singapore refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 1, 1991, p. 42.
Yepsen, G. and Witoshkin, T., “Refiners have options to deal
with reformulated gasoline,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1991,
p. 68.
“Western closes purchase of Amoco plant,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 8, 1991, p. 91.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE—1:
U.S. Clean Air Act expands role for oxygenates,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 44.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Refineries,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 62.
“BP outlines U.S. refinery spending plans,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 29, 1991, p. 30.
“More MTBE, TAME plants due U.S.,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
29, 1991, p. 40.
Unzelman, G.H., “OXYGENATES FOR THE FUTURE—
Conclusion: Oxygenate/hydrocarbon shift will rewrite gaso-
line recipes,” Apr. 29, 1991, p. 62.
“Coastal Chem breaks ground on MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 6, 1991, p. 30.
“Tenneco building Houston area MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 20, 1991, p. 25.
“Mobil, Chemvest study Saudi MTBE plant,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, May 20, 1991, p. 27.
“Saudis eye Japan R&M joint venture,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
20, 1991, p. 27.
279
TOC/INDEX
“More U.S. oxygenates projects scheduled,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 27, 1991, p. 32.
Scherr, R.C., Smalley, G.A., Jr., and Norman, M.E., “REFIN-
ING IN THE ’90s—1: Clean Air Act complicates refinery
planning,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27, 1991, p. 68.
“India to hike refining capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,
1991, p. 112.
“UOP develops new oxygenates process,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 3, 1991, p. 30.
“Saudi, Japanese refining additions eyed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 10, 1991, p. 18.
“Refiners may meet CAA requirements if...,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 10, 1991, p. 26.
“Ways sought to improve E. Europe refineries,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 10, 1991, p. 27.
Scherr, R.C., Smalley, G.A., Jr. and Norman, M.E., “REFIN-
ING IN THE ’90s—Conclusion: Clean air amendments put
big burden on refinery planning,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 10,
1991, p. 35.
“EPA outlines reformulated gasoline regs,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 17, 1991, p. 20.
“European refiners press sulfur campaign,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 24, 1991, p. 26.
Schuler, G.H.M., “Will Middle East oil continue to supply your
refinery?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991,
p. 50C.
Spranza, F.G., “Will terrorists hit your plant?,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 07, July 1991, p. 102.
“Flexible new process converts aromatics in variety of diesel
feedstocks,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 1, 1991, p. 55.
“ARCO claims advance in gasoline formula,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 22, 1991, p. 37.
Simpson, L.L., “Estimate two-phase flow in safety devices,”
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 1991, p. 98.
Karnik, J.L., “Refiners in Western Europe face emission reduc-
tions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 08, Aug. 1991, p.
50E.
“German refinery to undergo large revamp,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 5, 1991, p. 30.
Vielvoye, R., “WATCHING THE WORLD: Pacific Rim proc-
essing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 38.
Crow, P., “WATCHING WASHINGTON: ‘Reg-neg’ gasoline
standards,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 44.
“New short contact time processes upgrade residual oils and
heavy crudes,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 12, 1991, p. 79.
“Upgrade adds three units at Corpus plant,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 12, 1991, p. 96.
“Saudis poised for huge refining upgrade,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 19, 1991, p. 32.
“Asia-Pacific area shows big gains in processing,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 26, 1991, p. 17.
“Way clear for reformulated gasoline rule,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 26, 1991, p. 37.
“OSHA levies fine on Citgo,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9, 1991,
p. 37.
“Exxon U.S.A. plans three MTBE plants,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Sept. 16, 1991, p. 34.
“Soviets avert accident at Ufa refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept.
30, 1991, p. 38.
280 References
Chatrathi, Kris, “Explosion-isolation systems,” Chemical Engi-
neering, Oct. 1991, p. 134.
“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.
“Malaysia to expand refining, LNG capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 7, 1991, p. 111.
“Elf group will speed study for Shanghai area refinery,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 27.
“EPA actions target OxyChem, Olin, Texaco,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 36.
Rhodes, A.K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY: Survey
shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct.
14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide catalyst survey,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 14, 1991, p. 46.
Rhodes, Anne K., “U.K. North Sea’s Kittiwake crude assayed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 55.
“Worldwide Construction Report: Refineries,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Oct. 28, 1991, p. 56.
Hearn, Graham, “Coping with electrostatic hazards,” Chemical
Engineering, Nov. 1991, p. 188.
Turner, J., “Accessing and manipulating simulation data in
spreadsheets,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov.
1991, p. 123.
Tarbutton, A. and Salazar, M., “A global panorama of the natural
gas industry,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 11, Nov.
1991, p. 146C.
“Malaysian upgrade delayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 11, 1991,
p. 24.
“Long delayed Soviet refinery starts up,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov.
18, 1991, p. 30.
Jones, R.L., “U.S. refiners will face a year of challenge,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 47.
Portal, G.M.A., “What the new year holds for European refiners,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 49.
Lenz, A.J., “Chemical industry output ‘to grow 5% in ’92’,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 50.
Tucker, R.L., “For E/Cs the ’92 message is ‘change with the
times’,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991,
p. 52.
Early II, W.F., “Wed regulatory compliance to long-term busi-
ness goals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec.
1991, p. 54.
Finley, H.F., “Productivity growth in the U.S. refining industry,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 55.
Robinson, R.I., “A major restructuring has started, or will,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 57.
Riley, K.G., “Petroleum refiners face major strategic decisions,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 58.
Chatha, A., “Fieldbus begins a new era in process control,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 59.
Yaws, C.L., “Calculate liquid heat capacity,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1991, p. 73.
TOC/INDEX
“End seen for high sulfur fuel oil in Europe,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 2, 1991, p. 21.
Manafi, Kambiz, “Simple refining complexity calculation tracks
regional trends,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 62.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Two important Saudi crudes assayed,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 2, 1991, p. 64.
“Samarec outlines $4 billion upgrading plans,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 9, 1991, p. 73.
“Europeans vying for German refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.
16, 1991, p. 21.
“Corpoven plans refinery in E. Venezuela,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 16, 1991, p. 35.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Recent and pending regulations push refiners
to the limit,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 16, 1991, p. 39.
“Plans changed for Bahrain refinery project,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 23, 1991, p. 18.
“Unocal completes purchase of part of Shell refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 26.
“Industry hits California reformulation move,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 26.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Tanasescu, Dumitru, “Romanian refining industry assesses re-
structuring,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 30, 1991, p. 89.
Bechman, Lawrence V., “How reliable is your safety system?,”
Chemical Engineering, Jan. 1992, p. 109.
“Esso Thailand schedules project to almost triple refinery capac-
ity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 13, 1992, p. 21.
“SBA plans to jump small refinery definition to 75,000 b/d
capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 20, 1992, p. 32.
“Elf group to buy German downstream assets,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 28.
“Amoco to seek buyer for refinery in Salt Lake City,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 30.
“Unease among Japanese refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 27,
1992, p. 38.
“Caltex signs pact to build Thailand’s fifth refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Jan. 27, 1992, p. 40.
“Petro-Canada to cut refining capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
3, 1992, p. 22.
“CIS to get more refining technologies,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb.
3, 1992, p. 24.
“Seven projects scheduled at Ashland refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 38.
“CERA: Refiners can cope with CAA requirements,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 17, 1992, p. 27.
“CIS refining faces tough year,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 17,
p. 40.
“BP to make lubes in Vietnam,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2,
1992, p. 29.
“Sinopec outlines progress,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992,
p. 30.
“Statoil to expand Danish plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2,
1992, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., “East Zeit Mix and Dulang crudes assayed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 46.
“Kuwaiti refinery repairs eyed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 9, 1992,
p. 31.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
“California a dangerous pattern for action on emissions reduc-
tion,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 16, 1992, p. 24.
“Chevron details Port Arthur revamp,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar.
16, 1992, p. 30.
“New NPRA chairman sees more rationalization among U.S.
refiners,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Four California OCS crudes assayed,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 67.
“Chevron drops methanol auto fuels program,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 34.
“Environmental regulatory vise squeezing U.S. refiners,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 21.
“Multibillion dollar upgrade ahead for Canadian refiners,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 22.
“Fire hits two Houston area downstream complexes,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 35.
“Pdvsa earmarks $3.2 billion for two refinery projects,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Apr. 13, 1992, p. 40.
“Japanese firms to hike deep conversion,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 13, 1992, p. 40.
“Chem Systems study outlines U.S. refiners strategic options,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 20, 1992, p. 32.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Malaysian, Canadian, Saudi crudes assayed,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 27, 1992, p. 44.
Olson, Kevin R., “How to remove fouling solids cooling water,”
Chemical Engineering, May 1992, p. 155.
Finley, H.F., “Productivity growth in U. S. refining industry,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, 1992, p. 74-c.
“Gas process handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 1992,
p. 83.
Wadsworth, P.A. and Villalanti, D.C., “Pinpoint hydrocarbon
types,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 05, May 1992, p.
109.
Duncan, Norman E., “Conversion index helps refiner assess
relative profitability,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 4, 1992, p. 108.
“Coastal unit eyes move into Romania,” Oil & Gas Journal, May
11, 1992, p. 23.
“Conoco schedules consolidation of U.S. lubricants,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 26.
“Philippines’ downstream sector poised for growth,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 11, 1992, p. 28.
“C.I.S.-U.S. venture to offer process services,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, May 11, 1992, p. 31.
“Canadian R&M restructuring to pay dividends,” Oil & Gas
Journal, May 25, 1992, p. 18.
“Thai, Aussie refining contracts let,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 25,
1992, p. 21.
“U.S. refiners lament lack of final CAA rules,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 25, 1992, p. 26.
“Mobil refineries set plant records for 1991,” Oil & Gas Journal,
June 1, 1992, p. 46.
Bellomo, P.J., “OSHA safety regulation calls for step-by-step
approach,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 1, 1992, p. 49.
“Chevron’s ‘clean’ diesel gets California nod; Unocal mostly opts
out of state’s diesel market,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 8, 1992,
p. 30.
“Gasoline reformulation to roil petrochem markets,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 8, 1992, p. 32.
“Russian refining reflects old ways,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 15,
1992, p. 24.
281
TOC/INDEX
“Amoco to retain Utah refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 22,
1992, p. 30.
Gallun, S.E., et al., “Use open equations for better models,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 07, July 1992, p. 78.
“Agreement near on upgrader overrun,” Oil & Gas Journal, July
13, 1992, p. 19.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “New correlation predicts density of pe-
troleum fractions,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 13, 1992, p. 49.
“Singapore refiners in midst of huge construction campaign,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 23.
“Lyondell plans to hike heavy crude runs at Houston,” Oil &
Gas Journal, July 20, 1992, p. 41.
“Corpus Christi refinery due new units,” Oil & Gas Journal, July
27, 1992, p. 55.
“Problems persist for French refining sector,” Oil & Gas Journal,
July 27, 1992, p. 107.
Bergmann, E.P., et al., “Risk management success calls for some
hard decisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug.
1992, p. 45.
Eley, C., “Compliance audit checklist for hazardous chemicals,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug. 1992, p. 97.
Mallett, R., “Rate your risk management plans,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug. 1992, p. 111.
Wong, E.W., et al., “Produce high purity VCM product,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug. 1992, p. 129.
Vasquez, J.J., et al., “How to estimate Rvp of blends,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug. 1992, p. 135.
“Pdvsa buys more downstream assets,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.
3, 1992, p. 24.
“Oxygenates to hike gasoline price,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 3,
1992, p. 28.
“Elf group buys E. German R&M assets,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 3, 1992, p. 31.
“Mobil’s Aussie refinery revamp okayed,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 17, 1992, p. 36.
“Chevron plans revamp of Richmond refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 39.
“Fish agrees to settle citations issued by OSHA,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 17, 1992, p. 42.
“Two new units cut refinery costs at Puertollano,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 21.
Collinge, J. Alan, “Auditing reduces accidents by eliminating
unsafe practices,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 38.
“Ashland outlines $261 million in refinery unit construction,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 20.
“Pemex to acquire interest in Shell Texas refinery,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 28.
Jamialahmadi, Mohamad and Muller-Steinhagen, Hans, “Com-
puter program designs packed columns,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Aug. 31, 1992, p. 33.
Spranza, F.G., “Plant security checklist,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 71, No. 09, Sept. 1992, p. 71.
Philley, J., “Investigate incidents with MRC,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 71, No. 09, Sept. 1992, p. 77.
“Mothballed Canadian refineries marked for reuse,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 14, 1992, p. 42.
“Star agrees to spill settlement,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 14,
1992, p. 47.
“India beckons participants in burgeoning refining sector,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 25.
282 References
“Amoco producing improved premium for Midwest market,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 38.
“National oil companies’ presence to hike U.S. refining compe-
tition,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept 21, 1992, p. 40.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Assays of two Saudi crudes updated,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Sept 28, 1992, p. 91.
Mak, H.Y., “Gas plant converts amine unit to MDEA-based
solvent,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992,
p. 91.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 1,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 10, Oct. 1992, p. 122-C.
“Petrochem industry expands North American MTBE capac-
ity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 34.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
“Texaco preparing to bring parts of Wilmington refinery back
on stream,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, p. 29.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, p. 77.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—Refineries,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, p. 91.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—Gas Processing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1992,
p. 114.
Shah, G.C., “Improve activated carbon bed absorber opera-
tions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p.
61.
Catena, D., Dietz, J.T. and Traubert, T.D., “Create intelligent
P&IDs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992,
p. 65.
Stippick, J.A., “How to check welding procedures without
becoming an expert,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11,
Nov. 1992, p. 93.
Reddi, S.V., “Thermal insulation safety, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 100-C.
McMarlin, R.M. and Gerrish, R.W., “Can your ‘noncombusti-
ble’ insulation burn?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No.
11, Nov. 1992, p. 101.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
“Nelson-Farrar Cost Index,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1992,
p. 79; Dec. 7, 1992, p. 74; Jan. 4, 1993, p. 38; Feb. 1, 1993,
p. 44; Mar. 1, 1993, p. 70; Apr. 5, 1993, p. 62; May 3, 1993,
p. 96; June 7, 1993, p. 36; July 5, 1993, p. 50; Aug. 2, 1993,
p. 78.
Baas, J. and Warner, R., “How much ‘life’ is left in your olefin
unit?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1992,
p. 81.
Humphrey, Jimmy L. and Seibert, A. Frank, “New horizons in
distillation,” Chemical Engineering, Dec. 1992, p. 86.
Wong, W.Y., “Capacity credit calculation method for exchanger
tube rupture,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 12, Dec.
1992, p. 89.
“Shell starts up two projects at Essex refinery,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Dec. 21, 1992, p. 31.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE REFINING REPORT—
Worldwide refiners make big move into modernization,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Dec. 21, 1992, p. 41.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE REFINING REPORT—Refin-
ing survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 21, 1992, p. 52.
TOC/INDEX
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 feedstream?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan. 1993, p. 117.
Zoller, L. and Esping, J., “Use ‘What-If ’ method for process
hazard analysis,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01, Jan.
1993, p. 132-B.
“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 sys-
tems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 02, Feb. 1993,
p. 71.
Kobyakov, A.I., “Include heuristics in protection systems,” Hy-
drocarbon 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.
Golden, S.W., et al., “FCC main fractionator revamps,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 77.
Forsell, K.A., “Protect motors with solid-state overloads,” Hy-
drocarbon 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 september,”
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 Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 67.
King, Myke, “OIL MOVEMENTS—Conclusion: Integrating
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 SURVEY—
Gas Processing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 79.
“Ashland refinery units take shape,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 19,
1993, p. 20.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 capac-
ity,” Oil & Gas Journal, May 10, 1993, p. 36.
“China expands refining sector to handle booming oil demand,”
Oil & Gas Journal, May 10, 1993, p. 40.
“Lyondell, Citgo join for refinery project,” Oil & Gas Journal,
May 17, 1993, p. 23
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.
“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 gasoline
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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 capaci-
ties 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.
283
TOC/INDEX
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 reme-
dial decisions,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug.
1993, p. 111.
McSween, T.E., “Improve your safety program with a behavioral
approach,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug.
1993, p. 119.
Dougan, K.W. and Reilly, M.C., “Quantitative reliability meth-
ods improve plant uptime,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72,
No. 08, Aug. 1993, p. 131.
Robinson, J.E., “Underground storage tank: Removal vs. aban-
donment,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 08, Aug.
1993, p. 149.
“French, U.S. companies merge catalyst lines,” Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, 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 pro-
gram,” 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 team-
work,” 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, downturn,”
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 Proc-
essing, 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. refiners,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1993, p. 29.
284
“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 RE-
PORT—Refineries,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 59;
Apr. 11, 1994, p. 65.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—Petrochemicals,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993,
p. 71; Apr. 11, 1994, p. 78.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 18, 1993, p. 84;
Apr. 11, 1994, p. 89.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT—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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 89.
Doane, R.C., “Rate pumps for viscous crudes quickly,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 94.
Lichtblau, J.H., “Forecasting oil trends: mirror or telescope?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 148J.
West, J., “Employees feel ‘empowered’,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 11, Nov. 1993, p. 155.
Vervalin, C.H., “Views from 1993 ECC conference,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 41.
Abbott, K.W., “TQM can improve project control,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 44.
Kerridge, A.E., “Project-manage the owner/client,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 decisions,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 12, Dec. 1993, p. 132.
Rhodes, Anne K., “World crude capacity stays flat while conver-
sion capability rises again,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 20, 1993,
p. 37.
Bell, Laura, “WORLDWIDE REFINING REPORT,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Dec. 20, 1993, p. 46.
References
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?,” Hydro-
carbon 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,” Hy-
drocarbon 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 Proc-
essing, 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,” Hydrocarbon
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 ‘manage’
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 ‘manage’
the contract, Part 2,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 04,
Apr. 1994, p. 141.
“Russian refineries tap western technology,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Apr. 25, 1994, p. 24.
Vervalin, C.H., “A view of ACHEMA ’94 conference,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 47.
Peterson, F.M. and Johnson, J.E., “What’s ahead for propylene
supply?,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994,
p. 61.
Rothman, S.N., “Asian petrochemicals: What impact?,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 64.
Crocco, J.R., “The global outlook for methanol,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 66C.
Thomas, J.H., “MTBE: Its impact and promise,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 66G.
Houston, J.H., “Detergents: The scene is changing,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 66U.
Wallace, S.J. and Hunter, B.L., “Optimize facility-siting evalu-
ations,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994,
p. 85.
Fesharaki, F., “Oil prices in a new light,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 73, No. 05, May 1994, p. 143.
“China’s refiners face massive overhaul, expansion to meet de-
mand 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.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 per-
spective,” 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 Jour-
nal, 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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 39.
Nasr, A., “Sealless pumps: Limitations and developments,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 63.
Fusaro, P.C., “Asia Pacific refining: What’s next?,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 66C.
Ranade, S.M., “Improve sizing for relief valves,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 07, July 1994, p. 83.
DeSilva, Francis, “The ion exchange deal,” Chemical Engineer-
ing, July 1994, p. 86.
Molad, C., “New way to swap engineering data,” Hydrocarbon
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 producing
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.
“Refinery, petrochemical plant injuries decline,” Oil & Gas
Journal, July 25, 1994, p. 102.
Kerridge, A.E., “A project manager’s approach to quality man-
agement,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug.
1994, p. 156C.
Vervalin, C.H., “When you look for employment...,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 08, Aug. 1994, p. 163.
“Study sparks German call for benzene reduction in European
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 debot-
tlenecks 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.
285
TOC/INDEX
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 correlation
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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 Process-
ing, Vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1994, p. 98C.
Munisteri, J. G., “E/Cs must reengineer for survival,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 CONSTRUCTION
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 Journal, 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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 frac-
tionators,” Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 21, 1994, p. 72.
Swain, J. H. and Maddux, M., “Improve your operations train-
ing,” 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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 Process-
ing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 81.
Vervalin, C. H., “Views from the ’94 ECC conference,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 86.
Menzies, J., “How VENNET improved a project,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 1994, p. 89.
Woodruff, D. M., “When TQM isn’t working,” Hydrocarbon
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.
286 References
Williamson, Michelle, and Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE
REFINING REPORT: World crude capacity, conversion ca-
pability inch upward,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 19, 1994,
p. 45.
Kimmons, R. L., “Team-plan for project success,” Hydrocarbon
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 QUAL-
ITY—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 QUAL-
ITY—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 as-
sayed,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 23, 1995, p. 48.
Woodruff, D. M., “Make better decisions,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 151.
Kimmons, R. L., “Be prepared for ’T-day’,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 74, No. 02, Feb. 1995, p. 155.
Gomez, Jose Vicente, “New equation predicts viscosity of un-
known hydrocarbon vapors,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 6, 1995,
p. 60.
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 Opera-
tions,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 13, 1995, p. 54.
“Mobil team plans Nigerian NGL project,” Oil & Gas Journal,
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...,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 03, Mar. 1995, p. 186E.
Woodruff, D. M., “Become a better problem solver,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 regulations
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.
TOC/INDEX
“Concawe reports reduced emissions from European refineries,”
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 fu-
ture,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 47.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
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 Argen-
tine crudes in world market,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 17,
1995, p. 58.
Kerridge, A. E., “Measure engineering performance,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995, p. 108A.
Moore, C. W., “Reduce pollution costs through better process
design,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 05, May 1995,
p. 115.
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 tech-
nical 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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 06, June 1995, p. 41.
Sajid, M., “Strategic management of technology,” Hydrocarbon
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 ques-
tions for U.S. refining industry,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 5,
1995, p. 24.
Crow, Patrick, “WATCHING GOVERNMENT: More contro-
versy 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 PROCESSING
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,” Hydrocarbon
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.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 refin-
ery 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 de-
mand,” Oil & Gas Journal, July 31, 1995, p. 76.
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?,” Hydro-
carbon 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 assur-
ance system,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep.
1995, p. 66C.
Woodruff, D. M., “Become a low cost, high-quality producer,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 09, Sep. 1995, p. 211.
Boduszynski, Mieczyslaw M., Grudoski, David A., Rechsteiner,
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,” Hydro-
carbon 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,” Hydro-
carbon 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 catalysts,”
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 expansion,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1995, p. 78.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Refining,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 16, 1995, p. 65.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 16, 1995, p. 95.
287
TOC/INDEX
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
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 Process-
ing, 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 con-
tractor,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995,
p. 69.
Smith, R. A., “Pay-for-performance contracting,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 77.
Mashburn, B. S. and Bailey, C. D., “A quality assurance program
for refurbished process plants,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 81.
Kusha, A. A., “Lessons learned from relocation,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 74, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 85.
Yaws, Carl, Sheth, Sachin D., and Han, Mei, “New thermody-
namic 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: Colom-
bia’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 con-
version 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 competi-
tiveness,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996,
p. 51.
Bascur, O. A. and Kennedy, J. P., “Measuring, managing and
maximizing refinery performance,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 111.
Nath, B. K., “Methanol plant applies SPC: a case study,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 01, Jan. 1996, p. 116B.
Woodruff, D. M., “How to effectively manage change,” Hydro-
carbon 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 Journal,
Jan. 8, 1996, p. 54.
“General Motors gives RFG the OK,” Oil & Gas Journal, Jan.
8, 1996, p. 42.
288 References
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?,” Hydrocar-
bon 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, Nicholas,
“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 gath-
ering 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.
“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 Jour-
nal, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 37.
“Economic forces push down selling prices of U.S. refineries,”
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.
TOC/INDEX
“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 petrochemi-
cal plants,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04, Apr.
1996, p. 82F.
Roup, J. P., “The planning and scheduling process,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 Rus-
sian oil,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996, p. 30.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE: Gas processing,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 8, 1996,
p. 86.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
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 Jour-
nal, 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.
Liesenring Jr., Roger L., “Low sulfur diesel controversy contin-
ues,” 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 deregu-
lation,” 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.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 Journal,
June 3, 1996, p. 41.
Lewis, Everett, “India’s refining prospects linked to economic
growth,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 10, 1996, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “GUIDE TO WORLD CRUDES: Prelimi-
nary 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 perform-
ances,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 07, July 1996, p.
66C.
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 Jour-
nal, 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 operabil-
ity,” 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.
289
TOC/INDEX
“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.
XXI. LIGHT-OIL CAT PROCESSING
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Desai, P.H., et al., “Enhance gasoline yield and quality,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 51.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 67.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 72, No. 03, Mar. 1993, p. 89.
Cooper, B.H., et al., “Hydrotreating catalysts for diesel aromat-
ics saturation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June
1993, p. 83.
Liers, J., et al., “Reforming using erionite catalysts,” Hydrocar-
bon 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 producing
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.
XXII. ISOMERIZATION
Hoffman, H.L., “Refining catalyst market ’91,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 02, Feb. 1991, p. 37.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
290
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Monfils, J.J., et al., “Upgrade isobutane to isobutylene,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 71, No. 02, Feb. 1992, p. 47.
“Lyondell develops one step isobutylene process,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 23, 1992, p. 42.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Anon, “Refining Handbook ’92,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol.
71, No. 11, Nov. 1992, p. 133.
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 producing
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 catalysts,”
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.
XXIII. AROMATICS EXTRACTION
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
References
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Goelzer, Alan R., Ram, Sanjeev, Hernandez-Robinson, Agustin,
Chin, Arthur A., Harandi, Mohsen N., and Smith, C. Morris,
“Refiners have several options for reducing 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 con-
version 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 fundamentals,”
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,” Hydrocarbon
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 forecast-
ing,” 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-va-
por collection and disposal system,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
Vol. 74, No. 08, Aug. 1995, p. 89.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
Catalyst suppliers consolidate further, offer more catalysts,”
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.
Hennessey, P. M., et al, “Use coalescing methods to solve emul-
sion problems,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 74, No. 11, Nov.
1995, p. 107.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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 accurately,”
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,” Hydro-
carbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 02, Feb. 1996, p. 59.
Hunter, M. L., “How to renovate a 50-yr-old wastewater treat-
ing 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 Processing, Vol.
75, No. 07, July 1996, p. 45.
Anderson, R., et al, “Use proactive permitting to expand capac-
ity,” 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.
XXIV. VISBREAKING
Wood, J.R. and Marino, C.K., “Design improvements increase
run length,” Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 25, 1991, p. 42.
Castellanos, J., Cano, J.L., del Rosal, R., Briones, V.M. and
Mancilla, R.L., “Kinetic model predicts visbreaker yields,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p. 76.
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991, p.
84.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 millon
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Toman, Jerry J., and Beckman, Robert F., “Visbreaker hardware
has alternate uses in low-sulfur fuel era,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Mar. 22, 1993, p. 66.
Iscovici, R.S., “Kinetic model solves visbreaker constraint con-
trol problem,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 05, May
1994, p. 109.
“Refining Processes ’94,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No.
11, Nov. 1994, p. 83.
XXV. HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
Shaver, K.G., et al., “Membranes recover hydrogen,” Hydrocar-
bon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, June 1991, p. 77.
291
TOC/INDEX
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
“Cleaning up gasoline will increase refinery hydrogen demand,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 92.
Johansen, T., “Trends in hydrogen plant design,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 71, No. 08, Aug. 1992, p. 119.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Baade, W.F., et al., “Generate hydrogen for reformulated gaso-
line and clean diesel,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01,
Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, 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 de-
mand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 60.
Fleming, G.K. and Dupuis, G.E., “Hydrogen membrane recov-
ery 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 environment,”
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.
Christensen, T.S. and Primdahl, I.I., “Improve syngas produc-
tion using autothermal reforming,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
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 catalysts,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 35.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation — 1995,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 37.
XXVI. SULFUR PLANT OPERATIONS
“Annual refining survey,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 18, 1991,
p. 84.
Chou, J.S., et al., “Mercaptans affect Claus units,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 39.
292
Simek, I.O., “Sulfur unit circulates catalyst,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, Vol. 70, No. 04, Apr. 1991, p. 45.
Thrash, L.A., “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION RE-
PORT: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 15, 1991, p. 79.
Thrash, L.A., “World sulfur derived from oil, gas production,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 22, 1991, p. 85.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST SURVEY:
Survey shows over 1,000 refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 14, 1991, p. 43.
“Worldwide Construction Report: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 28, 1991, p. 77.
“Ashland refinery starts up two sulfur units,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 28, 1991, p. 95.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Worldwide refining capacity at 75 million
b/d level,” Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 33.
Thrash, Lou Ann, “Worldwide Refining Report,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Dec. 23, 1991, p. 39.
Hardison, L.C. and Ramshaw, D.E., “H2S to S: Process im-
proved,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan. 1992, p. 89.
Nasato, Elmo, Goar, B. Gene, and Boorsboom, J., “Canadian
retrofit meets stiffer sulfur recovery regulations,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Feb. 10, 1992, p. 61.
Heisel, M.P. and Marold, F.J., “How new tail gas treater increases
Claus unit throughput,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 71, No.
03, Mar. 1992, p. 83.
Bell, Laura, “World sulfur production,” Oil & Gas Journal, July
20, 1992, p. 96.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, 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 Processing,
Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr. 1993, p. 67.
Felten, J.R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environment,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 06, June 1993, p. 82-B.
Judd, Bill, “Mercaptan removal rate exceeds 99% at Canadian
gas plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 81.
“Process for H2S removal from low-volume gas streams tested,”
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1993, p. 70.
Schendel, Ronald, “SO2-generation process can double refinery
Claus unit capacity,” Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 27, 1993, p. 63.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
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.
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.
References
TOC/INDEX
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 CONSTRUCTION
REPORT: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 17, 1994, p. 97.
Swain, Edward J., “SULFUR, COKE, AND CRUDE QUAL-
ITY—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-effective
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 CONSTRUCTION
REPORT: Sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 88.
Rhodes, Anne K., “WORLDWIDE CATALYST REPORT:
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.
Shuai, Xiaoshan, and Meisen, Axel, “New correlations and
physical properties of elemental sulfur,” Oil & Gas Journal,
Oct. 16, 1995, p. 50.
Williamson, Michelle, “WORLDWIDE CONSTRUCTION
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.
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 CONSTRUCTION
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.
XXVII. POLYMERIZATION
Roffel, B. and Chin, P.A., “Fuzzy control of a polymerization
reactor,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 70, No. 06, June 1991,
p. 47.
Rhodes, Anne K., “Suppliers introduce more than 120 new
refining catalysts,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 12, 1992, p. 41.
“OGJ international refining-catalyst compilation,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Oct. 11, 1993, p. 44.
Sedriks, W., “Understanding the petrochemical cycle, Part 1,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 73, No. 03, Mar. 1994, p. 49.
1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology
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,” Hydrocarbon
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.
Aubrey, D. C., “Use performance indicators to improve forecast-
ing,” 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 Processing, Vol.
75, No. 07, July 1996, p. 45.
XXVIII. HYDROGEN
“Texaco, Carbide form hydrogen plant venture,” Oil & Gas
Journal, Mar. 30, 1992, p. 28.
“Cleaning up gasoline will increase refinery hydrogen demand,”
Oil & Gas Journal, July 27, 1992, p. 92.
“Praxair extending hydrogen pipeline in Southeast Texas,” Oil
& Gas Journal, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 26.
Baade, W.F., et al., “Generate hydrogen for reformulated gaso-
line and clean diesel,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 01,
Jan. 1993, p. 77.
Ladebeck, J., “Improve methanol synthesis,” Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, 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 de-
mand,” Oil & Gas Journal, Mar. 22, 1993, p. 60.
Fleming, G.K. and Dupuis G.E., “Hydrogen membrane recov-
ery estimates,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 72, No. 04, Apr.
1993, p. 61.
Felten, J.R., et al., “Residual fuels in a clean-fuels environment,”
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.
293
TOC/INDEX

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.
Hohmann, F. W., “Improve steam reformer performance,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 03, Mar. 1996, p. 71.
“Gas Processes ’96,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 75, No. 04,
Apr. 1996, p. 103.

294 References
TOC/INDEX

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology

Registration List

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Aamand, Carsten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical University of Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . Lyngby, Denmark
Abbott, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Abuali, Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Arabian Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia
Ache, Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ackman, Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Acosta, Alfredo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Adair, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Aguayo, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Aklestad, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Falls, MT
Al Atebi, Abdullah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Arabian Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rabigh, Saudi Arabia
Al-Houti, Abdul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Ahmadi, Kuwait
Al Maskary, Adil K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oman Refinery Company LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . Sultanate of Oman
Al Otaibi, Abdullah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rabigh, Saudi Arabia
Al-Raigi, Ahmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Al-Rehaili, Khalid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Al Shayban, Mohsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia
Albert, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Alberts, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Albertson, Clarita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parsons Process Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, CA
Alello, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allied Signal Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Ali Akbar, Nabeel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Allen, Elizabeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company LP . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Allen, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Allen, Tandy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Allinson, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Allsmiller, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Alverson, Ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ambardar, Om . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anderson, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Anderson, Kirk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Anderson, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst & Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Anderson, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Andrews, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katy, TX
Aoyama, Kazuo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tonen Technology K.K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Arends, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Aruba Refining Company, N.V. . . . . . . . San Nicolas, Aruba
Armbrester, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Arndt, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Arnold, Victor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arolfo, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arrighi, Jeri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arrighi, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Absorbants & Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Arthur, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Aru, Guido . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westminster, CO
Aubrey, Morton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Avery, Clifford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ayres, Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Baade, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Babaian-Kibala, Elizabeth . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 295

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Bacon, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Baden, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheshire, UK
Baginski, Victor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Bailey, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Baker, Lori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Bakhash, Hamza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Shuaiba, Kuwait
Baldassari, Mario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABB Lummus Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bloomfield, NJ
Balko, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Bamon, Layton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lincs, UK
Bantanidis, Dimitris . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rheinmunster, Germany
Barba, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amerada Hess Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woodbridge, NJ
Barbarine, Joy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Barclay, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety-Kleen Oil Recovery Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . East Chicago, IN
Barfield, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dakota Catalyst Products, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Barker, Ellen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products Company . . . . . . . . . Rodeo, CA
Barloewen, Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Barlow, Raymon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Barry, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Barry, Ruberd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria Isla (Curacao) S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curacao, Neth. Antilles
Barsby, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Recovery Canada Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Bartakovits, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UCISCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Bartek, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Littleton, CO
Bartholic, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BARCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watchung, NJ
Bartsch, Helmet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wintershall AG - Erdol-Raffinerie . . . . . . . . . . Lingren, Germany
Basconi, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bawazir, Adel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Bayse, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serv-Tech, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Becker, Myron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers’ Co-operative Refineries Ltd. . . . . . . . Regina, Saskatchewan
Belt, Barbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ben, Clifton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bennett, Diane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Berg, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
Berkey, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia, CA
Berman, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Bermudez, Oscar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Bernhagen, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foster Wheeler Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bertheau, Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puebla, Mexico
Bertus, Brent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Berzins, Valdis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bhore, Nazeer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Bierig, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
Binford, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Bingham, Emmett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bingham, Gwendelyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convent, LA
Bird, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem Canada, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakville, Ontario
Birnbaum, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danbury, CT
Bischoff, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Catalyst, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Friendswood, TX
Bishop, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Black, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Blake, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Champion Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Blashka, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Blew, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Boardman, Shaun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Fareham, UK
Bochow, Carl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Boczar, Ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Bodnar, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Bogert, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bolton, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woking, UK

296 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Bonne, Raimond L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrington, UK
Boone, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Tracerco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Borgard, Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bottomley, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stewart & Bottomley, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Boudreau, Bonni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Bovo, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bowerman, Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Bowman, Elaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Boyker, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Bracero, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Bracho, Nicolas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Brahn, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bredehoft, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Breeding, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products Corp. . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Breidigan, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALCOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minneapolis, MN
Bridle, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakville, Ontario
Brierley, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Husky Oil Operations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lloydminster, Sask.
Britton, Carolyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Brooks, Ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Brown, Manfred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, UK
Brown, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Brown, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pall Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . East Hills, NY
Brown, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Brown, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concord, CA
Brun, Claude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Aquitaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lacq, France
Brunson, Ross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Bryson, M. Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Bucior, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Tracerco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bucko, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Octel America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Buerckun, Keith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robinson, IL
Buffington, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bullard, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Burgard, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Burger, Barbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Burgio, Karin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Burkes, Todd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weskem-Hall Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Bustamante, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paramount Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paramount, CA
Butlig, Tony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kern Oil & Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Bakersfield, CA
Buziuk, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Bybee, Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CEntry Constructors & Engineers . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Caballero, Roberto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fomento du Products Quimicos . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Campagna, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refining Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Campbell, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Campbell, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Cannon, Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Canziani, Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria San Lorenzo S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buenos Aires, Argentina
Caplan, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Technology & Management . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Carbonneau, Andre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Ltee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Romuald, Quebec
Carlisle, Edwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Carls, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Carney, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hart Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Caro, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braithwaite, LA
Carr, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campbellville, Ontario
Carson, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Casey, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Casey, Pete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Casmore, Johnny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Castillo, Ricardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 297

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Castro, Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil and Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Catchpole, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
Cavanaugh, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Chacon, Rodolfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Chakravarty, Dipak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Delhi, India
Challand, Tim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chambers, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT EUROPE, b.v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . London, UK
Champion, Skip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Chan, Edwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Chapin, Lark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Charles, Winston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago . . . . . . Trinidad, West Indies
Chavez, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Chavez, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Paso Refinery, L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Paso, TX
Chiang, Willie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Ching, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Chittenden, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Chlapik, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Choi, Byung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Choong, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Chow, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parsons Process Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, CA
Christensen, Jon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Little America Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . Casper, WY
Christie, Patricia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Christman, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Chung, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Fountain Valley, CA
Churton, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Ciancio, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Citarella, Vicente . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Clancy, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Clanton, Buz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Clark, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surrey, UK
Clark, Greg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Clark, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fountain Valley, CA
Cleary, Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commerce City, CO
Coetzee, Johan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Cohu, Alvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Cole, Carol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Octane Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arlington, VA
Collins, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Conrad, Jon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Cook, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Cook, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
Cook, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Cook, Terrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Cooper, Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe A/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyngby, Denmark
Cooper, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nofsinger, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas City, MO
Corn, Joan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Corrao, Marianne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middough Associates Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Corres Juan, Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Int’l de Catalizadores de Impregnacion . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Corvini, Giacomo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Coser, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnetonka, MN
Crawley, Jake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Cromarty, Benjamin . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
Cropcho, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Cross, W. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TEK Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media, PA
Crouch, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Crowell, Greg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Crutcher, Brian Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Cruz, Claire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONDEA Vista Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Cruz, Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tula De Allende, Mexico

298 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Cupps, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Curtin, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Cutmore, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety-Kleen Oil Recovery Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . Breslau, Ontario
Dannemiller, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dardeer, Salah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Darden, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Das Bhupati, Kumar . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Delhi, India
Daughtry, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katy, TX
Davey, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Davis, Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Davis, Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Davis, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. E. Davis Chemical Corporation . . . . . . . . . . Oak Brook, IL
Davis, Roland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Davis, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurel, MT
Davison, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
de Bonneville, Jean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institut Francais du Petrole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris, France
De Capite, Augie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Catalysts & Adsorbents, Inc. . . . . . . . . Severna Park, MD
de la Cruz, Gloven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
de la Fuente, Emiliano . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
De Salazar, Olga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpoven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Dean, Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dean, Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Dean, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bound Brook, NJ
DeCorte, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danville, CA
Deering, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
DeHey, Jerome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Parsippany, NJ
del Bosque, Oscar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Delgado, Eddie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Delve, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serv-Tech, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
DeMarchi, Juan Simon . . . . . . . . . . . . AICC Consultores S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buenos Aires, Argentina
Demark, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Demmel, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newport Beach, CA
Dencker, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robinson, IL
Denk, Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Derousseau, Garry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Desai, Pankaj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Deshpande, V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Despot, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Witco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oildale, CA
DeVelasco, Ruben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
DeVicaris, Guy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boonton, NJ
Dharia, Dilip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
DiCamillo, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dickenson, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SFA Pacific, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mountain View, CA
Dirksen, Feike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT EUROPE, b.v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands
Dixon, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VECO Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bellingham, WA
Dodds, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Donahue, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Donahue, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Donovan, Maurice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhone-Poulenc Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cranbury, NJ
Dorn, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warren, PA
Dorr, Don . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Dougan, Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Douglass, Lynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Dover, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valley Forge, PA
Drago, Georgette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maraven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Drake, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Services Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Dreyfuss, Corey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Duddy, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 299

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Duethman, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Duffy, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHEMISOLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Dufresne, Pierre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte, France
Duncan Lima, Jorge Roberto . . . . . . . . . Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Dunn, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Duque, Jorge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intevep, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Teques, Venezuela
Dutcher, Dale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gay Engineering & Sales Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Dutchess, Keith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vancouver, WA
Dutra, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Dziuk, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Earhart, Jonathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moraga, CA
Earhart, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eaton, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Champion Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Eccleston, Nigel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunbury-on-Thames, UK
Eckert, Martha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Eckhoff, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Edelman, Allan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Edgar, M. Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Edmunds, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krotz Springs, LA
Elder, Kirk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Elk, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middough Associates Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Elliott, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Elliott, Phillip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Ellis, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Lakes Carbon Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Elvin, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Elvirao, Enrique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Veracruz, Mexico
Embry, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Enderberg, Nels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Anacortes, WA
England, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria, Australia
Engler, Brandon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Erickson, Karin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hart Publications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arlington, VA
Evans, Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tolland, CT
Ewach, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Buena Park, CA
Ewanusiw, Lynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Facker, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Faford, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, IL
Fahey, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Fearnside, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Feijoo, Gonzalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Feinberg, Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Felmlee, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Feltrop, B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Fenjves, Pedro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts-Proquim C.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Fernandez, Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Fersing, Marc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alma, MI
Fields, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fischer, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Fischer, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Fisher, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fulshear, TX
Fitt, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Flannigan, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fleming, Brad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RCT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Fletcher, Darrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Fletcher, Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fletcher, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Floyd, F. Mike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Floyd, Raymond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Foley, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

300 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Fontecilla J., Carlos Sergio . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vina del Mar, Chile
Forand, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Canada Products Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Quebec
Forero, Patricia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Forester, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Foster, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Frampton, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PetroFac, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
France, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nutter Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Franco, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Frantz, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alsi-Penta Zeolithe GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schwandorf, Germany
Frayne, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Frazier, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Frazier, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Texas Petrochemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geismar, LA
Frederickson, Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Freeze, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John G. Freeze Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seabrook, TX
Freiburger, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
French, Millard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Fritsche, G. Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron General Atomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Diego, CA
Fujimoto, Michio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Fujiwara, Kensuke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Fujiwara, Yoshihiko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Fulton, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Funk, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Catharines, Ontario
Furfaro, Angelo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Furr, Celeste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hart Publications/IRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Gaddis, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Gallogly, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oak Park, IL
Garcia, Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EG3, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bahia Blanca, Argentina
Gardner, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grand Junction, CO
Garrett, Glenn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gautschin, Nicole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Gautschy, Phillip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Gendler, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krupp Wilputte Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridgeville, PA
Gentry, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Geoffroy, Luc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levis, Quebec
George, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
George, Safa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gerdeman, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lima, OH
Geren, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gerhard, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Water Management Group . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Gerritsen, Leendert Arie . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands
Gerveshi, Luan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Gezer, Metin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ghodsi, Newsha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Gialella, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Gibbons, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Gibson, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Giles, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barnes & Click, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Gillespie, Shannon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Sunray, TX
Gillis, Brenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gilmore, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Gilson, E. Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Ginnett, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Glasford, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Glover, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Go, Tony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Godwin, Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Goelzer, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Goenner, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair, WY

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 301

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Goerlich, Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gomes, Jefferson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gomez, Martin Eugenio . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria San Lorenzo S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Lorenzo, Argentina
Gonzalez, Efrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennwalt SA DE CV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tlalnepantla, Mexico
Gonzalez, Horacio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gonzalez, Rene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Technology & Management . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Goodman, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Goolsbee, Andy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gossard, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gottula, Todd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Goyal, Shri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Goytisolo, Jorge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Grace, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Graf, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Graham, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aluminum Company of America . . . . . . . . . . . Vidalia, LA
Graham, Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Granniss, Edwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Grant, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gravley, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Gray, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Greczek, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Greer, Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Gregory, Collin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Gregory, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Grieb, Ben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gayesco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larkspur, CA
Griffin, Leland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Falls, MT
Griffiths, Clive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrington, UK
Grisham, Bonnie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Griswold, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Grosboll, Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Guadarrama Ortiz, Jorge Alberto . . . . . . . Union Carbide Quimicos Y Plasticos . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Guglietta, Glenn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Guinan, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Navajo Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artesia, NM
Guirao Notario, Enrique . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salina Cruz, Mexico
Gunardson, Harold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Gurzo, Vincent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta, GA
Gutierrez, Luis Pedro . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lagoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judibana, Venezuela
Gyte, Curtis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . St. Albert, Alberta
Haar, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Habib, E. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia, MD
Habibullah, Arif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parsons Process Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, CA
Hachmuth, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Hadjiloizou, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hagen, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Hagh, Bijan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brown & Caldwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
Hahn, Suzanne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Anacortes, WA
Haley, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Hall, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lion Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, AR
Hallada, Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cyprus-Climax/Div. of CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . Ypsilanti, MI
Hallen, Ted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Halvorsen, Brad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hamann, Ernie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Hambleton, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guildford, UK
Hamelin, Demetri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syncrude Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort McMurray, Alberta
Hamilton, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago . . . . . . Trinidad, West Indies
Hammen, Douglass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hanna, Antoine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hannerup-Nielsen, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

302 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Hanower, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closter, NJ
Hansen, Bente . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe A/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyngby, Denmark
Hanson, Daryl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Hanson, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Harber, Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hargis, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Hariharan, Rajesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Harold, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Napa, CA
Harrington, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrington, UK
Harris, Ernest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Harris, Everette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Harrison, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum Technology Quarterly . . . . . . . . . . . London, UK
Hartley, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haverly Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summit, NJ
Hartley, Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lima, OH
Hartman, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Haslam, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Hastings, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Haugseth, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hauptmann, Marcus . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Haus, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Hausberger, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Hawkins, Gerard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Haywood, J. William . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Hazle, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Heater, Rex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hebert, Matthew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tru-Tec Division of Koch Engineering . . . . . . . . Concord, CA
Heck, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Hedrick, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Heimbaugh, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Heller, Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Heller, Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Hendricks, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buckman Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Hendricks, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Hendrickson, M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Hennings, Eric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Heredia, Veloz Agustin . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Hernandez, Ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Hernandez, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Herzog, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lima, OH
Higgins, Jeannie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Placid Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Allen, LA
Higgins, Terrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Higginson, Greg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem Canada, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Hilken, Brent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Hiller, Les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hillier, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Himes, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Hlozek, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hoang, Yen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Hoeffner, Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deer Park, TX
Hoffer, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Hoffman, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Hogan, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Hoh, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP Enterprises, Inc./HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Hojho, Nobuyoshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Holley, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unitex, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alvin, TX
Holmstrom, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Holt, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Holub, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsman Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 303

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Hong, Kwangha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HERA Corp., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seoul, Korea
Hooper, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foster Wheeler USA Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Clinton, NJ
Hoover, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Hoover, Ted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hopkins, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Hostetter, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Housenga, Brad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Howard, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Trexlertown, PA
Howard, Neil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Howell, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harding Lawson Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
Hsia, Chung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Huang, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Hufnagle, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hughes, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Hull, Randall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Humphries, Adrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hunkus, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Hunt, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hurley, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Hurst, Joyce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI-MET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Huskey, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Girt, NJ
Husted, Don . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Hutchison, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Huynh, Xoung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Hyatt, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Ierubino, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Igercich, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Imhoff, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Ingraham, L. Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Iqbal, Rashid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Irwin, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Ismail, Hussain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait National Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . Safat, Kuwait
Isom, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Izarraraz, Alicia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Jack, Doug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Jackson, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jackson, Ian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil International Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunbury-on-Thames, UK
Jackson, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Jackson, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mustang Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jacober, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Norco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Norco, LA
Jacobs, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hobbs, NM
Jacquier, Yves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte, France
Jaecker, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Jaffe, Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Jahn, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
James, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westminster, CO
Jandrasi, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jenkines, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Jenkins, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jenkins, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPR Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dickinson, TX
Jennings, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers’ Co-operative Refineries Ltd. . . . . . . . Regina, Saskatchewan
Jenson, Conrad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woods Cross, UT
Jerus, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Jezak, Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Jo, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tetra Engineering & Technology . . . . . . . . . . . Fullerton, CA
Jody, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
John, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX

304 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Johns, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Bakersfield, CA
Johnson, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Johnson, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Johnson, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Johnson, Elizabeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Johnson, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Johnson, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Johnson, Kurt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Johnson, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montana Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Falls, MT
Johnson, Tiffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jokubaitis, Linas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Jones, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Jones, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turner, Mason & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Jones, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Jones, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Jung, Heeju . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Juracek, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Kajioka, Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Kakehi, Kiyoshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT-PACIFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Kalota, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Karime, Mustafa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kasbaum, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kaye, Joshua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BHP Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kapolei, HI
Keady, Ginger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Keck, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Witco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bradford, PA
Kegler, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lunday Thagard Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Gate, CA
Kelly, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Kelly, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kendall, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kepler, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Kessler, Randy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Keys, Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Khurana, Vinay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Kickirillo, Rosy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kiliany, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Kilner, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalytica Advanced Technologies . . . . . . . . . . Mountain View, CA
Kilroy, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kilway, Allison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kim, Doyun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pavilion Technologies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Austin, TX
Kim, Hak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kim, Young Su . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LG-Caltex Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yosu, Korea
Kimbrell, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Kinal, Albert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robbinsville, NJ
King, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PCI Engineers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kirby, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fina Oil & Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Big Spring, TX
Kirkey, R. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corona, CA
Kliesch, Howard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treiber Controls Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Klimek, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Knight, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wexford, PA
Knipp, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Kohichi, Tanaka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurita Water Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Kohl, Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christy Refractories Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kolbush, Susan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Kooiman, Randall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Kotar, Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Kotulski, Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Kowalczyk, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refining Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheswick, PA
Kozlowski, Michelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Applied Research Corp. . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 305

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Kramer, Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Kreider, Keith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kremer, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Krishna, Ashok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Krueger, Artur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spirelf System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Krug, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kruse, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kuchta, Eugene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kuehler, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Kuo, Chia Ming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Kuroda, Randy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walnut Creek, CA
Kurt, Denis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Kurumado, Hiroshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hakuto Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Kusowski, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suncoc MidAmerica Marketing & Refining . . . . . Toledo, OH
Lacijan, Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Lal, Ravi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA
Lamm, Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rancho Dominguez, CA
Lamourelle, Alain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lane, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lannen, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lanouette, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . Westville, NJ
Larranga, Cesar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison/SAIMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Larsen, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Larson, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Girt, NJ
Lawrence, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lay, A. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Le, Binh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Leaman, Gordon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Lechner, Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Witco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bradford, PA
Ledden, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Lee, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Lee, J.N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Lee, Raymond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Leese, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allied Signal Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morristown, NJ
Lehan, Kathleen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Livermore, CA
Leicht, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Cooperative Refinery Assn. . . . . . . . . . McPherson, KS
Lemmon, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Lenoir, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amerada Hess Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woodbridge, NJ
LeRoy, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Refining & Chemicals Co. L.P. . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Lese, Henri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Letzsch, Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Leuenberger, Ernest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Levinbuk, Michail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CATACHEM COMPANY Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Lewandowski, Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Lewis, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Lien, Bjorn-Erik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statoil Mongstad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mongstad, Norway
Lim, Lee Hong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Limmex, Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ferndale, WA
Lindenfelser, Eric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Lindstrom, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . King of Prussia, PA
Lingman, Eric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Linnaila, Raimo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neste Oy/Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porvoo, Finland
Lipinski, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lippert, Regis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Girt, NJ
Lippert, Robin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bricktown, NJ
Lischinskaya, Anjelika . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Little, Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Little, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrocarbon Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elstead, UK

306 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Llanos, Zenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Lloyd, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Star Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware City, DE
Lloyd, Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago . . . . . . Trinidad, West Indies
Lockett, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Encon Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Far Hills, NJ
Lofton, Wesley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lombard, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Ana, CA
Long, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Long, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Long, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lopez, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Lordo, Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Lorin, Aaron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Love, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch/John Zink Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Lovei, Jozsef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Co. . . . . . . . . . . Szazmalombatta, Hungary
Loza, Guillermo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EG3, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bahia Blanca, Argentina
Lucena, Rene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpoven Petroleos de Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . Carabobo, Venezuela
Lucero, Bernardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RCT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Ludolph, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Lundberg, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Lynne, Laura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Lyons, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Maccherini. Massimo . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agip Petroli S.p.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome, Italy
Macha, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Otto H. York Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Maciula, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peerless Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penuelas, PR
Mackey, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Macy, Mike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stewart & Bottomley, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Maghazel, Hassan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Maharajh, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Travis Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Maholland, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Maiden, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville, NC
Majeski, Virgil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Makarewicz, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Malik, Tariq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Refining & Chemicals Co. L.P. . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Mambi, Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria Isla (Curacao) S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curacao, Neth. Antilles
Mann, Rodney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Manoharan, C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Oil Corporation Limited . . . . . . . . . . . New Delhi, India
Manolescu, Micky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Marak, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Marfone, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Marks, Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vidalia, LA
Marlin, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graham Manufacturing Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
Marquez, Luis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maraven, S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cardon, Venezuela
Marrelli, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woods Cross, UT
Martin, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Consulting Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Grapevine, TX
Martin, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Martin, Luc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Martinez, Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Masak, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Markham, Ontario
Masayuki, Otake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dia Research Institute, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Mascarich, R. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Mason, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Massey, Vince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mathur, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Mattenson, Kris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Matthews, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Mattos, Rogerio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrobras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rio De Sangiro, Brazil
Maxwell, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
May, Al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 307

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Mayeaux, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mayo, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McArthur, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeolyst International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McArthur, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
McCaffrey, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
McCloskey, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
McClung, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
McCulloch, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McDaniel, J. Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Triadd FCC Additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
McDaniel, Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company-Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . League City, TX
McDonald, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M Chemical Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
McDonald, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . M Chemical Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
McFadden, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
McFarlane, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McHugh, Terence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porocel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McKay, Dwight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
McLaughlin, Craig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McLean, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
McLeod, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
McNamara, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Fareham, UK
McRay, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
McWilliams, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfax, VA
Meakim, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Medina, Blanca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Medina, Marcial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX Refinacion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oaxoca, Mexico
Meek, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Mehrdad, Farideh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Meijs, Harry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Recovery Europe S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . Rodange, Luxembourg
Meldrum, Craig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giant Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bloomfield, NM
Mellgoza, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Memmott, Vincent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flying J Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Salt Lake, UT
Mendakis, Georges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Menegaz, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Menheere, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Chemicals (Canada), Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Menon, Raghu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Merenda, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KataLeuna GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paoli, PA
Merks, Lonnie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Three Rivers, TX
Merrell, Gene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Mettee, Elizabeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Metzler, Kurt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Michelini, Eugene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Miciotto, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Water Management Group . . . . . . Horsham, PA
Mihaly, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canton, OH
Millar, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Millensifer, Tom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powmet, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Littleton, CO
Miller, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITGO Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Miller, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serv-Tech, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Miller, Morten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Miller, Rik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Minyard, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Miranda, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Mirville, Romel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tosco Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linden, NJ
Mitchell, Donna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mitchell, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Hook, PA
Mogi, Junichi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toyo Engineering Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Chiba, Japan
Mohammed, Selvon . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago . . . . . . Trinidad, West Indies
Moore, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Moore, Simon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA

308 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Moote, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salt Lake City, UT
Morash, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment . . . . . . . Friday Harbor, WA
Moratilla, Waldemar . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennwalt S.A. de C.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tlalnepantla, Mexico
Morelli, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Container Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Moretta, Jon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Morgan, Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Morgan, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaGloria Oil and Gas Company . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler, TX
Morgan, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Morris, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Research & Technology Co. . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Morris, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Morris, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products PLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surrey, UK
Morris, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Morse, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acreon Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Mostaccero, Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Motilal, Pravin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engen Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durban, South Africa
Mountainland, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Moyse, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Moysiuk, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ontario
Mulraney, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Murcia, Alvaro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Murff, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Murff, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Murphy, Jane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Murphy, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Irvine, CA
Murray, Lance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Murthy, A. K. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Musgrave, Jonathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Mushiana, Mphedziseni . . . . . . . . . . . . Nat’l Petroleum Ref. of South Africa . . . . . . . . . Sasolburg, South Africa
Musumeci, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stratus Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Mutwalli, Abdul Aziz . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Myhre, Erland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Nadeau, Luc-Andre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TECSULT INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Quebec
Naeger, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Nagel, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy BioSystems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Nagele, Marc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Naiser, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison Molecular Sieves . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nakamura, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrocarbon Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nakayama, Takashi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum Energy Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Nash, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nassar, Emile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Natarajan, Raju . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydro-Chem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canton, GA
Nazar, Behzad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Nedanovich, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walk, Haydel & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Orleans, LA
Nelson, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Nelson, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Humble, TX
Nelson, Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nelson, Rufus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Neuman, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Newell, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nguyen, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Martinez Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . Martinez, CA
Nguyen, Vu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lunday Thagard Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Gate, CA
Niccum, Phillip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nicholas, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Nichols, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turner, Mason & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Nicholson, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrington, UK
Nielsen, Anders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe A/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyngby, Denmark
Nielsen, Lillian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chappaqua, NY
Nieskens, Mart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood River, IL

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 309

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Nitzel, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Niwa, Ryuji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurita Water Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Noble, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Nocca, Jean-Luc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Noges, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U. S. Oil & Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Tacoma, WA
Noppenberger, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . GE Environmental Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, PA
Norman, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porocel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Little Rock, AR
Norton, Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Norwood, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Nour, Emile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Novak, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port Allen, LA
Novak, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Nozemack, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Nuttall, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
O’Connell, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco LAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Obendorfer, Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Oddone, Rogerio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fabrica Carioca de Catalisadores . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Oldengott, Ralf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krupp Wilputte Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridgeville, PA
Olesen, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Olesky, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaRoche Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Oliver, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Olsen, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Olson, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Omang, Amy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Oostwouder, Shelby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Openshaw, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Billingham, UK
Orlando, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pall Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Ornes, Maria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lagoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judibana, Venezuela
Orozca, Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salamanca, Mexico
Orr, Allan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Orsolani, Pablo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Osborn, Keith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coffeyville, KS
Owen, Hartley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation-Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . Worton, MD
Owen, Ozie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Padron, Humberto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Paktinat, Javad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Palmer, R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mustang Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Palomares, Travis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Pannucci, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Parekh, Uday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Parker, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Parker, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stackmatch Ignition Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Parker, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia, CA
Partridge, Darren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Humber, UK
Paspek, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland, OH
Paszkowski, Lisa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Patel, Vasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Patton, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Paul, Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Lakes Carbon Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Paules, Jeffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Pavel, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pearce, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pedersen, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Pelati, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dow Chemical U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeport, TX
Pelham, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pelham Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phoenix, AZ
Pena, Joel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Penman, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Napa, CA
Pennels, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment . . . . . . . Durango, CO

310 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Penrose, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Humber, UK
Percy, Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chappaqua, NY
Perez Freyre, Jose Luis . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Perez, Maria Elena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Perez, Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cepsa-Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madrid, Spain
Perger, Jozsef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Co. . . . . . . . . . . Budapest, Hungary
Perich, Masako . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Peries, Jean-Pierre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Perkins, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fountain Valley, CA
Perlowski, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Persak, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Persohn, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corona, CA
Pesek, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pete, Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Peterman, Raymond . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glen Ellyn, IL
Peters, Harry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Packinox, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Peterson, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis, TN
Peterson, Randy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Peterson, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pfile, Martyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Phansalkar, Sunil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Picioccio, Kathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Pickard, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PFR Engineering Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Pieper, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Pierce, Eric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reisterstown, MD
Pierce, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Pinaire, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Pinto, Rodrigo Coelho . . . . . . . . . . . . Fabrica Carioca de Catalisadores . . . . . . . . . . . Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Piotter, Doug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
Plesko, Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cytec Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willow Island, WV
Plunkett, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plunkett & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Pedro, CA
Podratz, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murphy Oil USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meraux, LA
Poe, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Hartford, IL
Poe, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Poindexter, Jimmy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Poole, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Poon, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Potscavage, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Potter, Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Technology & Management Magazine . . . . . . Arlington, VA
Powell, A. Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO
Powell, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Powell, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Poythress, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Prada, Roberto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Prahin, Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco Chemical Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Price, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corhart Refractories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Prince, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Proops, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Pulido, Clara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Pusty, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Quain, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ann Arbor, MI
Quigley, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Quiles, Suzette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Quinn, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amoco Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naperville, IL
Quinn, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFP Enterprises, Inc./HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Quinn, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Quinones, Rosie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tehachapi, CA
Radcliffe, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Asia Pacific Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 311

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Raghunathan, Guruswamy . . . . . . . . . . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. . . . . . . . . Bombay, India
Ragsdale, Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Rahimtoola, Rafique . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National City, CA
Rahmim, Isaac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Raina, J.L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Oil Corporation Limited . . . . . . . . . . . Mathura, India
Rajagopalan, Kuppuswami . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia, MD
Raju, P.A.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. . . . . . . . . Bombay, India
Ramachandran, Ram . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Ramirez Cerecedo, Eusebio . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Ramirez, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria de Petroleo Concon S.A. . . . . . . . . . . Concon, Chile
Randle, Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Ana, CA
Rasmussen, Henrik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ratliff, Katy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Rauschning, Dorian . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Ravi Chandran, Kothandaraman . . . . . . . Madras Refineries Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madras, India
Rawat Bachan, Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Institute of Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dehradun, India
Redini, Corrado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agip Petroli S.p.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome, Italy
Reed, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Reid, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Reitz, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horsham, PA
Remigio, Clarissa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Rench, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Renshaw, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Respess, Sandy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Revell, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Reverdy, Francois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Packinox, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reisterstown, MD
Reymann, Lynda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Reynolds, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Rhodes, Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil & Gas Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Rice, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Hartford, IL
Riedl, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, KS
Riggs, Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Sunray, TX
Rios, Wendy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Foothill Ranch, CA
Rivero, Rene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROQUIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caracas, Venezuela
Rizakos, Apostolos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hellenic Aspropyrgos Refinery SA . . . . . . . . . . Athens, Greece
Roberts, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Roberts, Hugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Robertson, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Robertson, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Roddey, J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Shreveport, LA
Rodriguez D., Jose Luis . . . . . . . . . . . . Lagoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judibana, Venezuela
Rodriguez, Jorge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX Refinacion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tamaulipas, Mexico
Rodriguez Otar, Ezequiel . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX Refinacion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salamanca, Mexico
Rodriguez Villar, Jorge . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Roesch, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfax, VA
Rolandelli, Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Romenesko, Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Romero, Sim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Ronnander, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Rosas Jaramillo, Jose Antonio . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Rose, Ted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Rosen, Erwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Rosenthal, Joel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Ross, J. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ross, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . El Dorado, KS
Rosso, J. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gemini Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Santa Ana, CA
Roth, Dane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNICHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Roundtree, Eugene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ

312 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Rowe, Katherine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Roy, Kajal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crown Central Petroleum Corporation . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Roy, Michel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Quebec
Ruble, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krotz Springs, LA
Rudh, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Rukovena, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norton Chemical Process Products . . . . . . . . . . Akron, OH
Rusk, Deborah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Russell, Marion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Russo, Ambrose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Ryoichi, Ishigami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurita Water Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurita, Japan
Sabalesky, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilimington, CA
Sah, Shalini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYONDELL-CITGO Refining Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sahlin, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Salamah, Waleed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Salazar, Franklin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Salbilla, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Samford, Curtis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Sampath, Vijay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Sams, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, CA
Sanchez, Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Sanchez, Heriberto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpoven S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela
Sanders, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Sunray, TX
Santner, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Santos, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Sappington, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Sarkar, Subir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Sarubbi, Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sauvaire, Pascal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Savage, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Scalise, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Scanlon, Jeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips 66 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweeny, TX
Schantz, Sean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Concord, CA
Scharre, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Scheirer, Glen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Schendel, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manhattan Beach, CA
Schimbor, R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Schmidt, Karl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tru-Tec Division of Koch Engineering . . . . . . . . Concord, CA
Schmitz, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emtrol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hauppauge, NY
Schoemann, Pete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Schoenbeck, Lynne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Schoenroth, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Scholte, Geert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuwait Petroleum Europoort B.V. . . . . . . . . . . Europoort, Netherlands
Schoofs, Greg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moraga, CA
Schrepfer, M. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Schroer, Anthon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Schwake, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pine Bend, MN
Schwandt, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Scolari, Oscar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison/SAIMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Scruggs, G. Darrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Seamans, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Segato, Randy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Canada Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corunna, Ontario
Senn, Dwayne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Seyler ,Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Shah, Pankaj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Shah, Pankaj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Shaheen, Eli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Shaner, Cyndie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Sharma, Poornima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KTI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Dimas, CA

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 313

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Sharon, Theodore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sharp, Joy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sheckler, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Shen, C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sheng, Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Sheth, Pari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Shiflett ,Woodrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Shikida, Hisato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JGC (USA), INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yokohama, Japan
Shoemaker, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Shroda, Heidi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosfield Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Shubert, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Sigan, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Mountain Salvage & Equipment . . . . . . . Hoffman Estates, IL
Silverman, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sims, Peggy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UCISCO Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LaPorte, TX
Singer ,Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Recycle Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Villanova, PA
Sinnard, Judith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sitton, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Siwek, Janusz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Catalyst Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Skeds, Jon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pro-Quip Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulsa, OK
Skelly, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Slade, Cornell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sleeman, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reactor Services International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Griffith, IN
Slevin, Geoffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Sloan, H. David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Technology Company . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sloley, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Consulting Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Smith, Ben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Smith, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Ramon, CA
Smith, G. Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missouri City, TX
Smith, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Smith, Jonah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Triadd FCC Additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Smith, Lloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Smith, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Smith, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia
Smith, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valero Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Smiznov, Vladimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CATACHEM COMPANY Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . Moscow, Russia
Solis Munoz, Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . CEPSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madrid, Spain
Sopko, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wickliffe, OH
Soria, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sosa, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Quimica, S.A. de C.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Sowell, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Sowell & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Spalding, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Spinks, Nick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brown Fintube Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Spurrell, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Stafford, Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Recovery of LA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lafayette, LA
Stanger, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stanton, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Steach, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Stegelman, Albert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Borger, TX
Stelly, Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Technology Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulsboro, NJ
Stephens, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRICAT, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stewart, Billie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
Stinson, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Stokes, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Stonecipher, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Stover, Brad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Charles, LA
Strader, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Street, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsman Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Street, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX

314 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Streff, Monique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pall Process Filtration Company . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago, IL
Strope, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Jackson, TX
Stroud, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Stull, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Stults, Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coastal Chemical Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Beaumont, TX
Suarez, Felipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Subris, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Suchanek, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sugawa, Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sugi, Yoshishige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chiyoda Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yokohama, Japan
Summers, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sumrok, Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Svendsen, Jahn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Svihovec, Todd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corpus Christi, TX
Svoboda, LaNell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Sweezey, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Swett, Geoffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RETEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tucson, AZ
Tacchi, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tafilaj, Ramiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tague, Koal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Paul, MN
Takahashi, Hideto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Takahiko, Komazawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Company International . . . . . . . . . . . . Yokohama, Japan
Takaoka, Masaaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mitsubishi Oil Co, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buffalo Grove, IL
Takase, Tsuneyoshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Tallant, Robin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Tame Dominguez, Miguel . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Tamhankar, Satish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Tang, Shu Hong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Tarantino, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Tasker, Kenneth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRI, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Princeton, NJ
Teague, C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Tedesco, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Tenney, Edwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GE Environmental Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, PA
Terry, Casey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Navajo Refining Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artesia, NM
Terzoni, Guiseppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BNI CHEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milan, Italy
Tevis, Bruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Thaver, Nithianathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joliet, Il
Theriault, Bert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Recovery Canada Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Thiel, Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Tholstrup, Spencer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Thomas, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Asia Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore
Thomas, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Thompson, Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Thorvaldsen, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arroyo Grande, CA
Tippett, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, CA
Tokerud, Pamela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Engineering Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Tompkins, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Tong, Chung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mustang Engineering, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Torrisi, Salvatore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Toscano Martinez, Francisco . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tula, Mexico
Traylor, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinclair, WY
Treese, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Trent, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Trevino, Cesar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Treybig, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Trout, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Tungate, Freddie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Turner, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concord, CA

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 315

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Turner, Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haldor Topsoe, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Turpin, Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thousand Oaks, CA
Uchida, Hiroshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nihon Pall Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo, Japan
Udvari, Emery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aurora, CO
Unzelman, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HyOx Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fallbrook, CA
Urbancic, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Urmeneta, Gaston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refineria de Petroleo Concon S.A. . . . . . . . . . . Concon, Chile
Vadekar, Mo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHEMTECH Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarnia, Ontario
Vail, Guy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Vakil, Tarun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ
Valdes, Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX-IMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Valentine, Julie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro Motion, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boulder, CO
Valeri, Francis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Voulte, France
Valle, Rafael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia, PA
Van der Meij, Rob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Van Sickels, Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The M. W. Kellogg Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Vance, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACREON Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Vance, Rex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyst Technology Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Vande Ven, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
VanHoose, Rick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY
VanZandt, Ron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commerce City, CO
Varraveto, Dominic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pritchard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overland Park, KS
Vasquez, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERCAT Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Vaughn, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canton, OH
Vauk, Dennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koch Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wichita, KS
Vazquez, Ramiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Venkatadri, Ram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ciba Geigy Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tarrytown, NY
Verachtert, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Vickers, Anthony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Villagomez, Braulio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Villanueva, Rafael Chavez . . . . . . . . . . . PEMEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico City, Mexico
Villio, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Virag, Alois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OMV Aktiengesellschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vienna, Austria
Voitle, Eddie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Vona, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ChemLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seoul, Korea
Voss, Andy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaheim, CA
Wagner, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Segundo, CA
Waldron, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Walker, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petro-Canada Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alberta
Walker, Hugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcoa Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Walker, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Walker, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belco Technologies Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parsippany, NJ
Wall, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wall, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anacortes, WA
Wallendorf, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Walter, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Wambaugh, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Ward, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yorba Linda, CA
Ward, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspen Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wasser, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals L.P. . . . . . . . . . Sugar Land, TX
Watson, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Watson, Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Port Arthur, TX
Watts, Chris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mandeville, LA
Watts, Ricky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baker Industrial Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge, LA
Wear, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD
Webster, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATCO, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leawood, KS
Weidenhammer, George . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, NC
Weise, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOC Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Hill, NJ

316 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Weith, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Welch, J. Gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Welker, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . Long Beach, CA
Wells, Jan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Wernicke, Hans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Catalysts Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisville, KY
Wheeler, Marlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wheeler, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARCO Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carson, CA
Whelchel, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Whitfield, Hallie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Whitlock, C. W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Wick, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marathon Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findlay, OH
Wieliczko, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cherry Hill, NJ
Wieser, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Palatine, IL
Wilbur, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell Canada Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ft. Saskatchewan, Alberta
Wilcox, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refining Process Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh, PA
Wilkening, Greg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Willcox, Christine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem UK Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newbury, UK
Williams, Billy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Williams, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Williams, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX
Wilson, Gerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wilson, Jerome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurecat U.S. Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pasadena, TX
Wilson, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caltex Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irving, TX
Wimberly, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Windham, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron U.S.A. Products Company . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS
Winger, Lloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conoco Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ponca City, OK
Winslett, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Wiseman, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Witoshkin, Anatol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engelhard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iselin, NJ
Witzig, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BetzDearborn Hydrocarbon Process Group . . . . . . The Woodlands, TX
Wizig, Herbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merichem Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Wong, Dale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Wood, Curtis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillips Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartlesville, OK
Wood, Darin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis Petroleum, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas City, TX
Woods, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . Allentown, PA
Woods, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Catalyst Company L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Woodward, Deborah . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRI International Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakland, CA
Wright, Marie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobil Oil Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torrance, CA
Yam, Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unocal Corp.-76 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilmington, CA
Yamani, H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saudi Aramco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Yates, Raymon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Three Rivers, TX
Yoon, Alex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chevron Products Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond, CA
Yoshida, Jiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JGC (USA), Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Young, Antony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Liquide America Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Young, Bret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bechtel Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Young, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glitsch, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alberta
Young, Maresa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belle Chasse, LA
Youngblood, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elf Atochem North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Youssef, Sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICI Katalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Yuji, Ishikawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Yung, King Yen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amersfoort, Netherlands
Zacher, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BP Oil Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrensville Hgts., OH
Zaczepinski, Sioma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exxon Research & Engineering Co. . . . . . . . . . . Florham Park, NJ
Zeillmann, Louie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GAYLORD CHEMICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slidell, LA
Zelonis, Randolph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edison, NJ
Zetlmeisl, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO
Zillman, Sue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des Plaines, IL
Zima, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland Petroleum Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashland, KY

1996 NPRA Q & A Session on Refining and Petrochemical Technology 317

TOC/INDEX

NAME COMPANY LOCATION

Zoller, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akzo Nobel Catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston, TX
Zollinger, Merla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC
Zuber, Irl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Bakersfield, CA
Zudkevitch, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, NY
Zyskowski, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrolite Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO

318 Registration List

TOC/INDEX

Notes
TOC/INDEX