PART 1 : PROCESSING OF EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE A N D NATURAL BITUMEN: AVAILABLE OPTIONS A N D TRENDS

R. B. Solari, ZNTEVEP, S.A., Apdo. 76343, Caracas 1070A, Venezuela Abstract. Huge deposits of heavy oil and oil sands still remain unexploited in countries such as Venezuela, Canada and Russia. These heavy oils, with a typical density of loo0 kg/m3, once recovered must be upgraded to be transported and processed in conventional refineries. The present market situation characterized by moderate price differential between distillates and high sulfur fuel oil, has favored the application of conventional carbon rejection processes requiring lower capital investment. On the other hand, more stringent environmental and product quality constraints might dictate the need of hydroconversion processes for the future. This paper examines cost-effective processing alternatives available for heavy oil upgrading that will balance both objectives, i.e. environmentally sound and economically attractive. Emphasis is placed on the scenario of application, economics, environmental impact and technological risk. These alternatives include : delayed coking, flexicoking, gasification, moderate conversion hydroprocessing (H-Oil, LC-Fining), fixed bed hydrotreating and the emerging high conversion processes using slurry reactors such as VCC, U-CAN and HDH. Future trends and the needs for research and development are analyzed in view of the declining use of residual fuel oil and the increasing demand of high quality diesel and gasoline, resulting from environmental restrictions. This should drive the market toward higher price differentials, creating new opportunities for high conversion hydroprocesses with high liquid yield and product qualities that are friendly to the environment.
1. INTRODUCTION

The estimated world resources of heavy crude oil and natural bitumen amounts to 161 G m3 of future potential oil recovery. The amount of reserve recoverable is estimated t o be considerably smaller, possibly 98.5 G m3, with major contributors being Canada (40.8%), Venezuela (27.4%) and Russia (19.4%)l. Heavy oil upgrading in Venezuela is a subject of increasing interest for many foreign investors looking for a reliable source of low price fuels for the future and consequently, Petrleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) has signed agreements with several international companies to explore joint ventures for the exploitation and upgrading of heavy crudes from the Orinoco Belt. The need for technology that is able to transform heavy crudes and natural bitumens into clean transportation fuels or basic petrochemical products is not only recognized in Venezuela, but all around the world. Heavy oil upgrading facilities should respond to an increase in the world energy demand to 12 TW by the year 2000, considering that petroleum derived products are predicted to continue to have a significant share in the energy market. While the demand for middle distillates and gasoline is estimated to increase by 244 and 114% respectively, heavy fuel oil consumption should only
Proceedings of the 14th World Petroleum Congress 0 1994 The Executive Board of the World Petroleum Congress Published by John Wiley & Sons

increase by 30%. The projected fuel oil market is decreasing and it is expected that an additional capacity of 120 M m3/year of deep conversion facilities will have to be installed by the year 2000 to eliminate 40 M m3/year of high sulfur residue. Most of the critical issues in processing natural bitumen and extra heavy oil result from the more stringent environmental regulations being enforced to keep a cleaner environment. An overview of the available options to commercialize extra heavy oils and natural bitumens is presented in this paper. Cost-effective alternatives are analyzed including well proven as well as emerging high conversion processes developed all around the world. The available options analyzed consist of: deep conversion of refinery residues and heavy crude upgrading into light and middle distillates, - gasification of heavy fractions to produce syn-gas and/or clean fuel for combined heat and power generation, - natural bitumen emulsions to facilitate transportation and handling.
-

2. CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
Total world installed conversion capacity is about 1160 k m3/d and as can be seen in Table I, most of
187

188

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

11211

TABLE I Worldwide installed residue conversion capacity

Process
~~~

Before 1987 k m3/d

1988-92 k m3/d

Total k m3/d

Thermal Cracking Visbreaking Delayed Coking Fluid Coking Flexicoking Eureka HSC

441.8 293.0 54.1 23.8 6.4

-

46.4 34.2 1.9

-

2.2

488.2 327.2 54.1 25.7 6.4 2.2

HydrocrackingfHydrotreating Fixed bed RDS 79.3 VRDS 11.0 UnicrackingfHDS 68.4 Residfining 21.9 RCD 1.3 OCR Ebullating bed H-Oil 13.1 LC-Fining 18.3 Moving bed HYCON Slurry phase CANMET 0.8 VEBA VCC -

9.6 7.3 3.5 8.0

5.1 6.4

89.3 18.3 68.4 25.4 1.3 8.0 18.2 24.7 4.0

4.0
-

07 .

0.8 0.7

this capacity corresponds to traditional thermal processes. Widespread use of coking units due to low capital investment and proven technology, remained stable as the best process available for conversion of heavy resid for many years3. After the mid ~ O Sas a , response to pressure from environmental regulations and increasing safety legislation, this technology has been challenged by hydroprocessing alternatives. The installed hydroconversion process capacity is rather limited, mainly oriented to Resid HDS.
Thermal processes

The HSC process, with one commercial plant (2.2 k m3/d) operating successfully since 1988 at PCK refinery in Germany, incorporates deep steam stripping, to reach conversions up to 50% (50O0C+ fraction). Higher conversions are restricted by unconverted residue instability. Delayed Coking, second in capacity, with more than 330 k m3/d installed worldwide, has been preferred in the United States (223 k m3/d) for the complete conversion of residues due to its low cost, proven operability and high flexibility to handle high sulfur, high metal feeds3. Though new installations appeared to be rather limited, the current list of projects under development shows a renewed preference for this choice (Table II). In fact, a 30% increase in installed coker capacity is estimated for the next ten years3. Though the Delayed Coking process is facing the pressure of more stringent environmental regulations, efforts are being made to find alternative uses for fuel grade coke, mainly through gasification in fluidized reactors (equipped with in-situ desulfurization) for syn-gas production6. Fluidcoking and Flexicoking processes, with less than 80 k m3/d installed capacity, have been improving liquid yields by centering on once-through operations, as shown by Lagovens Amuay Refinery Flexicoker revamp (Venezuela), increasing capacity in 30% and reducing coke and low Btu gas make by about 25%7. Exxon R&E has also been developing alternatives for sulfur (H,S) reduction in the low Btu gas7. Other coking technologies such as Eureka, ART, Lurgi LR-Coker and LTC have not found wide applications7.

TABLE II Projects under development (1993) for resid conversion

Process
~~~

Visbreaking has been the preferred choice (close to 500 k m3/d installed capacity, see Table I) for moderate reductions in fuel oil (20-40%), particularly in Europe. It is a simple, cheap and well-proven technology but leaves abundant residue to be disposed of. Markets for this residue are disappearing, limiting the opportunities for the process, which no longer represents an option for total residue disposal except when integration with other conversion processes is considered. Advances in this technology are the High Conversion Soaker Cracking (HSC) process from TOY0 ENG? and Tervahl-T, developed by IFP.

New capacity k m3/d

11.3 29.1 9.2 1.1 13.0 4.0 2.4 4.0

Revamp k m3/d
3.2 2.0

Visbreaking Thermal Cracker Delayed Coking Flexicoking

80 .
-

RDS Unicracking/HDS RCDfUnibon H-Oil LC-Fining HDH

0.3 1.1

0.3

vcc

[I211

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

189

Hydrogen addition processes

Moving bed reactors

There are many types of processes that can be applied to convert heavy oil and natural bitumen by adding hydrogen and avoiding coke formation. All these processes operate at relatively high pressures (7 to 30 MPa) and high temperatures. They are mainly differentiated by reactor type and the catalyst used in this process, i.e., fixed-bed, moving-bed, ebullating bed and slurry phase. Table I shows that the only fully commercial applications correspond to the Resid fixed bed and ebullating bed technologies. Following is a simple description for these technologies according to the type of reactor used, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fixed bed reactors

The moving bed reactor is a variation of conventional fixed bed reactors where fresh catalyst is added at the top and spent catalyst is removed from the bottom periodically, with feed and hydrogen flowing downflow. The best known moving bed process is Shells HYCON process, which achieved commercial operation three years ago at the Shell Netherland Refinery in Pernis, Netherlands. This plant consists of two parallel trains of 2 k m3/d capacity each, with five reactors in series. Its first cycle (7700 hours) was plagued with many problems. The longest run lasted for 3700 hours, reaching 66-68 wt % conversion with 95 % demetallization and 92% desulfurization, using Arabian heavy vacuum residue as feedstock.
Ebullating bed reactors

The best known fixed bed (Fig. l(a)) commercial processes are Chevrons RDS/VRDS, UNICRACKING/HDS and Exxons RESIDFINING. Other processes with less commercial experience are HYVAHL-F licensed by IFP, RCD UNIBON of UOP, R-HYC from Idemitsu and the ABC process licensed by Chiy~da.~. Very recently, Chevron has introduced its Onstream Catalyst Replacement (OCR) technology, providing enhanced flexibility for residue hydrotreaters*, through safe and reliable removal of spent catalyst during continuous operation. The first commercial application went into operation in May 1992 at the Idemitsu Kosan Aichi Refinery (Japan), retrofitting a 8 k m3/d Gulf designed two-train resid hydrotreater to process heavier feedstocks and extend its run length from a one year period to two years.
HI+
REDSTOCK

% + PRoD+CAT

Te

In this type of reactor (Fig. l(b)) the solid catalyst is suspended and perfectly agitated due to the dynamic pressure of the liquid entering from the bottom and leaving from the top of the reactor. This pressure is generated by an internal or external recirculation pump. There are two well known commercial processes for resid hydroconversion that use this type of reactor: H-OIL from HRI Inc. and Texaco Development Corp., and LC-FINING from ABB Lummus Crest Inc., Amoco Oil Co. and Cities Services Co. Both processes have similar flow sheet^'*'^. Commercial units operate at a conversion level of 55 to 65% (520C+ fraction). Both processes claim to be able to operate at higher conversion (up to 90%), although no commercial unit is currently being operated at these levels. Recently, HRI and Texaco have completed a two month operation at the Convent unit in which 80% conversion was achieved. The unconverted bottoms were fed to the Texaco gasifier to produce hydrogen. ABB Lummus has also reported a short high conversion commercial demonstration using the asphaltene recycle mode of operation in Amocos Texas City refinery2.
Slurry reactors

n,

FEEDSTOCI:

+CAT

la. Fixed Bed

Ib. Ebullating Bed

Ic. Cluny Bed

Fig. 1. Reactor types.

During the last 10 years, there has been significant progress in the development of slurry reactor technology to achieve high asphaltene conversion. In this type of reactor (Fig. l(c)) the catalyst is in a powder form, suspended in a mixture of gas and liquid that flows from the bottom to the top of the reactor. The slurry reactor has not yet been commercially used for

_______-___

--

____

190

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

u211

asphaltene conversion, except for the Bergius Pier process utilized during World War II for the conversion of coal operating at 70 MPa, and during 195054 for the conversion of residual oil. Veba Oe1 has developed a modem version of this process known as VCC (Veba Combi Cracking), which operates in the pressure range of 22 to 30 MPa, with fine particles of carbonaceous material as an additive". The VCC process has a demonstration unit with a capacity of 0.7 k m3/d in operation since 1988 at the Ruhr Kohle Refinery in Bottrop, Germany. As yet, no commercial plant has been built, although the VCC process was selected to upgrade 12.7 k m3/d of Athabasca bitumen for the Oslo project in Western Canada and for the OMW Refinery, Karlsruhe, Germany (4 k m3/d). The CANMET process developed by PetroCanada has been demonstrated in a 0.8 k m3/d plant, designed and constructed by Partec Lavalin Inc., in the Pointe-aux-Trembles Refinery, Montreal, Canada". A conversion of approximately 85% was reported, using only one reactor and iron sulphate as additive. Petro-Canada and Unocal have joined efforts to combine the CANMET process with Unocal's technology for hydrotreating at high pressure. This combined technology is called U-CAN and integrates hydrotreating of the vapor product from the CANMET hot separator directly in the high pressure UNOCAL reactors2. Intevep has developed the HDH process which is ready for commercial demonstrationi2. The catalyst is a cheap naturally occurring iron mineral, that can be easily prepared and that effectively controls coke and gas formation resulting in high liquid yield and moderate H, consumption. The HDH process can achieve conversion to resid extinction (over 97%) at moderate pressure (13 MPa H2 partial pressure) and temperatures between 465 to 475C. A 2.4 k m3/d pioneer plant is currently in the IPC phase to be installed at the Maraven Cardon Refinery in Venezuela. Project completion is scheduled for 1997. HDH technology has also been selected for one of PDVSA's joint ventures agreement to be implemented in the Orinoco Belt.

addition of steam in a refractory-lined reactor at temperatures about 1400C and pressure up to 8 MPa. A process known as the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) uses gas and steam turbine driven generators". Although gasification is an environmentally sound technology (meets existing SO,, NO, and particulate emission regulations) the required capital cost is very high, especially for large capacity units. Investment can be reduced significantly by gasifying only the heaviest fraction of the natural bitumen or extra heavy oil. In this case, the following process schemes can be considered :
-

Solvent deasphalting followed by pitch gasification, Delayed coking followed by petroleum coke gasification, Hydroconversion followed by unconverted resid gasification.

3. GASIFICATION
Gasification is also a feasible technological option for conversion of natural bitumen and heavy residual oils to gaseous fuels or hydrogen/carbon monoxide syn-gas for chemicals, as well as fuel for power generation. The gasification process consists of the partial oxidation of hydrocarbons using oxygen, with the

Solvent deasphalting is the lowest investment option, yielding a low quality syncrude while hydroconversion requires a higher capital cost to produce a high quality syncrude. Two proven technologies exist to gasify heavy resid; the Shell gasification process and the Texaco gasification process5. For coke gasification, beside these two processes, there are other technologies, such as British Gas-Lurgi, Kellogg-Rust-Westinghouse, Koppers Totzek or Prenflo and Destec. The heavy residues gasification processes and the combined cycle power generation process are already commercially proven. Nevertheless, the integration of these two processes has yet to be proven on a commercial scale. At the present time, there are several gasification projects in Europe. In Italy there are six major projects for 150-500 MW power generation and hydrogen manufacture, as well as other projects in Spain, Finland, Belgium and France. In North America, gasification projects are being formulated in Illinois, Florida and Puerto Rico. Gasification is an expensive route for power generation and its economics are very sensitive to feedstock pricing and the price of electricity' 3. Total investment for a stand-alone solvent deasphalting plus gasification complex is approximately 7.5 kUS$/bbl (47 kUS$/m3) of feedstock for the refinery section and 31 kUS$/bbl (195 kUS$/m3) for the gasification unit. For a project integrated to an existing refinery this figure is between 22 to 26 kUS$/ bbl (138 to 164 kUS$/m3) as indicated in reference [14]. This reference also shows that resid hydrocracking at 85% conversion followed by unconverted

u211

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

191

bottoms gasification has the best payout for a West European location at the price levels of the first quarter of 1992. Undoubtedly, the overall economics are penalized by the large investment in gasification which can only be justified if stringent emission limits and major reductions of Sulfur content in fuels are imposed, or if there are strong incentives to produce petrochemical feedstocks.
4. BITUMEN IN WATER EMULSIONS

Using the bitumen in water emulsion technology, very viscous hydrocarbons can be handled in the form of emulsions. PDVSA, through an intensive ongoing research program which started more than 10 years ago, has developed the Imulsion technology to commercialize the Orimulsion product, which is a naturally occurring bitumen emulsified in water. Properties of Orimulsion are shown in Fig. 2. PDVSA has completed and started operation to supply 100ooO BPD (15.9 k m3/d) of Orimulsion. Two additional modules of the same capacity each are planned to come onstream by 1998. Many commercial applications are foreseen for the Imulsion Technology. These applications include combustion, gasification and handling of upgrading feedstocks.
Orimulsion combustion

0.5 M m3 of Orimulsion have been burned successfully with the following results; Orimulsion has excellent combustibility and relatively low NO, emissions and can be handled and stored in power plants using existing equipment. Magnesium salts in the fuel, equivalent to a Mg/V mass ratio of 1.3, is adequate to inhibit the high temperature corrosive potential of the metals in the fuel. The Sulfur content per joule fired is approximately 40% greater for Orimulsion than fuel oil. A portion of SO, emissions can be controlled using in-furnace limestone injection. Flue gas scrubbing allows to meet the most stringent SO, emission limits.
Orimulsion gasification

The handling, combustibility and flue gas treatment associated with the use of Orimulsion have been extensively evaluated in laboratory, pilot and commercial scale trials. Commercial demonstration tests have been accomplished in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. To a lesser extent power plants in Spain, Italy and other countries in Europe have also tested this new fuel. Bitor, a PDVSA affiliate, has several long-term contracts in place for supplying Orimulsion. So far, over
I

VOW Water content, %w 30 Averaga droplet sire. p 20 Density (1SOC), Kg/m3 1.O1 Apparent viscosity mPas: 5C 20 s- 700 30C 20 s-I 450 5OoC 100 s-l 300 70C 100 s-* 150 GCV. MJ/Kg 29.5

The general concepts underlying Orimulsion gasification are similar to those for coal gasification. High temperature conversion of feedstock to medium BTU gas is followed by thorough gas clean-up, prior to its combustion in a combined cycle power block. Orimulsion gasification is simpler than coal gasification because there is no coal handling, grinding or slag handling facilities. Texaco Corp. gasified the material in its Montebello, pilot plant, showing that Orimulsion is a suitable feedstock for its gasification process. Orimulsion gasification, compared to coal/water slurries, results in better thermal efficiency and a higher yield of product gas per unit of dry fuel and unit of oxygen input. Enel, Italys state owned utility, plans to demonstrate the gasification of Orimulsion and fuel at a 90 MW gas turbine, while Texaco and Mission Engineering, Irvine, have announced plans to build a 1100 MW combined cycle plant in the United Kingdom, fueled by gasified Orimulsion. IGCC technology can be used to produce electricity from Orimulsion, with very low Sulfur and NO, emissions and no ash disposal problems. The capital investment cost is approximately 200 US$/ k W less than coal IGCC because of a simpler design, which would reduce the cost of the electricity produced.
Emulsion for feedstock handling

C H S

N
O
Ash

Na Mg Ni

60.0 7.5 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.03 0.007 0.035 0.007

Fig. 2. Orimulsion properties.

Emulsion technology could be used for feedstock handling and transportation of natural bitumen or resid heavy oil to upgrading facilities at ambient temperature. Although this is an application that is still under development, Intevep has demonstrated the technical feasibility of hydroconversion of emulsions in the HDH process. Figure 3 shows the results of a

- . ~ _ _ _ _

192
1O 0

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

I

s
8
O .-

80-

2
5

60

.o
v)

40-

K
20

'

successful 17 days pilot plant test at 90% conversion, using an emulsified extra heavy oil as feedstock to the HDH process.
5. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

The selection of a residue conversion process involves many variables such as: application scenario, economics, environmental impact and technological risk.
Appl cation scenario

Each heavy oil upgrading project has specific features regarding crude source and properties, process capability and efficiency, product yield, quality and marketability, secondary conversion requirements, integration with existing units and disposal of byproducts. Table III summarizes the main process capability of resid conversion technologies using a typical Venezuelan heavy crude as feedstock.

Thermal conversion (Delayed Coking, Flexicoking) is a well established technology that operates at low pressure and yields 65% resid conversion limited by coke formation which depends on the Conradson Carbon of the feed. Fixed bed processes have the advantage of being a proven and reliable technology, but their economy is extremely sensitive to feedstock properties. Most fixed bed processes consist of two swing reactors acting as guard chambers and four main reactors. Despite this high equipment investment, conversion is in the order of 40%, and for feedstocks with high metal content (over 250 ppm), frequent poisoned catalyst replacement would be a clear disadvantage. Ebullating beds have several important advantages over fixed bed reactors. The catalyst in the reactor behaves like a homogeneous fluid phase that enables catalyst to be added to and withdrawn from the reactor onstream. Units can run for 24 to 36 months between turnarounds depending on the type of feedstock. Ebullating bed reactors allow the processing of heavy feedstocks with higher metal, Sulfur and nitrogen contents. Periodical removal of spent catalyst prevents catalyst deactivation, as opposed to fixed bed operation. One limitation of ebullating bed processes is the high catalyst consumption when high metal feedstocks are processed. These are synthetic catalysts costing 7-10 US%/kg.For feedstocks with metal contents over 500 ppm, catalyst consumption most likely will have a significant impact on process economics, increasing operating costs. Although ebullating bed technology could increase total conversion to 90% by recycling the unconverted bottom, this product becomes unstable and cannot be disposed of as a fuel oil component. High conversion operation for these processes will require additional investment to dispose of the unstable pitch.

TABLE III Process capability of resid conversion technologies

Parameter Operating press., MPa Resid conversion, wt% Liquid yield Sensitivity to metals Material for disposal Sulfur, wt% Vanadium, wt% Yield on feed, w% Thermal conversion D.C.
0.1-0.4 65

Fixed bed
12-18 30-40

Ebullated bed
17-20 60-70 high high

Slurry High press. Mod press.

25-30 90-97 15-18 90-97

low low coke

high high

o.1-0.2
35

4-5

high low coke 3

1 3

high low

__ - _________

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE

OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

193

Slurry reactors can achieve extremely high conversion, practically eliminating the production of unconverted bottoms, both using the high pressure option (VCC) or the moderate pressure catalytic processes (CANMET, HDH). The slurry reactor technology provides high flexibility to process any type of feedstock, without limitations on impurities such as nitrogen, Sulfur and metal content. With respect to product yields, qualities and marketability, t hermal processes have a clear disadvantage, due to the low liquid yield (65-70 wt%). The same is true with respect to quality, due to the thermal nature of the process. Severe and costly downstream hydrotreating is required to meet final product specifications. For the hydrogen addition processes, fixed and ebullating bed technologies can achieve more hydrogenation and hetero-atom removal than slurry reactor processes, due to the more active synthetic catalyst used. Nevertheless, product qualities for slurry reactor technologies easily can be brought into specification in the downstream hydrotreating reactors. Marketability of coke from Delayed Coker or Flexicoker is a critical issue, especially for large capacity projects, which could have an impact on the overall coke market. The trends observed in the high Sulfur coke market, as shown in Fig. 4, could affect the economic return of projects based on carbon rejection technologies.
Environmental impact

coking units, producing 32 M m3/y of coke. Processing of solids or slurries within process units is not seen as a major problem by refiners, but they have always felt uncomfortable with solids storage, piling, handling and transportation. Solids handling is minimized for fixed and ebullating bed technologies, where it is basically limited to catalyst replacement. Nevertheless, in the future, catalyst disposal problems could arise due to environmental restrictions on transportation. New legislation is underway that will prohibit used catalyst transportation by sea'. Several options are available to minimize the environmental impact of by-products disposal from conversion processes. The proposed solutions range from fuel oil utilization to integration with other conversion processes. Some of the options are:
-

Resid gasification that will leave only metal rich ash and metallic Sulfur to be disposed of. Figure 5 shows the total emission levels expected when integrating conversion with ga~ification'~. - Slurry reactor technology using a catalyst or additive that can be safely disposed of or recycled, as for example HDH, which uses an iron based catalyst that can be used as raw material in the metallurgical industry and leaves zero residue". - Resid combustion using a flue gas desulfurization process different from limestone addition, such as Solinox, Wellman-Lord, ATS, etc. - Hydroconversion processes followed by solvent dea~phalting'~ coking". or

Disposal of by-products can be seen as a drawback of upgrading technologies, because of their potential environmental effects. Nevertheless, this drawback is common to all conversion technologies and is even worse for the carbon rejection route. In fact, solids handling has been widely practised in the existing

Zero resid refinery

Some of these options could lead to a zero resid refinery solution for a specific project with no adverse environmental impact. The additional cost

Coke production MKgly Sulfur content, % Vanadium content, ppm Petroleum coke discount, % (Coal as reference)

26 3.4 550 80

33 3.9 570 40

47 4.3 590 ?

Conversion SO,, mg/Nm3' tPY NO,, mg/Nm3 tPY CO,, MtPy

85% 139 495 35 125 966

65% 63 835 32 420 1818

65% 68 755 33 370 1381

Fig. 4. Coke world market trends.

Fig. 5. Atmospheric emissions for a 5 k m3/d conversiongasification complex.

194

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

[I211

derived from increasing the complexity of the conversion plant, with the associated loss in profit, is compensated in part by the advantage of full environmental protection. Although these are technical options to convert the entire heavy crude oil into environmentally acceptable production slate, in some scenarios it would not be economically attractive to apply these routes, depending on the source of hydrogen supply and electricity a~ailabilityl~.
Economics

Economic comparison of the different types of technologies available for resid conversion is a cumbersome task, due to the many factors involved, such as: application scenario, price of raw material, economy of scale, market price for final products and by-products, environmental regulations, financing schemes, taxes, data base and methodology. It is quite common to find significant differences in the resulting figures from the several economic studies used for selecting technology for a given project. Table IV shows a comparison of investment costs for different technologies, based on information available at Intevep16. These investment estimates include direct, indirect and contingency costs. When comparing only the onsite costs associated with the major conversion unit and its associated hydrotreatment capacity required to meet the same product quality, one can observe a clear trend to higher investment costs for the hydroconversion processes when compared to thermal processes. However, a more realistic situation is observed when adding off-site costs since, in most scenarios, any commercial plant will require additional on-site and off-site facilities. In producer countries, the investment gap is further reduced since the higher investment in high conversion upgrading is compensated by lower upstream capital to produce the same

amount of synthetic crude in a production-upgrading integrated complex. Table IV also summarizes the operating costs based on an Orinoco Belt typical extra heavy crude oil. The higher cost of the ebullating bed technology is due to a high catalyst consumption. Hydrogen consumption is the main additional cost for the hydroprocesses when compared to thermal processes. However, higher liquid product yield and better quality compensate, according to price differentials, these higher costs required in hydroprocessing. Economic evaluations for large grassroot upgrading projects in the Orinoco Basin have shown that, with a price differential of 14 US$/bbl between fuel No. 6 and diesel, a Delayed Coker gives better return on investment (ROI) than hydroconversion processes. At higher price differentials, over 16 US$/bbl, the situation changes and the slurry technology is favored due to its higher liquid yield and conversion. Studies done by AOSTRA within the Alberta scenario *, have indicated that deep conversion hydrogen addition processes to produce a high quality syncrude offer significant economic advantages over thermal processes. These findings apply to a scenario where the upgrading margins are relatively high, natural gas costs relatively low, no market exists for fuel coke and a market for petrochemical feedstock, such as olefins, is fairly limited.
6. FUTURE TRENDS

In delayed coking the dominant trend is to maximize fresh feed throughput in existing units. Deeper distillation of coker feedstocks and shorter cycle lengths are recommended options to increase overall refinery throughput. Integration with deep deasphalting processes has been proposed by Foster Wheelers ASCOT process or in combination with KerrMcGees Rose process. Integration with hydro-

TABLE IV Economics of resid conversion technologies

Investment costs US$/BPD Item Conversion unit HDT Total on-site + off-sites Cost index Operating cost (US$/bbl processed) Thermal conversion D.C.
2900 15000

Fixed bed
4300 19800 1.3 5.2

Ebullated bed
4000 18800 1.2

High press.
6500 25000 1.7 6.3

Slurry Medium press.

5800 20500 1.4 5.0

1
3.1

9.2

[I211

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

195

conversion is also foreseen with the coker as the terminal unit in the bottom of the barrel train, to maximize distillate products. To further improve the economics of hydrogen addition conversion it is necessary to reduce costs associated with achieving high conversion. The slurry reactor is the frontier technology in hydrogen addition. Processes such as HDH, VCC and U-CAN, commercially available but not proven yet, can achieve extremely high conversion using this type of reactor, practically eliminating the production of unconverted bottoms. Other emerging technologies that are in an advanced stage of development could introduce further improvements to reduce capital or operating costs. The MCR process developed by Exxon R&D uses a novel catalyst containing molybdenum in a carbonaceous matrix with a very small particle size5. Only a small amount of molybdenum is required (500 ppm on feedstock) making it economically feasible to dispose of the waste catalyst with the unconverted bottoms as a coker feedstock or as a fuel oil component. The MRH process developed by Idemitsu Kosan and M. W. Kellogg is able to operate at reduced pressure (6 to 8 MPa) in a conversion range between 70 to 80%. A MRH demonstration unit of 159 m3/d is being built in Japan at one of Idemitsus refineries. AOSTRA and the Alberta Research Council are currently developing the (HC), process to achieve high conversion at moderate pressures, in the presence of an inexpensive homogeneous catalyst to reduce capital and operating costs. Although the slurry technology is environmentally clean, its commercial application has not yet crystallized due to the high capital investment required. The economics of deep conversion slurry reactor technology to obtain high product quality is strongly related to the price differential between middle distillates and fuel No. 6. During recent years, the fuel market has shown lower price differentials, jeopardizing the possibility of installing the first commercial unit. Future trends are expected to improve process economics, due to the increasing difficulties to allocate high Sulfur resid in the fuel market. Environmental regulations will increase the commercial opportunities for deep conversion slurry processes. Once the first commercial unit is on-stream, this technology could become the preferred option for high asphaltene conversion in a scenario where environmental concerns are the primary issue. Future developments in this area will be oriented to reduce investment costs, mainly by reducing the operating pressure and used catalyst downstream

processing. Likewise, this technology fits best with the future needs to transform low value asphaltenes into clean fuels, without a negative environmental impact. Although there has been important progress in gasification, more efforts are needed to further reduce investment costs. Gasification integrated with hydroconversion, where hydrogen and/or electricity is produced, is a leading alternative to the zero residue refinery. Nevertheless, hydrogen production by steam reforming is cheaper. Research efforts should be directed to reduce the cost of oxygen production for gasification. Hydrogen utilization is another major concern for the future of heavy oil upgrading. The complete conversion of natural bitumen and extraheavy oils into transportation fuels requires about three times as much hydrogen as is required for converting conventional light oils. New upgrading concepts should consider low pressure process schemes, that could obtain hydrogen from synthesis gas, hydrogen splitting from hydrocarbons or water or hydrogen sulphide as a direct hydrogen source. In Canada, several companies are sponsoring research on upgrading using heavy oil/water emulsions mixed with catalysts to generate hydrogen by water gas shift reactions. Other new research areas are related to low pressure processes to transfer hydrogen from water using electrochemistry or ultrasonic energy.
7. SUMMARY

The main barrier to extra heavy oil and natural bitumen processing is the high capital cost required. Thermal processes, with large worldwide installed capacity, will continue to dominate heavy residue conversion in the short term, experiencing extensive revamping but restricted in new capacity by stringent environmental regulations. The present price differentials favor processing light crude oils but future trends in price differentials could create economic opportunities for capital intensive technologies such as hydroconversion and gasification which are environmentally sound. Within this context, it is wise to develop a strategy for progressive investment, starting with a process scheme requiring lower capital costs but that may be progressively integrated into a higher conversion scheme with additional investment. At the present time, there are technically feasible ways to reach zero residue in a refinery, but they are expensive. Also, there is the need for cheaper hydrogen sources. Existing technologies such as HDH,

196

EXTRA HEAVY CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL BITUMEN

[I 211

VCC and U-CAN, are options for minimizing refinery residue. Gasification is a valid option that could be used in combination with the hydroconversion processes or in an integrated power plant to produce energy and petrochemical feedstocks. All these solutions will be environmentally acceptable. It is clear that energy consumers and oil producers should share the risk of implementing new upgrading technology. Environmental concerns should be the driving force behind further commercial developments, even if light crude oils continue to sell at reasonable prices.
REFER EN CES
1. Tedeschi, M. Reserves and Production of Heavy Crude Oil and Natural Bitumen, 13th WPC, Topic 13, Buenos Aires, Oct. 1991. 2. IEAIAGIP Heavy Oil Conversion Workshop. Milan, Italy, February 1993. 3. Sloan, D., Bansal, B. and Fruchtbaum, J. Delaying Coking Has a Role in Clean Fuel Environment Fuel Reformulation, July/August, 1992, p. 42. 4. Gearhart, J. A, and Washimi, K. High severity soaker cracking, NPRA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 1992. 5. RAROP Heavy Oil Processing Handbook, Research Association for Residual Oil Processing, Japan, April, 1991. 6. McGrath, M. J. and King, G. P. Engineering Environmentally Clean Delayed Cokers. AICHE Spring National Meeting, Houston, Texas, 1993. 7. Schulman, B. L. and Dickenson, R. L. Advances in Technologies for Resid Upgrading NPRA, Annual Meeting San Francisco, CA, March, 1989. 8. Reynolds, B. E., Bachtel, R. W. and Yagi, K. Chevrons Onstream Catalyst Replacement OCR. NPRA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March 1992.

9. Robschlager, K. W., Deelen, W. J. and Naber, J. E. The Shell Residue Hydroconversion Processs : Development and Future Applications. International Symposium on Heavy Oil Residue Upgrading and Utilization, Fushum, Liaoning, China, May 1992, p. 249. 10. Wenzel, F. Residual Oil Upgrading and Waste Processing in the VCC Demonstration Plant, NPRA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March, 1992. 11. Fernie, K., Muir, G. and Pruden, B. Residue Upgrading by the C A N M E T Hydrocracking Process. International Symposium on Heavy Oil Residue Upgrading and Utilization, Fushum, Liaoning, China, May 1992, p. 261. 12. J. Guitin, et al. Update of the HDH Process, A commercial hydrocracking technology for extra heavy crude upgrading. Oil Sands, Our Petroleum Conference Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, April 1993. 13. Farina, G. L. and Fontana, M. Cogeneration refinery for total residue destruction, Foster Wheeler Heavy Oil Conference, Orlando, Florida, June 1993. 14. Menon, K. R. and Mink, B. H. Residue conversion options for European refineries. Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1992, 100 I-N. 15. Makansi, J. New fuel could find niche between oil, coal. Power, December 1991,51-56. 16. Marzin, R., et al. HDH, the right technology for resid conversion, Visin Tecnolgica, i(I ) , 1993. 17. Gupta, A. and Van Driesen, R. LC-Fining Processes Wide Range of Crudes. International Symposium on Heavy Oil and Residue Upgrading Utilization, Fushum, Liaoning, China, May 1992, 171-179. 18. Padamsey, R. Economic Comparison o Diflerent f Upgrading Schemes. Ibid 281-289. 19. Padamsey, R.,et al. The AOSTRAJARC Hydrocracker Processor. Ibid 269-274. 20. McGrath, M. J. Bottoms Upgrading through ASCOT. Foster Wheeler Heavy Oil Conference, Orlando, Florida, June 1993.