Question 58: What issues are experienced at the desalter and pre-heat train when recirculating brine at the desalter?
SHENKLE (Flint Hills Resources, Ltd.)
Before answering this question, I want to clarify that the panel has defined ‘recirculating brine’ as brine going back to the freshwater makeup. For example, it may be used when insufficient makeup is available to maintain recommended washwater rates. We do not recirculate brine. We inject makeup water upstream of the second stage mix valve. Second-stage brine is pumped back to the first stage upstream of the mix valve, and then the first-stage brine is effluent. We operate washwater rates that are typically in the range of 4 to 5%.
SLOLEY (CH2M Hill)
Brine can be recirculated at the desalter. Additionally, there are some plants that recirculate brine found upstream in the heat train network. This is used in plants that have insufficient water to get proper contacting across the mix filter and which are often trying, in extreme cases, to move even from 2 or 3% water up to around 4 or 5% water. Since the freshwater rate does not increase when you do this operation, if it is more effective, you will increase the solid content of the brine. After all, that is the objective.
In some units, problems can arise due to oil and water emulsification because the pump that needs to recirculate this water – if you have oil in it – is a great mixing device. If the brine does not effectively de-oil, this water will recirculate and could cause problems with the rag layer in the desalter. Additionally, if the soap content of the water is high, you will get emulsions forming. With higher total water rates in many of these desalters also, the total water residence time is reduced, making the oil and water emulsions more difficult. The downstream exchange of equipment fouling and corrosion rate should be lower. If it is not changed or gotten worse, you should stop the brine recirculation.
HODGES (Athlon Solutions)
We are huge fans of recycling brine. In most cases, it is the Best Practice to increase the effectiveness of your desalter by increasing the effective washwater percentage through brine recycle, which will drive optimum desalting. As I mentioned earlier, one of the key items that is often overlooked when doing this is your seal flush. Make sure that you do not use the recycled water for your seal flush because it will erode your seal. Use fresh water. This may be subtle to some and obvious to others. Make sure that when you are recycling, you are not replacing your fresh water with recirculated brine. Recirculating brine is only used to add more effective percentage washwater. If you back out the freshwater, you will be taking a step back in effective desalting and contaminant removal across the desalter.
TOM COLLINS (Forum Energy Technologies)
Recirculating effluent water back to the desalter can improve efficiency by increasing water droplet population, allowing for larger droplets and faster settling. When recycle water is used, it is typically injected just before the mixing valve, not into the pre-heat train. It is also recommended that you divert the recycle when mud-washing unless a continuous mud-wash is used. Additional water volume may also allow for improved mixing efficiency, due to an increase in the water droplets created in the mixing valve or emulsification device. Care should be taken not to recycle water high in oily solids or other emulsifiers that may help stabilize interface emulsions and increase BS&W.
GLENN SCATTERGOOD (Nalco Champion Energy Services)
It is important to recognize the benefits of desalter washwater recycle, which improves dehydration and leads to improved salt removal. A higher rate of desalter washwater may also increase solids removal when processing high solids crudes.
DENNIS HAYNES (Nalco Champion Energy Services)
Recirculation of brine is a very good strategy to increase washwater to the desalter while minimizing effluent flow to wastewater treatment. The issues that may be experienced during this recirculating brine include a potential reduction in solids removal due to sending desalter effluent containing some solids through a pump motivating the flow back to the combined washwater inlet. More so, an issue is that if there is any upset or degree of oil in the effluent, the shearing action of the recycle pump will tighten the effluent emulsion. This emulsion, combined with the washwater into the raw crude oil which is then emulsified via the mix valve, may create interface growth in the desalter to the point that the system upsets. The brine recycle should be used with a non-oily effluent.
PHILIP THORNTHWAITE (Nalco Champion Energy Services)
It should be remembered that if a desalter operation is washwater-limited, the use of a brine recycle is an effective means of increasing the washwater volume and improving both dehydration and desalting performance. However, the operation is not without risk, and there are operation considerations to be made.
First, the recirculation of effluent brine is, in effect, adding salt to the crude oil when the two are mixed together. As a consequence of this combination, if the salinity of the brine significantly increases, the mixture can limit the salt removal efficiency across the desalters, the optimum salt content of the desalted crude increases, and the process efficiency can actually decrease. This reaction can be mitigated to an extent since the increased washwater volume leads to improved dehydration and desalting efficiency. Additionally, any increase in overhead chlorides can be mitigated to a degree through good monitoring and caustic management practices.
The other major consideration is that any deterioration in the effluent quality can have a significant impact on the whole desalter operation. If there is an upset leading to an oil undercarry, the oily brine will be passed through the brine recycle pump leading to the formation of a very stable emulsion. As this stable emulsion forms part of the total washwater feed, it can lead to emulsion layer growth within the desalter vessel and begin to exacerbate the already upset conditions. Key to mitigating this threat is regular visual checks of the try lines and effluent quality so that any onset in effluent deterioration can be quickly acted upon.
Question 14: What is industry experience of using tri-metal (platinum-rhenium with promoter) catalysts?
MELDRUM (Phillips 66)
Promoted or multi-metallic reformer catalysts have been a topic of research since at least the early 1970s. They have been tried commercially in various forms over the years, all with the objective of improving yields by suppressing the demetallization reactions. The current promoted catalysts have advanced the formulation of manufacturing techniques to new levels of performance. Recently, Phillips 66 has selected promoted catalysts for future reloads in at least three of our sites. The additional cost of the catalyst is justified when considering increased product yield and improved activity that allows a lower reactor temperature requirement, which both provide for a very quick payback on the additional catalyst cost.
The example shown on the slide indicates the additional yields – both in the C5+, as well as hydrogen – and some improved activity that might be expected with a promoted catalyst. When selecting the promoted catalyst, regeneration procedures should be reviewed with the catalyst vendor to ensure that maximum catalyst performance from regeneration to regeneration is achieved, particularly in the area of reduction and dryout steps.
BULLEN (UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company)
We have two catalysts that we offer in the semi-regenerator market and also for cyclic reforming applications. One of them is the R-98 catalyst that was introduced in 2005 and which has over 50 installed applications. We have a new catalyst called R500 that has better activity and stability, and we have put it in 10 units. As Craig said, proper regeneration procedures are very important for any semi-regeneration unit, and maybe even more so for these tri-metallic systems, because of the issues related to dryout and reduction. It is important to get consistency with this procedure because you will lose the advantage of the tri-metallic system if you do not do the dryout and reduction correctly. Getting that repeatability is very important.
CRAIG MELDRUM (Phillips 66)
Regeneration procedures should be reviewed with the catalyst vendor to ensure maximum catalyst performance from regeneration to regeneration. For example, UOP R-72 was a promoted catalyst offered about 15 years ago and required a different reduction procedure than the non-promoted catalyst for hydrogen concentration, pressure, temperature, and dry-down schedule.
PATRICK BULLEN (UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company)
Trimetallic catalysts containing rhenium are typical for use in fixed-bed reforming applications, both semi-regenerative and cyclic reforming applications. In recent years, both additional metals and oxides have been added to platinum-rhenium reforming catalysts. Metal promoters have been added to increase selectivity and product yields. The additional metal partially suppresses platinum-rhenium activity, reducing metal-catalyzed hydrogenolysis that lowers selectivity.
Over the past decade, UOP successfully developed the proper catalyst base, formulations (including promoter type), and manufacturing techniques needed to generate catalysts that demonstrate excellent yield stability and regenerability. UOP’s R-98 catalyst was introduced in 2005 and has over 50 successful applications with many regeneration cycles, and our customers are benefiting from the higher yields. UOP recently introduced a new product, R-500, that shows even great activity and stability, with over 10 commercial applications. It is well suited for reforming units where even longer cycle lengths are desirable or where higher activity is needed to push more barrels. The gradual acceptance of promoted catalysts is analogous to that of the bimetallic catalysts having higher rhenium content that preceded them in this market.
Proper regeneration procedures are critical for the success of any semi-regeneration catalyst; and in particular, promoted formulations that have reduced metal activity. One Best Practice is to ensure proper dry-down, reduction, and sulfiding. Cyclic reforming applications are a little more demanding due to the regeneration environment (higher moisture and sulfur, for example), but new promoted formulations have been demonstrated in these applications as well.
SONI OYEKAN (Prafis Energy Solutions)
This question needs some more definition to elicit appropriate responses with respect to what is truly a “trimetallic” catalyst. My initial response is that my experiences in the use of “trimetallic” platinum-rhenium catalysts for fixed-bed cyclic regeneration reformer operations were good. The catalysts performed as projected by the catalyst and technology supplier for catalysts containing a third metal that was specifically added for modifying the acidic functionality of the catalysts.
Having written that, it is important to understand the type of catalysts commonly referred to as “trimetallic” catalysts. The term could cover Pt/Re (platinum/rhenium) catalysts with a third metal as a modifier for the alumina to moderate the acidic functionality of the catalysts or those in which the third metals are added to modify the hydrogenation functionality of the platinum or to moderate rhenium hydrocracking activity. In other trimetallic catalyst formulations, the third metal can work in conjunction with the rhenium as co-promoters for the platinum functionality.
The performance objective of the third metal is crucial in order to assess long-term performance and benefits of the third metal. Metals on catalytic reformer catalysts typically undergo varying degrees of reduction to different oxidation states at different temperatures and adequate metals redispersion are achieved at different oxidative conditions. Trimetallic catalysts’ expected performances and potential limitations should be well understood by oil refiners before acquiring them for use. Catalyst suppliers should provide test data to show multiple regenerations and adequate reactivations of the three metals, even if the other two metals are acting as co-promoters for the platinum. Another key factor is to ensure that optimal metals distributions are achieved during catalyst manufacture. There are other factors to consider that are beyond inclusion in this short response on trimetallic catalysts.
If the third metal has been added to moderate catalyst acidic functionality and reactivation of that third metal is not an important factor other than decoking, then the refiners’ challenges are lessened to some extent. It should be recalled, however, that the history of catalytic reforming is dotted with an oil refiner’s experiences with second metals that had been added to the platinum and which led to significant performance problems. The problems were related to inadequate metals activation, especially poor redispersion of the promoter metals, and these problems led to poor catalyst performance for subsequent cycles after the first cycle for fixed-bed catalytic reforming systems. Furthermore, in reforming catalyst development programs, the addition of metals to Pt/Re catalysts led to increased feed sulfur sensitivity challenges for the resultant trimetallic catalysts. Feed sulfur sensitivity and catalyst regeneration challenges should be studied sufficiently by the catalyst and technology supplier during that supplier’s catalyst development studies leading to the production of “trimetallic” catalysts.
Question 35: When processing tight oil crudes, are lower bed pressure drop problems in VGO/resid hydrotreater reactors a concern? If so, what mechanisms explain this issue?
LIOLIOS (DuPont Clean Technologies)
The highly paraffinic nature of the tight crudes and the destabilization of asphaltene molecules can cause precipitation and agglomeration. One of our customers with a gas oil mild hydrocracker switched feedstock to increase amounts of black wax crude. This was a five-reactor system. A guard bed reactor was first, followed by four other reactor beds. In the polishing reactor bed, this customer saw an increase in pressure drop. It was theorized that this pressure drop was caused by asphaltene precipitation and polymerization in the bed.
The following graphs show some of what was happening at this unit. It is a constant feedstock. They raised the temperature to get some additional cracking. You will notice an elevated pressure drop in the last bed shortly after they increased the severity of the unit. If you look at the next chart, you can see where they decreased the severity of operation of the unit and the pressure drop recovered. Our theory is that there was a recombination of those asphaltenes.
SHARPE (Flint Hills Resources, LP)
We have had no second and third bed ∆T problems when running high rates of Eagle Ford crude. When there were high bed ∆Ps in the lower treating beds, they were usually a result of coke fouling due to hydrogen starvation, and low hydrogen partial pressure.
GLENN LIOLIOS (DuPont Clean Technologies)
The highly paraffinic nature of tight oil crudes, and the potential increase in asphaltene precipitation when these crudes or cuts of these are mixed with polar asphaltenic oils or cuts, has been well documented. The increase in paraffin content can lead to destabilization of the asphaltene core which can then agglomerate to form larger macromolecules that may precipitate out under hydrotreating conditions.
A number of published documents2 detail the causes and reactions behind this phenomenon and outline methods to determine which crude type and cuts are compatible and what ratios are required to minimize the chance of this phenomenon occurring.
Much of the industry experience indicates that asphaltene precipitation and fouling in process units normally occurs in regions of high heat flux when agglomerated asphaltenes easily crack or dehydrogenate leaving coke-like deposits such as feed/effluent exchangers or where hydrotreater reactions are initiated; i.e., the top bed of a hydrotreating reactor. However, it was observed that a gas oil mild hydrocracking unit experienced a noticeable increase in pressure in a final polishing reactor after the feed to the unit was switched to process a feed that had been mixed with an increased percentage of highly paraffinic (black wax crude) feedstock. At the same time, the severity was increased by lowering the throughput without reducing inlet temperatures. The polishing reactor was the last in a series of five reactor beds, the bed being a separate bed reactor. During the observed increased pressure drop in the polishing reactor, no appreciable pressure drop was observed in the guard bed or main reactor beds. It is important to point out that after the space velocity and feedstock to the system were normalized, the pressure drop decreased almost to the baseline range prior to the event.
It is theorized that the observed bed pressure drop increase in the last bed was a result of asphaltene precipitation and polymerization on the bed that occurred after increased severity reactions cracked the smaller molecules that kept the increased asphaltenes in solution. According to work conducted by Wiehe on asphaltene precipitation3 , asphaltenes are maintained in solution in oil by a micelle type of configuration. This theory has been also explained by other authors4 . The asphaltene core is surrounded by a solvated shell that consists of resins. Resins are molecules with aromatic and naphthenic rings.
Under high severity conditions such as those experienced in this mild hydrocracker operation, the resins can crack into smaller molecules. This can disrupt the micelle type configurations at which asphaltenes are kept in solution, and the asphaltenes can precipitate upon cooling.
Analytical tests carried out on the hydrocarbon feed samples indicated that the asphaltene content (heptane insolubles), although low in comparison with a heavy residue5, was found to be approximately three times higher than the one on the sweet GO FCC feed sample that was being recirculated to the unit and the regular GO sample fed to the GHC.
This theory explains why the upstream reactor beds did not experience a corresponding increase in pressure drop. If it were due to deposits, catalyst fines, or simply rust from upstream units, the first two reactors should have acted as filters preventing the last bed from getting plugged-up.
JUAN ESTRADA (Criterion Catalysts & Technologies)
Two primary mechanisms for pressure drop in bottom beds are coking and asphaltene precipitation. Coking results from operation at elevated temperatures and hydrogen deficiency. Asphaltene precipitation results from a reduction in liquid solvency. The design of VGO hydrotreaters with elevated pressure, low space velocity, and high treat gas rates helps minimize coking; however, elevated saturation of aromatics reduces the solvency of the oil, increasing the potential for asphaltene precipitation in the catalyst bed.
Processing tight oils in the crude diet reduces the aromatic content of the gas oils. For this reason, the coking potential of the feed is lowered, but the potential for asphaltene precipitation increases. With lower feed aromatics and severe hydrotreatment, the solvency change may be sufficient in the lower catalyst beds to precipitate asphaltenes introduced with the other gas oil components from conventional or synthetic-derived crude sources.
The mechanism of asphaltene precipitation from a reduction in liquid solvency has been connected to many historical pressure drop problems involving changes in operation and feedstock qualities such as aromatic and C7/C9 asphaltene contents and the distillation tail. Applying this accepted mechanism to lower bed pressure drop problems in units processing tight oil derived gas oils logically explains recent pressure drop problems in a few VGO hydrotreaters. Refiners continue to learn compatibility limitations of co-processing tight oils in the crude diet, including impacts on VGO reactor pressure drop growth has become a consideration.
Question 16: What is the typical carbon monoxide (CO) concentration in the reformer net gas? How is the CO content measured? What are the potential effects to downstream units from the CO?
MELDRUM (Phillips 66)
Carbon monoxide can form in reformer units as the hydrocarbon reacts with moisture under very low-unit pressure conditions. Typically, semi-regeneration reformer net gas would have nil CO and only a minimal amount in a CCR-type unit. I expect it to probably be on the order of 5 ppm (parts per million), though some units report routine measurements of 10 to 20 ppm CO in their net hydrogen off gas.
One of our cyclic units that was operating at 400-pound had CO as high as 20 ppm in its net hydrogen stream when the recycled moisture rose to around 300 ppm. The excessive water entered the reformer from a leaking side reboiler on a wet debutanizer that used a slipstream of the reformer reactor effluent as the heat source. The water then returned to the reformer product separator. The high CO caused deactivation in the catalyst in a downstream isomerization unit.
Accurate measurements of CO in the net gas are difficult. Reformer units are not expected to have much CO, so they seldom have an online analyzer. A colorimetric tube – Gastec or Dräger type – can be used to give an indication of the presence of CO, but accuracy for a quantified number is difficult and requires the use of a carbon pre-tube to remove the hydrocarbons.
CO is detrimental to downstream hydrogen-using units in three principal areas. CO in hydrogen being fed to a distillate hydrotreater will methanate, consuming the hydrogen that would have otherwise been used for the desulfurization reactions. This will have the effect of lower catalyst activity. CO in hydrogen fed as a makeup stream to an isomerization unit will also methanate and form moisture that will deactivate the isomerization catalyst. CO that did not methanate in the second example could act as a poison to the platinum metal function of the isomerization catalyst. UOP suggests a CO limit of 1 ppm max for isomerization hydrogen makeup gas. My Answer Book response also includes some of the common steps used to minimize CO formation in reformer units, particularly in a CCR unit.
BULLEN (UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company)
As you can see in this table, we have correlated some different types of operation and ranges of CO levels. As Craig alluded, the numbers vary quite a bit, which can be due to conditions in the unit, as well as analytical capabilities. There seems to be a trend that the lower pressure units generate more CO than higher pressure units.
The laboratory method we recommend using is UOP 603, which is a laboratory method for CO and CO2 and hydrogen. However, a lot of refiners cannot do this method. The gas detection tube route is fairly common. Our point of view is that with the gas detection tubes, if one carbon pre-tube is good, then two is better. So, we usually ask them to use two tubes instead of one to help eliminate the breakthrough of hydrocarbons that can make a false high value for CO.
As Craig said, the issue with chloride and alumina isomerization catalyst is that you will deactivate the catalyst. However, if you are using another type of catalyst, like the Par-Isom catalyst or zeolitic catalyst, the actual suppression you will get will be very dependent on what temperatures you are running. As you approach the 400°F temperature, you tend to methanize the CO in the first part of the bed. So CO tends to have less of an effect on the metal function of the isomerization catalyst and becomes more of an issue of activity suppression due to the water on the acid sites. The same would apply if you had a saturation unit with platinum catalyst. It would also behave in a similar manner to these higher temperature isomerization units.
R.K. (RICK) GRUBB (Chevron Products Company)
Another aspect needs to be mentioned for the lower pressure reforming units. You have to take into consideration your nickel carbonyl formation when you shut down a hydroprocessing unit that is using the reformer hydrogen. You may have to either swap the hydrogen source or think of another shutdown procedure that will ensure no nickel carbonyl formation.
CRAIG MELDRUM (Phillips 66)
CO is detrimental to downstream hydrogen using units for three principal reasons:
1) CO will methanate in HDS (hydrodesulfurization) units consuming hydrogen, which will take away catalyst activity.
2) Much of the CO will methanate in isomerization units, forming water that will deactivate the isomerization unit catalyst.
3) The non-methanated CO in the isomerization unit will poison the metal function of platinum on the catalyst.
Note: The UOP suggested CO limit on isomerization unit hydrogen makeup gas is 1 ppm (10 ppm for CO + CO2). UOP reports that CO levels greater than 6 ppm will not allow the isomerization unit catalyst to meet its cycle life guarantee.
The common steps to minimize CO formation in the reformer are:
• Minimize moisture in the system (feed water control and good regeneration drying),
• Minimize the last reactor temperature,
• Maximize the H2/HC ratio, and
• Minimize catalyst circulation rate in a CCR.
PATRICK BULLEN (UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company)
The CO concentration in reforming unit net gas can be impacted by a number of factors: system pressure, temperature, and moisture in the recycle gas, as well as the H2/HC (hydrogen/hydrocarbon) of the operation. Operating pressure has the most significant impact on CO production in a reforming unit. CO formation in reforming operation is produced via steam reforming of hydrocarbons:
H2O + CH4 ↔ CO +3H2
Thermodynamically, this CO formation reaction is more favorable at lower pressures. CO production is inversely proportional to the pressure squared. As such, a semi-regeneration reforming unit, being significantly higher pressure than typical continuous reforming units, will tend to produce less CO than a typical continuous reforming operation. Likewise, the lower pressure high severity reforming unit operation is more favorable for CO productions.
Commercial reforming net gas CO data from CCR Platforming™ process units can range from 1 to 40 mol ppm. The table below indicates typical ranges for various unit types. Typically, CO levels in the semi-regeneration reforming units are at trace ppm levels due to the high pressure and low-moisture range operation.
For testing of CO in reformer net gas, UOP recommends method UOP 603 for trace CO and CO2 in hydrogen. For CO in light gaseous hydrocarbons, analysis by GC is recommended. Analysis by gas detector tubes can also be considered for measuring CO at elevated levels when used with several carbon adsorbing pre-tubes.
CO in reforming net gas can have an impact on downstream users that may be sensitive to CO or H2O that may be formed due to the reverse steam reforming reaction, also known as the methanation reaction. In the case of a Butamer™ and Penex™ catalyst, water is a permanent deactivator. A typical rule of thumb is that 1 pound of H2O kills 62 pounds of Butamer™ and Penex™ catalyst.
For other types of catalysts, such as Par-isom™ Process and zeolitic isomerization catalysts that operate at higher temperature, the water generated from methanation of CO is a temporary activity suppressant. Platinum-based BenSat™ catalyst behaves similarly to these isomerization catalysts.
GARY HAWKINS (Emerson Process Management)
With respect to the second part of the question, the carbon monoxide content, as well as other components in the net gas of a naphtha reforming unit, can be measured with a variety of measurement principles depending upon the accuracy and reliability required, other species present that may interfere with a particular technology, and the expected range of concentration of carbon monoxide. These same comments apply to measuring other refinery gases, such as the net hydrogen and PSA (pressure swing adsorption) tail gas from steam reforming units for hydrogen production.