HP March 2022 eBook—Energy Transition - 44

Plant Design,
Engineering and
Construction
F. BAARS, Fluor, Amsterdam, Netherlands; and
S. ORUGANTI and P. KALIA, Fluor, New Delhi, India
Oil refinery/petrochemical integration
in a CO2
-constrained world-Part 2
Petrochemical demand will increase with gross domestic
product, while the demand for motor fuels will only show modest
growth and may even decline in certain regions, given environmental/legislative
pressures and the introduction of battery-powered
electric vehicles. Any new oil refinery will likely
include petrochemical facilities, as well.
In Part 1, published in the July issue of Hydrocarbon Processing,
the authors reviewed several possible refinery/petrochemical
complex configurations around an RFCCU (FIG. 1 from
Part 1) or HCU (FIG. 4 from Part 1). It was shown that investments,
and gross and net margins, vary considerably between
the various configurations. This article will evaluate the impact
of a CO2
tax and crude source/pricing on IRR.
CO2
emissions. The CO2
ous configurations are reported in TABLE 6. CO2
any other CO2
emissions associated with the variemissions
are
the total emissions of the complex due to the combustion of
natural gas, refinery fuel gas and FCC coke, and exclude the
CO2
associated with generating the required electrical power or
emissions associated with outside battery limit
facilities (such as tank heating, process water demineralization,
emissions, 367 t/hr (3 MMtpy)
C02
14.3 Alkylation
4.1 ETBE
9.5 FCC GHDT
15.4 Sulfur block
67.1 HPU
0.8 C4
-Isom
155 RFCC coke
11 RFCC
17.6 ARDS
13 CCR
11.3 ISOM
3.7 DHT
1.9 KHT
13 NHT
28.9 CDU
FIG. 5. CO2 emissions for Case A0: ARDS + RFCCU.
boiler feed water preparation, flare purging and tracing). As
such, the emissions reported in this article are the larger part of
the Scope 1 emissions.
For the FCCU cases (A0-A2), the CO2
emissions increase
with increased complexity-e.g., increasing from 367 t/hr to
402 t/hr when going from the Base Case A0 to Case A2, primarily
due to the contribution of the aromatics complex (FIGS. 5 and
6). The RFCCU is the biggest contributor to emissions, representing
45% and 41% in Base Case A0 and Case A2, respectively.
For the HCU alternatives, the CO2
emissions gradually increase
with increased complexity. In the SC cases (B2A and B2B),
CO2
emissions have increased 3x-4x relative to the base case.
In Base Case B0 (FIG. 7), the HPU and CDU/VDU are the
biggest contributors, accounting for 30% and 24% of total CO2
emissions, respectively. With the addition of the steam cracker
and the aromatics complex, and converting the hydrocracker
to a naphtha-oriented hydrocracker, CO2
the biggest CO2
15%, respectively. The CO2
Case
A0
A1
A2
B0
B1
TABLE 6. Specific CO2
Description
RFCC
RFCC + PP
RFCC + PP + aromatics complex
DCU + HCU
DCU + HCU + SC
B2A DCU + NHCUa + SC
B2B DCU + NHCUb
B3
B4
B5
+ SC
DCU + NHCU + SC +
aromatics complex
DCU + NHCU + aromatics complex
RHC + NHCU + aromatics complex
a NHCU: Hydrocracking aimed for maximum naphtha production
b Gasoils to the NHCU
Hydrocarbon Processing | AUGUST 2021 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
emissions increased
from 223 t/hr to 472 t/hr (Case B3), as shown in FIG. 8.
In Case B3 (FIG. 8), the SC and aromatics units have become
emissions contributors, representing 32% and
emissions for cases B4 and B5 are
emissions for the various configurations
CO2 emissions, CO2/t crude
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.19
0.38
0.56
0.79
0.40
0.25
0.27
http://www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
HP March 2022 eBook—Energy Transition

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of HP March 2022 eBook—Energy Transition
