Hydrocarbon Processing - July 2021 - 34

Plant Design, Engineering and Construction
TABLE 5. Sensitivities: IRR variation with changes in petrochemical pricing and the costs of fuel gas and power
(the best scorer is in green, with the runner-up highlighted in yellow and the lowest score in red)
RFCC
Case
AO
A1
DCU
A2
B0
B1
B2A
B2B
B3
RHCU
25
20
15
10
5
-10
B4
B5
Reference
case
RFCCU
RFCCU + PP unit
RFCCU + PP unit + aromatics complex
DCU + HCU
DCU + HCU + steam cracker
DCU + NHCU + steam cracker
DCU + NHCU + steam cracker,
gasoil to NHCU
DCU + NCHU + steam cracker +
aromatics complex
DCU + NHCU + aromatics complex
RHCU + NHCU + aromatics complex
DCU/RHC + (N)HCU + steam cracker + aromatics complex
A2
A1
B5
B4
A0
B1
B0
10
20
Petrochemicals on crude, %
FIG. 4. Impact of 20% higher petrochemical prices on IRR.
Part 1 of this article explored several possible grassroots configurations,
including an RFCCU, DCU or RHCU-the latter
two combined with a vacuum gasoil hydrocracker. The key petrochemical
units included a steam cracker with downstream PE
and PP units, as well as an aromatics complex.
While it is theoretically possible to produce large amounts
of petrochemicals, it may not always result in better economics,
as shown within the confines of this study and regarding
market circumstances. A DCU-combined with a naphthaoriented
hydrocracker that processes middle distillates with the
bulk of the gases, LPG and naphtha sent to a steam cracker with
downstream polyolefin units-can produce nearly 40% of petrochemicals
from crude for a refinery processing Urals crude.
However, in this study, a propylene RFCC-based refinery with
an aromatics complex yielding 23% of petrochemicals from
crude has better economics.
FCC-based schemes typically have better economics than
DCU/RHCU/HCU-based schemes. However, this depends
on many factors. Other than feed/product and utility pricing,
it also depends on the design under consideration. For example,
for a light crude, DCU/RHCU-based configurations may be
more attractive, as will be detailed in Part 2.
34 JULY 2021 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
30
40
B2A
B2B
B3
RFCC cases
12.4
16.5
18
11
12.4
11.2
8.3
14.1
15.4
17.7
Petrochemicals prices
+ 20%
12.2 (−2%)
19.1 (+15%)
21.9 (+22%)
8.6 (−22%)
16 (+29%)
16.5 (48%)
14.5 (+75%)
20.7 (47%)
19.9 (+29%)
21.8 (+23%)
Fuel gas at 50%
of base case cost
13.5 (+9%)
17.8 (+8%)
19.1 (+6%)
13.5 (+23%)
14.7 (+19%)
13.6 (+22%)
11.1 (+33%)
15.7 (+12%)
17.2 (+12%)
19.4 (+10%)
Power at 50%
of base case cost
13.4 (+7%)
17.5 (+6%)
18.9 (+5%)
11.9 (+8%)
13.5 (+9%)
12.6 (+13%)
9.9 (+20%)
16.5 (+17%)
16.3 (+6%)
18.6 (+5%)
This comparison is based on commercially available technologies
and does not consider technology developments, which
continue unabated. In general, the more-integrated schemes
with a high petrochemical output are more robust to changes in
feed/product and utility pricing. Higher petrochemical production
is possible by ceasing Euro-5 gasoline production (allowing
more naphtha to be sent to the aromatics complex or used as
feed for the steam cracker), or by using pygas as aromatic feedstock,
routing hydrotreated pygas and/or raffinate to the steam
cracker, changing unit operations (higher RFCCU severity to
produce more C3
=) or adding other units (e.g., metathesis).
These projects can be implemented stepwise, with petrochemical
units being built in a second phase. Processing bio-based
materials and/or streams from plastics recycling plants presents
another opportunity to improve economics and sustainability.
The conclusions drawn in this analysis are based on a particular
crude diet, feed and product pricing, as well as on operating
and investment costs, and could change depending on
local circumstances. Feedstock flexibility, along with robustness
for feed/product pricing changes, combined with a proper assessment
of risks and opportunities associated with each investment,
should be part of a proper evaluation.
FRED BAARS is a Senior Process Director with Fluor's Energy
and Chemicals business line. He has more than 35 yr of
experience in refinery operations and processes, and in
executing and managing refinery projects in all phases of
execution. Mr. Baars was named a Fluor Fellow in 2005.
SRINIVASA ORUGANTI is a Process Director with Fluor New
Delhi. He has more than 28 yr of experience in process
engineering. Mr. Oruganti previously worked at Uhde India Pvt.
Ltd. He earned a BTech degree in chemical engineering from
Andhra University and an MTech degree in industrial
engineering and management (IE&M) from the Indian Institute
of Technology (IIT) in Kharagpur, India.
PARVEEN KALIA is a Linear Programming Modeling Specialist
with Fluor New Delhi. He has more than 15 yr of experience in
process engineering design for petroleum refinery and chemical
plants. Mr. Kalia worked for 5 yr with Reliance Industries Ltd.
before joining Fluor. He earned a Bch degree in chemical
engineering from Panjab University in India.
IRR, %
http://www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Hydrocarbon Processing - July 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Hydrocarbon Processing - July 2021
