Q & A > Gasification
Date  Replies
27/06/2016 Q: In case of heavy residue upgrading, we are encountered with vacuum residue as feed. The main features of this feed especially about contaminants and problematic materials are as below:
Total sulfur>4.5 wt%
Conradson Carbon >25 wt%
Ni+V >500 ppmwt
Nitrogen ~ 1 wt%
We have two cases for VR upgrading project, One is RCD+RFCC and another is HOIL(Hydrocracking)+FCC. Both of these cases use huge amount of fresh catalysts because of high possibility of catalyst deactivation and poisoning. So the operating cost should be high.
Is this rational to charge such a feed to the catalytic system directly or is it better to use the process to somehow get rid of metals at least? If we need to use the solvent deasphalting system at the upstream of two before-mentioned cases and draw off about 20% of feed as pitch, we will succeed to lower the operating cost and increase the reliability of catalytic system because of the elimination of the major part of the metals. But in the opposite side, we have missed 20% of primary feed as pitch that it is a low value product. So the profit margin of the residue upgrading cases will decrease. However, as a second question, can we miss 20% of feed charge at the expense of increment of catalyst life cycle?
(5)
11/04/2014 Q: In case of side fired self respiratory burners in reformers what is the correct sequence of adjusting the air?
From bottom row burners to top row burners in increasing trends:
in 1st row 40%, 2nd row 40%, 3rd row 40%, 4th row 30%, 5th row 30% & 6th row 30%
OR
in 1st row 30%, 2nd row 30%, 3rd row 30%, 4th row 40%, 5th row 40% & 6th row 40%.
This flue gas is going to convection section for heat recovery.
 
18/11/2011 Q: Regarding the LPG Sulfrex Unit in RFCC, I have some questions.
We experience the increase of C4 sulfur content last Saturday (11/12) by the forming of the amine absorber(T-20701). ** a brief unit description is bottom of this writing: sulfur content of C4 goes up from 1~3 ppm to 16~18 ppm
Thus we replace the caustic of prewash drum(D-20702) & Extractor(T-20702). But the sulfur content of C4 is not decreased.
Investigating the cause of amine absorber foaming, we find the significant change of amine absorber condition.
First is difference of amine inlet/outlet flow. Inlet lean amine flow is +6~8 m3/hr higher than outlet amine flow in amine absorber.
There is amine carry over to overhead LPG side in amine absorber.
Second is LPG carry under to rich amine side in amine absorber. Rich amine goes with LPG to amine flash drum before amine regenerator.
So the pressure of amine flash drum sometimes rise to almost drum design pressure.
Finally we replace the activated carbon filer in rich amine side, but there is nothing wrong in amine quality.
After that, Inlet and outlet amine flow is same and the delta P of amine absorber increase to normal condition
We wonder why LPG absorber goes back to the normal condition after replacement of rich amine filter.
Q1. Could you explain the reason for this phenomenon?
Q2. If amine quality is main cause, could you recommend the new guide of amine or other countermeasure?
**Brief LPG Sulfrex unit description :
LPG feed from R2R GAS Recovery unit is sent to the Amine absorber(T-20701). Hydrogen sulfide is removed by counter current of amine solution and the LPG leaves the top of the column and flows into the amine settler D-20701 and rich amine is leaves the bottom of the absorber to amine regenerator.
LPG flows into the caustic prewash drum D-20702 for removal the last traces of H2S not removed in the amine absorber.
D-20703 is Caustic Settler. The settler drum allows to separate and return the entrained caustic to the oxidizer T-20703
(1)
21/10/2009 Q: Is it safe to consider back pressure of 50-70 kg/cm2g when my PSV set pressure is at 229 kg/cm2g? Why are we limited to 3-5 kg/cm2g back pressure maximum when we are designing the HP flare? API 520 part 1 says that I can consider up to 50% of set pressure of balanced PSV, so can I consider up to 100 kg/cm2 g when my PSV is set at 220 kg/cm2g? If not, then what is the reason? (4)
17/03/2009 Q: How will impending changes in marine diesel specifications affect bunker and residual fuels? Is there a long-term shift away from bunkers and residuals? Will this result in some niche opportunities for refiners? (1)
07/08/2008 Q: In addressing refinery CO2 management, can you comment on CO2 curtailment from on-purpose hydrogen plants through "minimised" involuntary'steam, internal heat recycle and captive integration?
 
23/10/2007 Q: With the high capital cost of gasification projects, what combination of incentives are required to expand worldwide gasification capacity? In addition to petcoke and coal-based feedstocks, what are some other feedstocks that are being targeted for gasification? (3)
14/10/2007 Q: in our refinery we treat the LPG produced from the FCC unit by extraction merox unit.
In the pretreatment to remove the H2S from LPG, the absorber shows low efficiency. What is the problem?
(the abs. press. 10.5 bar
amine conc. % vol.= 19
regenerator good efficincy
H2S in rich Amine = 0.034 WT%)
(2)
06/09/2007 Q: Please advise on the design and operating temp and pressure for the cryogenic tank of LPG. The composition of LPG is Propane:Butane is 0:100 and 50:50.  
31/07/2007 Q: Can you provide a comparison between various types of gasifiers (based on different types of feeds)? Which gasifier is best suited for High Ash Coals? Which gasifier is best suited to the FT process (GTL)? (2)
22/07/2007 Q: What potential opportunities are available for gasification of refinery residues? (1)