'I

12617

h~

OIL S.4NT.G~'FOR.V..~,T;ON E V F . S R I _S C

UPGRADER OPTIMIZATION

A N W LOOK AT THE R GO A U G A E E E I N L P RDR

WITH SELECTEDADDm0NS

A C A B R OF R S U C S , HME EORE L SANDS TASK F R E O C WH I T A B R A D P R M N OF E E G LE T EA T E T NR Y

AND

E E G MINES A D R I R , :; CA A"A NR Y N E OJ CF.' . N I) '

d'

'6

Alberta Energy 96-03611/

ACKNOWLED(~EMENT AND DISCLAIMER

The research project for which this report is submitted was funded (in part) from the Alberta Department of Energy. This report and its contents, the project in respect of which it is submitted and the conclusion and recommendations arising from it do not necessarily reflect the view of the Government of Alberta, its officers, employees or agents. The Government of Alberta, its officers, employees or agents and consultants make no warranty, express or implied, representation or otherwise, in respect of this report or its contents. The Government of Alberta, its officers, employees and agents and Consultants are exempted, excluded and absolved from all liability for damage for injury, howsoever caused, to any ~rson in connection with or arising out of the use by that person for any purpose of this report or its contents.

I it

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents Ust of Tables Lost of F,gures Admowtedgements Executwe Summary 10 INTRODUCTION 11 12 13 14 20 PREAMBLE STUDY ORGANIZATION ECONOMIC BASES TECHNOLOGY BASES

II VII IX X Xl

1-1 1 1-1 1-1 12 1-2 2-1 21 2-2 2--4 2-4 2-5 2-6
31 3-I 3-2 3-3 33 3-5 3-5 3-6 3-7
4-1 4-1 4-2 4-7 4-15

CASES-CONSIDERED
2 .I

2.2. 23 24 25 26 30

PREAMBLE BASECASE EXPANDEDBASE CASE FISCHER-TROPSCH CASE PARTIALREFINING CASE REFININGCASES

FEED,INTERMEDIATE AND PRODUCT PRICING 31 32 33 34 3S PRICING AND COST SUMMARY ECONOMIC ANALYSES BASES COMMENT F-T MIDDLE DISTILLATE VALUATION PURCHASED HYDROGEN 3 5 1 AVAILABILITY 3 S 2 BALANCE 3 S 3 PURCHASED HYDROGEN COSTING

4O

BASE CASE 41 42 43 44

INTRODUCTION DESIGN BASES DESCRIPTION OF OVERALL DESIGN PRODUCT YIELDS AND PROPERTIES

Page Ja

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

5.0

UTILITY BALANCE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES WORKING CAPITAL ESTIMATES OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

4-15 4-16 4-19 4-19

5-1 - ' ;'~5-1

EXPANDED BASE CASE

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

6.0

INTRODUCTION DESIGN BASES DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN PRODUCT YIELDS AND PROPERTIES UTILITY BALANCES CAI~TAL COST ESTIMATES WORKING CAPITAL ESTIMATES OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

5-1 5-1 .5-2 5-2 5-2 5-2 5-3 6-I 6-1 6-3 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 6-7 6-8 6-11 6-12 6-14 6-15 6-15 6-15 6-17 6-19 6-20 6-20 6-20

F|SCHER-TROPSCH CASE 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 INTRODUCTION DESIGNBASES STEAMMETHANE REFORMING CO2 RECOVERY HYDROGEN SEPARATION FISCHER-TROPSCHSYNTHESIS 6.6.1 PREAMBLE 6.6.2 FISCHER-TROPSCHPROCESS DESCRIPTION 6.6.3 CATALYST SPECIFICATIONS 6.6.4 CATALYST LIFE AND REGENERATION 6.6.5 CATALYST INSITU ACTIVATION 6.6.6 F-T PURGE GAS PROCESSING F-T PRODUCT FINISHING 6.7.1 PREAMBLE 6.7.2 HYDROCRACKING 6.7.3 MIDDLE DISTILLATE IMPROVEMENT 6.7.4 PRODUCT FRACTIONATION 6.7.5 FURTHER WORK F-T AREA WASTE TREATMENT

6.7

6.8

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.9

6.10 6.11 6.T2 6.13 6.14 7'.0

F-T AREA UTILITIES 6.9.1 REFRIGERATION 6.9.2 CHILLED WATER 6.9.3 STEAMSYSTEMS 6.9.4 CONDENSATE AND BOILER FEEDWATER 6.9.5 COOLING WATER 6.9.6 INSTRUMENTAIR 6.9.7 FUEL GAS 6.9.8 FLARES 6.9.9 PIPELINES 6.9.10 TANKAGE PRODUCT YIELDS AND PROPERTIES UTILITY BALANCE CAF~TAL COST ESTIMATE WORKING CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

6-21 6-21 6-21 6-21 6-22 6-22 6-22 6-22 6-23 6-23 6-23 6-23 6-23" 6-26 6-26 6,26

PARTIAL REFINING CASES

7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2 7-9 7-9 7-9 7-10 7-10

8-1 8-I 8-I 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

8.0

INTRODUCTION DESIGN BASES DESCRIPTION OF OVERALL DESIGN PRODUCT QUALITIES UTILITY BALANCES CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES WORKING CAPITAL ESTIMATES OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

INTEGRATED CASE
8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8

INTRODUCTION DESIGN BASES DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN PRODUCT YIELDS AND PROPERTIES UTILITY BALANCES CAPITAL COSTS WORKING CAPITAL OPERATING COSTS

Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.0

FULL REFINING CASES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 INTRODUCTION DESIGN BASES DESCRIPTION OF OVERALL DESIGN PRODUCT YIELDS UTILITY BALANCES CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES WORKING CAPITAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

9-1 9-1 9-2 9-6 9-24 9-24 9-24 9-26 9-26

10-1 I0-I I0-I 10-2 10-3 11.1

I 0.0

SPECIALCASES 10.1 10.2 10.3 "0.4 PREAMBLE BUY OR MAKE HYDROGEN PARTIAL OXIDATION FOR SYNTHESIS GAS METHANOL VERSUS FISCHER-TROPSCH

11.0

ECONOMIC COMPARISONS 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 PREAMBLE EXPANDED BASECASE DISCUSSION FISCHER-TROPSCH CASE PARTIAL REFINING CASES INTEGRATED CASE FULL REFINING CASE

1 1-1 1 1-4 1 1-4 1 1-6 1 1-7 1 1-8

12.0 13.0

RESEARCH A N D DEVELOPMENT FACTORS

12-1 13-1 13-1 13-1

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 13.1 PREAMBLE 13.2 AIR 13.3 WATER 13.4 LAND 13.5 NEIGHBOURS 13.6 APPROVALS

i3-2
13-3 13-3 13-3

Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

14.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14.1 14.2 CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

14-1 14-1 14-1

APPENDICES
A. B. C. PRICE FORECASTS CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS CASE COMPARISONS

Page vi

LIST OF TABLES

2.1-1 3.5.1-1 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.3-1 4.3-3 4.7-1 4.8-1 S.8-1 6.7-1 6.9.10-1 6.12-1 6.t3-L . 6.T4-1
7.3-1 7.7-1 7.8-I

LIGHT/SYNTHETIC CRUDE QUALITY COMPARISON REGIONAL BYPRODUCT HYDROGEN AVAILABILITY CRUDE ASSAY OF COLD LAKE BITUMEN CRUDE ASSAY OF ATHABASCA BITUMEN COLD LAKE BASE CASE - OVERALL MASS BALANCE BASIC UPGRADER TANKAGE BASE CASE WORKING CAPITAL BASE CASE OPERATING COST ESTIMATES EXPANDED CASE OPERATING COST ESTIMATES FISCHER-TROPSCH PRODUCT FINISHING BALANCE F-T CASE TANKAGE FISCHER.TROPSCH PROCESSUNIT DIRECT FIELD COST F-T CASE WORKING CAPITAL F-T CASE OPERATING COST ESTIMATES PARTIAL RE'FI'NING CASE TANKAGE PARTIAL REFINING CASESWORKING CAPITAL PARTIAL RI~FINING SUB CASES OPERATING COST ESTIMATES INTEGRATED CASE TANKAGE INTEGRATED CASE WORKING CAPITAL INTEGRATED CASE OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

2-3 3-5 4-3 :'_4-4 4-10 4-14 4-22 4-22

5-3 6-18 6-24 6-27 6-27 6-28 7-6 7-10 7-11

8.3-1 8.7-1 8.8-1 9.3-1 9.3-2 9.4-1

9.7-1

8-5 8-6 8-6

9.8-1 10.2-1 10.3-1 10.3-2 TO.4-1

REFINING CASE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 9-8 FULL REFINING CASE TANKAGE 9-13 GASOLINE AND MIDDLE DISTILLATE POOL COMPOSITION ESTIMATES 9-25 FULL REFINING CASE WORKING CAPITAL 9-28 FULL REFINING SUB CASESOPERATING COST ESTIMATES 9-29 BUY OR MAKE HYDROGEN COST BASES DRY RAW SYN GAS COMPOSITIONS PAARTIAL OXIDATION VERSUS STEAM METHANE REFORMING F-T VERSUS METHANOL TO INCREMENTAL LIQUIDS

10-4 10-4 10-5 10-8

Page vii

LIST OF TABLES Page

11.1-I 11.1-2 11.3-I 11 ,~I

11.6-1

CASE ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY ANNUAL DIFFERENTIALSVERSUS BASE CASE SUMMARY FISCHER-TROPSCH SENSITIVITIES INCREMENTAL TO BASE CASE PARTIAL REFINING SUB CASE SENSITIVITIES INCREMENTAL TO BASE CASE FULL REFINING CASE SENSITIVITIES LOW GASOLINE PRODUCTION

11-2 11-3 11-5 11-5 11-9

Page viii

LIST OF FIGURES

4.2-1 4.3-1 6.1-1 6.3-1 6.4-1 6.6-1 6.7.1-1 6.9.10-1 7.3-1 7.3-2 7.3-3

BASE CASE SMR PROCESSFLOW SHEEr BASE CASE UPGRADER/EDMONTON TRANSFERSYSTEM OVERALL FISCHER-TROPSCH SYSTEM F-T CASE SMR PROCESS FLOW SHEET CO2 RECOVERY SYSTEM FISCHER-TROPSCH SYNTHESIS F-T PRODUCT FINISHING SYSTEM F-T CASE UPGRADER/EDMONTON TRANSFER SYSTEM PARTIAL REFINING CASE S.C.O. FRACTIONATION OPTIONAL NAPHTHA HYDROTREATER IN PARTIAL REFINING CASE PARTIAL REFINING C..)eSEUPGRADER/EDMONTON TRANSFER SYSTEM ~

4-6 4-13 6-2 6-5 6-6 6-9 6-16 6-25 7-4 7-5 7-7

8.1.1 8.3-1 9.3-1 9.3-2 9.3-3 10.4-1

INTEGRATED CASE PRODUCT BLENDING INTEGRATED CASE UPGRADER/EDMONTON TRANSFERSYSTEM FULL REFINING PROCESSSCHEME FULL REFINING CASE UPGRADEP~DMONTON TRANSFERSYSTEM TAME COMPLEX METHANOL TO NAPHTHA AND MIDDLE DISTILLATE

8-2 8-4 9-7 9-15 9-22 10-7

Page ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Technical Advisory Board provided appreciable advice and much assistance at the personal level. Bert Lang as the Alberta Chamber of Resources' Project Manager also provided many valuable comments and timely approvals. Manuel Tortes of the Alberta Department of Energy and Mr. Bill Dawson of CANMET also provided many in'puts as internal approvals. The CIBC's Rob Francis handled the major billing and fiscal management role very capably and the Alberta Chamber of Resources Don Currie provided administrative assistance. AOSTRA's Roger Bailey and Riaz Padamsey were always on call and of appreciable assistance, and ~he development of "upgraded" Cold Lake upgrader yield data by the latter was very much apl~eciatecL Purvin and Gertz' Tom Wise was also of much value beyond the provision of value forecasts and-Dennis Bobiy provided a number of comments beyond his brief report on alternate construction approaches. Mobil's Grant Karsner provided many useful comment on natural 8as conversion and Mobil processes, including middle distillate dewaxing.

Page x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION This study investigated a series of alternates to improving upgrader economics through adding onsite processes and in one case by expanding the Basic Upgrader from ~60,000 to 90,000 BPCD. The Diverse Interests case upgrader of the 1990 Regional Upgrader Business Plan Study of the Alberta Chamber of Resources' Oil Sands Task Force, was us~ foi the Base Case. That plant is based on a generic high conversion, high hydrogen addition primary upgrading plus fully integrated secondary hydrotreating. The Basic Upgrader would convert Cold Lake and Athabasca bitumen to a premium synthetic crude oil, with all "addons" lxoducing readily merchantable products. This current study has been funded by the Alberta Department of Energy, in part via its Hydrogen Research Program; by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; and by the Oil SandsTask Force member companies - Amoco, Canadian Occidental, Husky, Imperial, Shell and Suncor. Product retums, and capital and operating costs were reforecast from the 1990 report or adjusted to first quarter 1993 (1Q93) costs. Cases were compared on a before tax net present value basis, using a 10% discount factor over the 28 year life of the upgrader. The various/cases considered are outlined on the first diagram. The second and third diagrams illustrate the incremental R.O.I/s compared to the BaseCase- neglecting taxes and inflation. It also assumes the prices forecast in Table 1, largely by Purvin and Genz.

Page xi

Figure 1

EXP, q~DED
irruam

UPGR S 101

U ~ 201

! ~'L'I

;ROPSOH

7
i
~ o
I I

I~TUAN.~ 12~00 ~ - ' m ' t

N
L J

_.,

!
ira.tam m I iPo

,,--,,-D- dlEI A ,Ik I:~I~T,

~'EORATE]) CASE 501

lq'

~ r r
.

tmuu~

I~11.mL.~--e

~NHT I

~I00Q EIPC0

l q ' ~

601.-604.

OVERVIEW OF CASES

Table 1 EdmontonCos~Netbucks In Comtant 1Q~3 C.~u~di.~nDollars Sbeam I ( ~ 3 Value ($/bbl) Oul:~i FO6 Mid East Alberta LisI~ 5wee(Crude RaM Bitumen Diluted Bitumen Diluen( Intermediates
~._..~~_______~.C.O. 2

2000 Forecast Value ($P)bO (18.01 U.SJ 27.65 IS.SI 19.56 27.65 20.06 29.49 29.49 38.07 27.65 34.43 34.55 33.87 20.1 i 18.39 3.1 C/kWh

2010 Forec-ast Value ($/bbl) (21.28 U.SJ 32.$8

19.81
24.07

Basis

(i 7.00 U.S3 24.91 13.91 17.$8 24.91

18.27 26.$4 26.54

Wattd C ~ e RefeconceP &G Purvln & C,ectz Puntin & 2/3 bitumen, I/3 diluent for ;nventot se only 7 Purvin & Oilblt 50 Fat inverdocyuse only Purvin & C,ertz Fat inventory use only Seetext. Section 3.2 Indusu'yestimate (equal fish[ swe~ crude) Purvin & Genz Purvln & Cenz Pwvln & C,enz Pu~in & C,erlz 1990 study (no indusvy eslJmate(I)) 1990 ~udy (no charge} ~ertonoe

32.$8 24.$7 34.$9 34.$9 42.79

~R ~ F

~qpomeu

F-T Middle Dis~llace F.T NaF~d~ on=ram InC,L ~ j

JaA.1

35.70 24.91 31.67 31.96

32.$8 39-24 39-2S 38.60 24.38 22.21 3.1 4cWh

(0.03'I. 9 (40 C.eUu~ Field Butanes

31.SI 15.35 14.70

Eleclr;cky - 0.9 M,~ ,ervk~ fm:W

3.1 ~kWh SO/Ux~ I1.SS] .[I-~61

s l ,r
Nllural Gls

I~si

3.26 Not cudcula~d

Pwvin & Gertz per million BTU SeenatraUv~ note mi.x]n1Imavailable is less dum u~ruder needs Indusuyestimate (d

en. du Hydropn
Melhanol
Pich NOb,-

11.8Ol per 1 o ~

21.o0

22.S0

24.21 .38.00/mnoe

(b) (d

Value ~ life ~ ul~ruder correczedIo IC~3 at 10% discount factor. While utility believe i~ices will decline in IQg3 termsover the ne.xtfour years, such is no( assumedh~e. Disposalcost alloc=t~l to opera~8

Page x i i i

Figure 2

Upgrac~er'Options
Case InternaiR.O.I.

I~ase
REGIONAL UPGRADER

20"

I
~ 0 0 0 BPCO UPGRADER
BASE F1SCHER ~

Case
e ~ s E UF~ULD~

BA,~ + ~ + $CO FRAC

BASE + SCO FRAC

Figure 3

Upgr aer Options

Incremental R.O.I.

201 Case

604

F'CO UPGRADER - - - ~

~ , ,

FII~HE~TROPSCH

/, CONDENSATE *F-T BASE UPGRADER

BASE F.T + 6 COND + S.C.O. FRAC

BASE 6 COND + S.C.O. FRAC BASE + 6 COND BASE + S.C.O. FRAC

This study has only used publicly available data, hence, certain proprietary data may have been bypassed which improve economics, especially in the natural gas conversion cases.
2. EXPANDED UPGRADER

At 90,000 BPCD of feed, the Expanded Upgrader would use 3 conversion, hydrogen production and sulphur recovery trains, with other processes single train. At this size, the diluted bitumen distillation and following vacuum column would be the largest s6ch units in Alberta with significant field vessel fabrication. The Expanded Upgrader would produce 95,840 BPCD of a 35.7API S.C.O., above light sweet par crude in 1993, the margin rising slightly with time. The S.C.O. from both 60,000 and 90,000 BPCD cases would find ready markets in northern tier states as well as in Canada (but pipeline contamination might drop the value in Chicago markets). The additional capital for expansion to 90,000 BPCD is estimated at $685 million - $22,800 per BPCD of feedstock ($21.500 BPCD of S.C.O.) As expected, the Expanded Upgrader shows lower operating and capital costs, the return on added capital being well above the Base Case facility. 3. NATURAL GAS CONVERSION Earlier studies had indicated a technical fit for the addition to an upgrader of natural gas conversion via the Fischer.Tropsch synthesis route. While adding about 25 percent to the upgradefs liquid products, hydrogen would also be I:,'oduced for upgrading. Addition of such a scheme is estimated to add $1,050 million in capital or $62,700/BPCD of incremental products (16,740 BPCD). The product value averages above S.C.O. due to

Page xvi

a premium over diesel expected for the 9,040 BPCD of middle distillate that can be blended with about 15,000 BPCD of the same fraction of current quality S.C.O. to improve the "latter's cetane number to a 43 level as need by most light crude refineries. The F-T naphtha will receive approximately light par crude value for petrochemicals, but is a very poor refinery feedstock. The F-T add-on does not appear particularly attractive economically. An alternate approach of using partial oxidation and purchased oxygen to convert natural gas only for F-T feed - with a parallel conventional natural gas to hydrogen unit for upgrader hydrogen - appears at least equaily viable. But in such a situation, F-T is not particularly synergistic with upgrading unless the premium qualities of the F-T middle distillate are essential in the S.C.O.; something not now foreseen. Synthesis gas production and natural gas conversion both appear areas where improved and/or preferably new technologies are needed.
4, PARTIAL REFINING

The addition of an S.C.O. fractionator was explored with production of 6,000 and 9,000 BPCD of jet fuel and diesel, with the potential of producing the rest of the upgrader's S.C.O. in various types, differentiated

by fractional composition.

The direct jet and diesel sales actually improve the marketability of the rest of the S.C.O. The addition of 12,000 BPCD of diluent was also considered to provide an even more acceptable S.C.O. - one that has enough naphtha to be considered for a re.finery's basic crude oil. The economics of naphtha addition to the S.C.O. are not particularly attractive due to the $95 million capital cost being offset by only another $2 million in revenues.

Page xvii

The added offplot piperacks, tankage, etc., all tend to greatly inflate the cost above the bare unit cost in both these sub cases. The economics of such additions are not apparent unless one assumes that the upgrader can consistently receive a higher return from differentiated S.C.O. products than from a single product (as Suncor are claiming) - approximately $21 million more a year for each added dollar per barrel. With such an increase (or equivalent prevention of such a reduction from perceived value) the S.C.O. fractionator at least appears attractive. The study concludes that differentiated S.C.O.'s and/or specific products should be further explored by an upgrader proponent but possiblT with fractional desegregation in the secondary hydrolreating system. ~. INTEGRATEI~I CASE "ibis case assumed F-T plus S.C.O. fractionation plus added diluent. As the individual cases leading to this case were not particularly attractive and there is little synergy between F-T the most expensive add-on - and upgrading, this case is not discussed further here. 6. FULL REFINING CASES These cases were added towards the end of the study to test the viability of full refining IF markets can be developed for the gasoline. Middle distillate demands are expected to continue to increase in both Canada and the U.S. with markets for the upgrader/refinery's output. However, sufficient gasoline production capability appears to exist in all but accessible markets but possibly western Canada for the foreseeable future. Some refineries will have to adapt to reformulated fuels but this will be at a much lesser expense than a new refinery. But with the addition of MTBE the gasoline products of the scheme developed here

Page xviii

will meet probable U.S. national standards and reformulated qualities (but olefins will be above California and New England standards). A relatively conventional refining scheme based on catalytic cracking, alkylation, catalytic reforming and isomerization is assumed, but with an added TAME unit. The latter will convert high vapour pressure Cs olefins (smog reactive species) and purchased methanol to a premium octane, low vapour pressure component providing some oxygen to the product. The refining scheme designed to process all S.C.O. will cost an incremental $660 million in the case with 12,000 BPCD of diluent added. The difference between pri:x:luct sales, assuming a minimum gasoline approach and feedstocks now including small amounts of butanes an~f methanol, rises by $111 million compared to the Basic Upgrader. After increases in operating costs the margin drops to about $66 million a year in 1Q93 terms. None of the refining cases sparkle economically. If an added $2/bbl can be attained for the gasoline, say in penetrating U.S. reformulated gasoline markets, the return is only about 11.2% versus 10.6% at the base gasoline price.
. BUY OR MAKE HYDROGEN

A brief side study revisited this topic from the 1990 study and concluded that there is merit in further consideration of purchase of, say, 70 percent of the upgraders' needs. But there are still a number of supply security dsks to be assessed. 8. CONCLUSIONS This study has not identified any breakthroughs. Of all alternates considered, only two appear to warrant detailed inspection S.C.O. fractionation (with or without

Page xix

diluent/condensate addition) to improve/guarantee good product prices and full refining, the latter only if' gasoline markets can be firmed up. The Fischer-Tropsch natural gas conversion route suffers from very high capital costs and does not appear appropriate even with a lower cost partial oxidation approach. There are major research and development opportunities in F-T and natural gas conversion generally.

II

II
Page xx

DISCLAIMER

The clara, opinions and conclusions advanced in this report are those of the authors and are not necessarily in accord with the views and/or polities of the government of Alberta, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada and/or the Alberta Chamber of Resources.

Page xxi

II

1.0 1.1

INTRODUCTION PREAMBLE The report summarizes a study into a variety of alternate approaches that may increase the financial return of bitumen upgrading. The 1990 Oil SandsTask Force RegionalUpgrader Business Plan's "Diverse Interests", 60,000 BPCD, ultra high conversion, high hydrogen addition route has been used as the Base Case throughout this study. -~

The "optimization" in the report's title is a misnomer to the extent that none of the schemes presented here were fully optimized - indeed only the operator of a specific project can do that - rather this study provides dues and directions as to some alternate routes to be considered by future upgrader proponents. '-nbdbh units have been used in this report to be consistent with the 1990 Business Plan.
1,.2

STUDY ORGANIZATION This study has been funded by the Alberta Department of Energy, the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the following oil companies: Amoco, Canadian Occidental, Husky, Imperial, Shell and Suncor. The Alberta Chamber of Resources' Oil Sands Task Force was the study's manager. The study has been under the general direction of a management committee consisting of Mr. Bert Lang of Suncor as Chairman, Mr. Manuel Torres of the Alberta Department of Energy and Mr. Bill Dawson of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Erdal Yildirim of Canadian Occidental was the driving force behind the earlier work and provided overview of this study. Don Currie of the Alberta Chamber of Resources ~CR) and Robert Francis of the CIBC provided the administrative and financial management functions.

II

1-1

A Technical Advisory Board of the ACR's Oil Sands Task Force provided technical overview and many contributions throughout the study. This study was coordinated by Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd.'s (SICL)T.J. McCann with D. Tuli on hydrogen and synthesis gas production and F-T synthesis support facilities; and ~,i[born's J. Jansen on capital cost estimating. SICL'sP.H.S. Magee provided the refining and operating cost bases with D. Lubarsky on the fiscal models and R. Dingman on capital spreadsheets. Purvin and Gertz's T. Wise provided the vast majority of price forecasts. Energy International, under A. Singleton, provided the F-T synthesis process systems. D. Bobly briefly analyzed alternate construction approaches. 1.3 ECONOMIC BASES The 1990 Business Plan provided a format for evaluation of alternate cases. Due to the number of alternates being considered, a simple net present value approach and internal retum on investment is used, neglecting inflation and taxes but allowing for expected changes over a 28 year upgrade" life.
1.4

TECHNOLOGY BASES This study has used only data publicly available in order that it may be freely distributed. Thus, no proprietary data are included.

1-2

2.0 2.1

CASESCONSIDERED 'PREAMBLE The earlier OSTF studies indicated that the addition of natural gas conversion via FischerTropsch synthesis to Increase S.C.O.; or S.C.O. equivalent, production was technically feasible with co-produced hydrogen balanced to upgrading needs. economically v i a b l e ?
-

But was F-T

the major question addressed in this study.

Suncor activities, public via late 1992/early 1993 paper, and analysis of the upgrader's S.C.O. fractional composition indicated that the more or less desegregation of the single S.C.O. of'the 1990 report might be economic. Evaluation of the S.C.O. composition also noted that the addition of naphtha would probably aid in marketing the S.C.O., particularly as it would more closely mimic light sweet crude oil in refineries designed for such crudes, allowing use of the modified S.C.O. as a basic rather than an incremental feedstock. In early March of 1993, Imperial Oil's M. Ghosh presented a concept for splitting diluted bitumen into a heavy vacuum bottoms fuel fraction (for emulsified fuel use) and a diluent/bitumen tops blend, noting interest by 2 refiners, at least. In effect, naphtha is added to the "S.C.O." product. While diluent will probably be in short supply by 2000, at least one-third should be available for addition to S.C.O. when bitumen otherwise moving to market is upgraded. The question of economics of full refining as opposed to merely producing an S.C.O. for conversion to finished products elsewhere, has been an ongoing question and is the last one addressed.

2-1

It must be noted that the term upgrader optimization has been used in the hope that upgrading economics can be improved by adding/revising process steps - what are the most appropriate ones? Only an upgrader proponent can truly answer the questions raised, but this study should provide some directions. The S.C.O. product specification and expected S.C.O. yields in the Baseand Expanded Base Cases are shown in Table 2.1-1. 2.2 BASECASE

The 60,000 BPCD "Diverse Interests Case from the 1990 Regional Upgrader Business Plan
wasse./ected as the BaseCase for this study. Mrnor changes in product handling were made to suit other cases, otherwise the original concepts were untouched. New hydrogen unit costs were developed fronl a specific process design in order t6 be fully consistent with all other cases, but the basic design concept was unchanged. Sufficient diluted bitumen has been assumed available from both Cold Lake and Athabasca sources, with diluent returned to the producing field. A product pipeline to a new Edmonton terminal was added with provision for S.C.O. product movement to all three Ft. Saskatchewan/Edmonton area refineries, as well as to refineries on the west coast via the TransMountain System and Ontario and mid west refineries via the InterProvincial systems in batches up to 300,000 barrels.

2-2

Table Z1-1 Lighl/Synthefic Crude Quality Compar;son Faclor ACR Synthetic Target ~ ACR Estimated,

Current QuaJity Synthetic Crude Oil,

IPL Blend Pat)

S.CO. C,tavity, ",~1 .Sulphur, wt % D.~illafion, LV % C: rand lighter C4's Cs - 71"(2 cs - I~ (3so'el 71 - 193"C 177 - 2OO*C 177- 343"C 204 - 3 4 3 ~ 343 - 524~C 343 - 5E6'C $66"C, Properllc.s Cs - 71"C Cs - 177"C 71 - 177"C *' 177'- 260"C 193 - 288"C 193 - 343% Octane, (RetrY2 Ni(rogen, wppm N+2A, LV % N+2A, ~ % Aromatics, LV% Smoke Point, mm Aromatics, LV % Smoke Point, mm Freeze Point, *F Sulphur, ~4 % Cetmr~ Number ~romatics, LV % Pour Point, *F Cetane Number Sulphur, ' ~ m Sulphur, wt % Nitrogen, wppm C~avity, *API
"K" F~-tor

30 (mid

36.7 <0.01 0 2.9 17.7

32.8 0.17 2..4 5 14 28 16

38.0 0.5
I

3Crn~
15-0

40-45 25-40

i-3 6.3 2.'.5 17 11

46.8 41.2

36.7

WN
0.0

33
I

26 9

60 <0.3
61 <18 21

60 70

65 72

22 (max) 20 CrnaxJ

1 7 7 . 343"C 343 - 566'C

43 (min)" 5OO (max)

44
S

38 18 -67 0.04 41 45 -45

22 24 -31 025 "0 26 -I0 1.0 <I2CO 24

11.9

0.34 1400 18

~ematics, LV %
343.

524"c:

Sulphur.ppm N~rosen. wpIxn

Gmvi(y, *API

ogen, wl %
iooo ( . u ~

11.4 60 33 7J

40 15
6.9

~tx~VHyd~e,.
No!e~.

too <i00 25.7 7.1

Revised 1993. Supplied by Purvin and Cenz, "Syn~,dc Cmcle Madcet Analysis', Janua..'y, I.O90, of 19e0 Repot.

2-3

The S.C.O. is expected to find a ready home in light sweet crude oriented refineries served by InterProvincial, particularly at St. Paul, Superior, Sarnia, Mississauga, and Nanticoke, where pipeline contamination is minimal compared with that to refineries served by the looped system via Chicago. The prior studies indicated that the S.C.O.'s diesel fraction would have a cetane of 43.5 to 44.5 and a recommendation appeared there to raise the S.C.O. cetane specifications to" 43 to allow refiners to meet a 40 cetane product when low grade streams were added. Thus,
_

the S.C.O. specification was adjusted to 43 (from 40).

2.3

"

EXPANDED BASECASE As total product output can reach as high as 92,000 BPCD level in other cases, this case considered an upgrader 150 percent of the Base Case - 90,000 BPCD of bitumen and approximately 96,000 BPCD of product. No change in process or auxiliary system configu~tion from the Base Case has been made. The same markets are attainable, given the ongoing decline in Canadian light sweet crude production.

2.4

FISCHER-TROPSCHCASE In this case the natural gas demand increases by a factor of slightly less than 5 to provide sufficient hydrogen for the Base Case Upgrader and synthesis gas (2 hydrogen plus 1 carbon monoxide) to produce approximately 16,000 BPCD of Fischer-Tropsch naphtha and middle distillates (Jet A and diesel equivalents) . . . .

The F-T naphtha will probably be sold to a Sarnia ethylene producer at light crude value and the midule distillates would be used to enhance the qualities of similar fractions from

2-4

conventional synthetic crude oils providing blends that meet full Jet A (kerosene type) and diesel product specifications. Alternately, the F-T middle distillate could be used at any refinery with smoke and/or cetane problems with heavy crude based U.S. refineries very specific targets. The F.T Case is based on a fixed bed F-T synthesis design provided, insofar as proprietary constraints would allow, by Energy International whose staff has long experience in F-T synthesis process development. A promoted cobalt catalyst in fixed bed (tubular) reactors was selected as most appropriate for this case. The F-T raw liquid product w!ll_be'converted into the premium middle distillates - very high smoke point and cetane (but low densities) in a hydrocracking~dewaxing product finishing section. The bulk of the overall study has been relative to the entire F-T system as full balances and equipment sizes were needed for cost estimating. Special emphasis was placed on synthesis gas production - steam methane reforming, CO= capture and hydrogen recovery (for upgrading) - because of its major impact on capital and operating costs. As noted, El provided the design of the F-T synthesis system. The F-T product finishing costs have been based on literature and file data - with process balances being preliminary due to lack of public data. 2.5 PARTIALREFINING CASE There are two sub cases - one with fractionation only and the other with naphtha added via diluent addition. Evaluations of light sweet crude consuming refineries long the U.S. northern tier and in Ontario, indicated that at least 10 percent of the original S.C.O. could be sold as middle distillate products leaving a continuing high value S.C.O. In practice, the percentage might well rise as high as 20 percent. In order to separate out such products, a full sized S.C.O.

2-5

fractionation system was added to the Basic Upgrader - the full size allowing sale of all S.C.O. as specially blended S.C.O.'s to suit specific refiner needs (and to achieve the maximum average S.C.O. return as Suncor are showing). As noted previously, additional naphtha would enhance the value and more particularly, potential continuous sales to most light sweet crude based refineries. Thus, a sub case examines adding 12,000 BPCD of diluent to the upgrader's feed. This added naphtha necessitates an added hydrotreater whose design is set for a very sour condensate, shdLild such ever be selected as the incremental feedstock (although not assumed-fiere). 2.6 RER~LNG CASES - ,-~,~.,

Four possible refining cases were considered based on the Basic Case Upgrader, with no incremental feeds, with F-T added, with diluent added and with both F-T and diluent facilities added. A relatively conventional refining configuration was selected - catalytic cracking, C=C~ alkylation, CsC6 isomerization and Ct to C~ or C,o catalytic reforming. The-catalytic cracking unit shows special synergy in the primary and secondary upgrading units, eliminating any heavy fuel oil production. However, in order to meet low summer time gasoline vapour pressure specifications, a unit to reduce C.s olefin production to a minimum became necessary. A Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether route with Cs olefin isomerization was selected. This results in some oxygen in the product gasolines as well as significantly reduced olefin levels. With addition of MTBE (over the fence at the Edmonton terminal end), the upgrader/retlnery's gasolines will probably meet U.S. national reformulated standards (but be slightly above'California and New England olefin levels).

II
2-6

The TAME unit introduces methanol as a =new" feedstock. A butane isomerization facility was also added to reduce the cost of n-butane for alkylation (as at the 2 Edmonton refineries). The refined products can move to Edmonton markets (via existing loading racks); to Calgary (via the APPL pipeline); to Kamloops, Vancouver and Washington refineries (via TransMountain); and to eastern prairie, U.S. northern tier and Ontario refineries (via InterProvincial). Michigan/Ohio markets are also accessible via the Buckeye system frbm lnterProvincial at Marysville, just upstream 0t: Sarnia. At this time, Chicago area markets appear doubtful due to pipeline contamination questions. While cegn~l, prcx:tuct prices were netted back to Edmonton from Chicago, this basis is still applicable to other mid western markets. (Jet fuel movements to Vancouver and 5arnia also suspect relative to contamination, and may necessitate redistillation in existing facilities.)

2-7

3.0 3.1.

FEED,INTERMEDIATE AND PRODUCT' PRICING PRICING AND COST SUMMARY The pricing used in this study is shown in Appendix A which contains the Purvin and Gertz report with year by year projections for most in and out streams (in U.S. 1993 dollars) as well as a comparison in Canadian dollars. Their 1990 report contributions should be referred to in the 1990 Business Plan as it discusses S.C.O. valuation in some,detail. The Canadian dollar has been valued at $0.80 U.S. throughout this study. For this study, Purvin and Gertz have provided a natural gas price forecast. The major cha~e in natural gas cost over the forecast period must be noted as it materially impacts on upgrader economics in future years. The projected minor strengthening in refinery margins is also of note, but not enough to offset natural gas. The refined produced prices have been based on Purvin and Gertz estimates of expected netbacks at Edmonton for sales in Chicago. While Chicago area sales now appear unlikely, the use of Chicago as a basing point is reasonable and appropriate for all but movements to the west coast. In order to simplify analysis of Full Refining cases in this study, only a generic Canadian quality, regular gasoline has been used. The quality of the gasoline will be close to that expected in late 1990's U.S. reformulated gasoline - only MTBE need be added. The refining case configurations all have the capability to produce an 89 road octane pool to achieve 87.for regular and up to 93 for premium (before added MTBE providing up to 1.5 numbers additional). However, most sales are envisaged to non refining marketers who sell mostly regular grades and seek the lowest price product supply at all time~. Gasoline production capacity is not expected to become particularly tight in any region except

3-1

perhaps western Canada through the forecast period. Thus, while there may be a negative bias in gasoline pricing, it is not expected to be serious. The diesel pricing is based on a generic 40 cetane number low sulphur blend to meet late 1993 U.S. standards. There is a likelihood that by 2000 cetane level could go to 45 minimum, above the upgrader's current capabilities in all but cases with F-T middle distillate added. The latter's pricing is discussed in Section 3.3 below. The electricity estimate is based on current utility charges and an assumed no charge in 1993 dollar terms in the future. (Utilities predict a slight fall in constant dollars not shown here.) 3.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSES BASES The data of Table 1 and Appendix A show rising feedstock and product pricing through 2010 in 1993 dollars. A rising differential between products and feedstock are predicted, more so relative to S.C.O. than to refined products as the premium qualities of the S.C.O. become of more value to refiners. But through the forecast period, natural gas cost is predicted to rise at an even greater rate. To provide estimates of the value of the various "add-ons', this study has used the pricing forecast provided

by Purvin and Certz and the capital

cost estimates detailed in Appendix

B (extended to cover the project life). The capital expenditure profile, planning/engineering and construction schedules were assumed unchanged from the 1990 basis. Each case considered by this study, including the economic sensitivity cases discussed in Section 11, were compared by the following measures: 1) Simple ratio of operating margin (revenues minus feedstocks and operating costs) to capital cost based on 1993 prices.

3-2

2)

Net present value of the operating margin cash flow (before taxes, no inflation or special financing) over the project life, using a 10 percent annual discount rate and forecast pricing.

3)

Internal rate of return of the investment based on the operating margin cash flow.

The Appendices contain additional data for a reader desiring to do more detailed calculation than here.
3.3

COMMENT The.impact of taxation, innovative project financing, special discounts, etc., will change the economic attractiveness of the project. This study was primarily concerned with evaluating and selecting the best technical "fits" and "add-ons" to the Basic Upgrader, thus more cem~ex economic analysis was not carried out. Further economic analysis of the selected process add-ons package is strongly recommended,

3.4

FoT MIDDLE DISTILLATEVALUATION The F.T middle distillate will be used to improve the quality of refinery jet and diesel fuels from smoke and cetane number viewpoints, respectively. In each such use, F-T middle distillate will be reducing aromatics through dilution. The F-T middle distillate is extremely light (low specific gravity), with a volumetric energy content well below that of conventional jet and diesel fuels, thus, it is hard to see it selling directly to customers; even to city bus companies who are very concerned with visible diesel exhausts (which will be greatly reduced with the total lack of aromatics in the F-T material).
To place a value on these middle distillates for all but the Full Refining cases (where they

will be used to enhance the diesel pool to over 47 cetane number), blending with low

3-3

cetane conventional synthetic crude oil middle distillate to produce a retlnery acceptable cetane blend, is compared to the addition of an aromatic saturation unit. Assuming 33 cetane for the conventional S.C.O. middle distillate (CSMD), 60 blending cetane for the F-T middle distillate (F-TMD) and 43 for the refinery blend (RB), indicates that the 9,000 BPCD of F-TMD will blend with 15,300 BPCD of CSMD to produce 24,300 BPCD of RB. .....

A unit to produce that much RB from CSMD will require about 23,100 BPCD of ieod, assuming a net volumetric gain of S percent. Current aromatic saturation technology - e.g. the Cdte.cien/CE tummu$ SynSat process - would require a deep, higher temperature desulphurization step before a colder precious metal aromatic saturation step. Such a unit will cost approximately $70 million in the Edmonton area (using estimating consistent with other parts of this study). Operating costs per barrel of product will be approximately $1.75 - $1.20 for hydrogen (at $1.00 per thousand sc0 and about 11 cents each for fuel and electricity, catalyst, maintenance, and incremental other operating costs. This cost will be offset by approximately $1.60 due to yield gain. Thus, the net cost will be largely capital related. For simplicity, we have assumed a 20 percent return before tax as required by the refiner (or upgrader) - approximately $1.66. Thus, the overall net charge will be roughly $1.81 in 1Q93, placing the CSIviD that much below the diesel market price (after crude fractionation). Converting the $1.66 figure to a premium over diesel market value indicates a value of $35.70 (1Q93). Hydrogen costs will rise by 2000 clue to higher natural gas costs, thus, the differential over diesel has been t,'ept constant.

3-4

3.5

PURCHASEDHYDROGEN

3.5.1 AVAILABILITY The sensitivity of overall costs to purchase of part of the hydrogen needed in upgrading is

discussed in a separate section, but here the cost of purchased hydrogen is developed. In
all cases with F-T, except for a sensitivity case involving natural gas partial oxidation in lieu of steam methane reforming, the F-T systems SMR units produce the upgr~der's'hydrogen directly and thus the F-T route is not amenable to purchased hydrogen unless the F-T system size is reduced.I r ~, "[be t g g ~ r ~ x t incl?cated'the availability of hydrogen from the following major soiJrces by 1998:
Tad~e 3.S.1-1 Regional Byproduct Hydrogen Ava~labil;ty

Lo~m

Source Un2t

Pure HI A~ilable after Purificalion (tumid'd) 12 61

m

Notes

E. Edmonton
m

Nbena Envlrokmls Ce~netle

Butane

MTBE Plant

Dehydmgena|ion N.E. Edmonton Ft. S,~,lc~chew~ Ft. Saslc,~chewan Methanol Chloe Alkali
i

Dow
Dow
J ~

9 66 140

New 1994

Toud

in the FTcases,the hydrosen for FT produa finishing is taken from purgegasprocessing,plus the margin provided over

uplr~er needs.

3-5

The Dow chlor alkali figure may be high by the year 2000 as chlorine is phased out of many uses, but two Bruderheim sodium chlorate plants already have about 5 million scfd available, half of which is now vented, it also appears that Alberta Envirofuels or and equivalent new plant will expand MTBE production and, hence, increases hydrogen supply potential. Dow's ethylene capacity could also expand. Cross ties to Pelrq-Canada's Edmonton and Shell's Scofford refinery hydrogen units would provide mine incremental supply and some on line balancing. Esso Chemical's Redwater fertilizer_plant has. a shutdown ammonia plant that can be converted to produce approximately 40 million scfd of hydrogen. A maxkm.tm byproduct availability of about 150 million scfd can be reasonably assumed, but that availability will drop to 80 to 85 million with any outage at the largest producer.

The basic 60,000 BPCD regional upgrader requires 168 million scfd including a 6 percent safety margin, which is partly used in the various add-on facility cases. This supply is based on two 50 percent trains, except in the F-T Case where hydrogen is supplied from the front end of the F-T system when excess hydrogen over F-T needs is separated out for upgrader use. If only 1 train is provided, the situation will be very tight whenever a major byproduct source is out of operation. Possibly storage will be needed to provide some surge capacity, also of benefit to on-site hydrogen production to avoid flaring hydrogen following a sudden drop in demand, and to allow faster upgrader throughput buildings. However, this study has not studied the system nor defined the risks and economics of storage.

II
3-6

As the single hydrogen unit must be kept on-line at, say, 60 percent of capacity to provide surety of supply, even with all sources available it is assumed here that over the year 70 percent of upgrader hydrogen needs will be purchased. 3.5.3 PURCHASED HYDROGEN COSTING The byproduct hydrogen supply has the following cost sectors: a) b) c) dJ Replacement natural gas, Margin for seller, Facilities to purify and compress at source, and Pipelines to Regional Upgrader.

Replacement Natural Gas Based on lower heating values and the above noted $1.55 per million BTU (S2.35) in natural gas in 1Q93, the replacement natural gas will cost $0.47 per 1,000 scfd of hydrogen ($0.71 in 2000 in 1Q93 dollars).

Margin for Seller This will be an item of appreciable negotiation and will be greatly impacted by the variability of offtake. The seller will require appreciably more instrumentation to take purification off gases and replacement natural gas into his fuel gas system. For example, burners now on nearly pure hydrogen must be able to use a range of compositions all the way to natural gas. This can get very expensive.

3-7

For this study, a seller's margin of 20 percent of the replacement fuel value has been assumed. This should not escalate with fuel gas price increases (in 1Q93 terms) $0.09 per 1,000 scfd. Facilities for Purification and Compression The 1990 report estimated these in 1989 dollars at $84 million (~ssuming an added allowance of $2.6 for chlor alkali hydrogen). This converts to approximately sgo million in IQ93 costs. Operating costs were estimated at $14 million (assuming $1.4 aclded for the chlor alkali stream). These costs will drop somewhat with below 100 percent loads, but the demand component of electrical costs will tend to keep operating costs relatively canslant, regardless of average offiake. Assuming 20 percent R.O.I. before tax return on these facilities indicates annual charges of about $32 million. Pipelines The 1990 report costs related pipelines at $7.7 million. Adding in a variety of short connectors and converting to 1Q93 dollars, gives a total cost of about $10 million. Allowing for normal gas pipeline rate of return plus operating costs, gives an annual total cost of $2 million for the pipeline portion.

3-8

Summary Cost Sector Annual (1 Q93) Millions of Dollars Gas Replacement (168 million demand - 58 produced on-site) x 365 days x .9 F.S. x $0.47/1000 scf x 1,000 scf Seller Margins Plant Site Facilities Pipeline Charges Total 3.8 32.0 2.0 56.7 x 106 $18.9

i
,

Note that all capital costs for the above system totalled about $110 million, somewhat above that of the voided hydrogen unit. The unit cost of purchased hydrogen in 1Q93 thus works out to $1.56 per 1000 scf. In 2000, the price will rise to about $1.80 (in 1Q93 dollars) due to rising gas costs.

3-9

4.0 4.1

BASECASE INTRODUCTION In the 1990 Regional Upgrader Business Plan, the 30,000 BPCD case wzs labelled the Reference Case" and the 60,000 BPCD case was titled "Diverse Interests Case'. In this update and extension of that report, the "Base Case~ is merely a 1Q93 version of the "Diverse Interests. Casew - i.e. 60,000 BPCD of bitumen, with minor changes relative to product S.C.O. transport to match other cases. . . . ~ ~.:

AOSTRA developed an upgraded set of yields for a generic ultra high conversion primary plus secondary route, such as Veba's Combi Cracking or CANMET plu~i~ntegral hydrocracking for a Cold Lake bitumen case. The quality of this data was consider~ preferable to that presented in the 1990 report for a 50/50 Cold Lake/Athabasca blend. The battery limits of this Base Case (and all other cases of this study) include the primary upgrading units, the secondary upgrading units, the associated utilities and offsites to support these primary and secondary units, interconnecting facilities, related new pipelines as far as Edmonton and an Edmonton terminal. The 1990 study cost estimating approaches were reviewed and a slight change was made to reflect the anticipated mode of construction, as well as to update its 4Q89 costs to the first quarter of 1993. The Synthetic Crude Oil specification has been changed only to adjust the cetane number specification to 43 (from 40), the minimum as suggested by Purvin and Genz in 1990 to allow refiners to blend in lower cetane stocks when meeting the normal 40 of diesel products. This has no effect on design or operations as 43.5 to 44.5 is anticipated in this Base Case, anyway.

4-1

In the following portions of this section, changes from the 1990 bases are underlined.

4.2

DESIGN BASES The following are the design bases for the Base Case Regional Upgradee. Capacity The upgrade" is designed to process 60,000 BPCD of bitumen. Crude Assay The upgrader is designed to process either Cold Lake bitumen (Table 4.2-1 repeated from the 1990 report), or Athabasca bitumen (Table 4.2-2 repeated from the 1990 report) or combination (separately or combined) of these two crudes. The "normal = feed to the upgrader consists of 50% Athabasca bitumen and 50% Cold Lake bitumen by volume. The crude is supplied to the upgrader asa blend with diluent in the following concentrations: Athabasca Cold Lake Synthetic Crude Quality The synthetic crude quality meets the specifications outlined above in Table 2.1-1. (Note the increase in diesel cetane from the 1990 version.) 55% 65%

4-2

Table 4.2,1 Crude Assay of Cold lake Bitumen

FRACTION, F GRAVITY API SG MASS |/HR DIST. VOLUME BPCD DIST. COMP. CARBON HYDROGEN SULFUR NITROGEN OXYGEN METALS,WPPM VANADIUM NICKEL ANILINE PT.,F CCR, WT%. VISCOCITY,CS @ 210F ].ASH FREE BASIS - ASH CONTENT = 0.05% 120 120 130 24.3 26400 13.2 73 C5-320 57.8 0.7475 4,580 0.53% 420 0.70% 85.08% 13.54% 1.38% 320-400 37.1 0.8393 400-650 25.2 0.9030 650-700 19.6 0.9365 700-975 16.1 0.9587 975+ 2.5 1.0560 TOTAL 10.8 0.9944

18,360 124,836 2.11% 14.35% !,500 2.50% 86.16% 12.60% 1.24% 9,480 15.79% 85.86% 12.50% 1.63% 0.01%

38,512 212,272 471,520 870,080 4.43% 24.40% 54.19% 100.00% 2,820 4.70% 85.30% 11.90% 2.70% 0.03% 0.07% 15,183 25.30% 85.24% 11.00% 3.29% 0.15% 0.32% 30,619 51.01% 82.78% 9.60% 5.95% 0.68% . 1.00% 277 101 60,022 100.00% 84.02% 10.54% 4.41% 0.40% 0.62% 150 55

jR

4-3 28-May-90:R.PADAMSEY

Table 4.2.2 Crudr ~ssay oF Alhabasca Bitumen

FRACTION, F GRAVITY API SG MASS I/HR DIST. VOLUME BPCD DIST. COMP. CARBON HYDROGEN SULFUR NITROGEN OXYGEN METALSoWPPM VANADIUM NICKEL ANILINE PT.,F CCR, WT% VISCOCITY, CS @ 210~ 1.ASH FREE BASIS - AS[{ CONTENT = 0.7% 93 127 117 22.0 13.3 65.6 C5-320 44.7 0:8031 3,512 0.40% 320-400 38.2 0.8338 10,212 1.16% 840 1.40% 85.74% 12.61% 1.65% 400-650 25.2 0.9030 91,600 10.38% 6,956 11.60% 85.90% 12.30% 1.74% 0.01% 0.06% 6~0-700 20.5 0.9309 700-975 12.8 0.9806 975+ 1.5 1.0639 TOTAL 8.8 1.0086

40,704 258,464 477,996 882,488 4.61% 29.29% 54.16% 100.00% 2,998 5.00% 85.33% 11.80% 2,73% 0.06% 0.08% 18,074 30.14% 85.05% 10.90% 3.77% 0.16% 0.12% 30,808 51.37% 82.42% 9.42% 6.39% 0.64% 1.12% 460 138 59,976 100.00% 83.73% 10.31% 4.90% 0.40% 0.65% 250 75

300 0.50% 84.51% 12.87% 2.62%

4-4 28-May-90:R.PADAMSEY

Number of Independent Processing Trains The primary and secondary upgrader design is based on two 50% capacity trains. The number of reactors is based on the maximum size of reactor transportable to site, being limited to 800 tons and a diameter of 14 feet. The hydrogen and sulphur units are also twinned at 50% and 75% capacity per train, respectively. ,1 Hydrogen Supply ,, -, -

The hydrogen plant design is based on steam methane reforming technology. The ,::~ L,~ hydrogen purity is 99.5% (volume) or better, and the two 50% trains are each designed with 6% excess capacity based on upgrader processing of normal feed. FiRure4.2-1 outlines a basic h dro en unit develo s ificall for this studv, to be fuli~ consistent with the Fischer-Trogsch Case's steam methane reformers. Residue Disposal The residue, due to the small quantity produced, is assumed disposed of at a remote landfill site. Tankage and Pipeline Table 4.3-3 below sets out the tankag.e of this Base Case, and FiRure 4.3-1 below provides an outline of the connectinz.~oelines. Sulphur Plant The sulphur plants are designed to recover 98.7% of sulphur contained in the feed. (The s l i ~ a r d s from 1990 is to match ERCB recjuirements for agg~lants.)

4-5

RF.,I~OR

7.nO PI~O'IEA11~RSTEAM ~
try'rim

SUPER OENERATOR PI~E:i'I~i'I~

FEED

viol ~ ' . S1T.AM

llsoo/
~

n,lo2 rIo2 HT SHIFT SHIFT OU'II.,ET

103 V102
~

D102

KI01
R

CI01

OOOL~ ~

UNITC O M ~

COOLER I<N~OUT C O M P R E ~
DRUM

vl..._.~.~ H2

KIO._.~2 BOOSTER

(iN UPGRAD~O uNrrs)

,
'

_..

4F-"

pURGE GAS "11) REFORMER FUEL

om

H,d ~:

~oo ""7

il
STEAM

' :' , .,+ , . ~ '-~_~v,i'' " ,,o,T

; ,~ t /

%..~d

YL:J

i~

.v,o.
I' ' ~ ' ~

D -

K101

u, =

I K102

L~

"
PROCESS CONDENSATE

! [ [

D
,

'

.(~)--.

BASE CASE SMR. P R O C E S S FLOWSHEET

FIG 4.2-1

.~team and Power Plants The steam and power plants are designed to meet all the steam and boiler water requirements of the upgrader complex without any export or import. Power generation is minimized to match utilization of the excess high pressure steam. Location/Site Conditions The upgrader complex is located 20 miles northeast of the Edmonton city limits, and has the following infrastructures and services: From Site North Saskatchewan River Feed and Product Pipelines Electrical Transmission Lines Natural Gas Supply Line Rail Line Major Road Phone Line The site is assumed to be fairly level "farm land". For s i m o n h dr en r uct stud of the 1990 re - the c h a n ~ l i n e definin~ distances 5 km .3 and 20 km
1 km 1 km 1 km 1 km 5 km

a site t~ the east of Shell's Scot'ford stw~e ~lant has been used as shown in the r~ates to this siting and the addition of local feed and ~ e l i n e s .
4.3

DESCRIPTION OF OVERALL DESIGN The processing schemes developed for each of the upgrading technologies considered in 1989/1990 are not re..epeatedhere.

4-7

The estimated overall ields and roduct uantities are shown in Table 4.3-1 for Cold Lake bitumen only..

Differences Between Cold Lake and Athabasca Crude In the 1990 report, Veba presented only 50/50 blend data but the other two licenses presented cases for Athabasca and Cold Lake and 50150 blends. Both oi' the latter+~ showed more gas oil and less naphtha with Athabasca feed but with differences less than 3 percent for any given fraction. While CANMET showed a higher overall yield (1.5 volume percent) - with added hydrogen and additive - on Athabasca compared to Cold Lake, H.Oil showed the converse - a 1.5 decrease. The latter process is more impacted by feed qualities than are the non catalytic hydrogen addition routes. There will be signi~'icam hydrocracking in the secondary hydrotreating oF-the generic high conversion, high hydrogen addition Basic Upgrader in order to convert "excess" gas oil to naphtha and middle distillate. The flexibility of such hydrocracking has not been examined in this study, although such will be essential in project specific studies. The beginning of run, end of run yield differences relative to hydrocracking will be at least as great as the differences noted by CANMET. The use of only updated Cold Lake yield data in this study appears to introduce a mine bias, especially relative to average .naphtha and below average gas oil yields. However, the degree of hydrocracking of the secondary hydrotreating system can be very significantly influenced by design revisions, catalyst selections (as more than one is considered very probable), operating conditions and run lengths between regeneration. This study assumes that there will be sufficient flexibility in primary and secondary upgrading design to provide essentially the same overall yields and yield structure with mixed as well as 100% Cold Lake and Athabasca bitumens.

A 90% service factor is used for all units. Each of the units and associated offsite and utilities is briefly described below:

4-8

Atmospheric Distillation One unit to process 66,667 BPSD of bitumen and 54,120 BPSD of diluent is designed for all cases ~ a n d e d Vacuum Distillation One unit to process 57,670 BPSD of 6S0F+ feed is designed for all cases E_.x.pandedBase Case. -- '.. Base Case.

Primary Conversion and Secondary Hydrotreating

i

(Includes gas recovery, S.C.O. stabilization, gas clean-up and amine regeneration.) These Will be 2 trains of a generic design similar to Veba Combi Cracking or ~ANMET with integral hydrotreating, each train processing 34,230 BPSD of 975=F+ in their primary units and an additional 32,644 of BPSD of minus 975F material in their integrated hydrotreating unit. Hydrogen Production The 2 hydrogen production steam methane reforming trains - each at 50% - are sized to produce a total of 168 million scfsd in total at 99.5% minimum purity. In this Base Case, this includes a 6% margin for varying feedstock qualities and slight changes in secondary hydrotreating hydrogen requirements. Sulphur Plants Two 75% units, each sized for 352 LT/SD are provided. These units will be of conventional design with cold bed adsorption to maximize recovery.

4-9

",-"

qlV

Cold ~

TaMe 4.3.1 Case. Overall M a l l lalance

(.~h Free l,~ds)

MmFIow(m/Hr)
FrKl~n C FEEDS Crude H2 TOTAL
"11

1
|

MI

Oendly

Cak: IPCD

Crude Wl" %

Feed Vol %

hod Vol %

730737

91702 28422

38381

3514 ii,

$414

869748 28422

10.t

0.9940

60000

100.00 3.27 103.27

100,00

730737 730737

120124 91702

38381 38381

3514 3514

5414 5414

898170 i 869748 10.9 0.9940 CK1000

C5+ PRODUCTS H2S NH3

I00.00

100.flO

2364 696 658 31328 12839 97475 33052 265739 274264 Ir~)40 730737 683369 670530 8328 2675 17959 5425 42147 38666 1207 120125 106872 104197 ~

37833 3249 5263

40197 3945 5921 39656 IS514 i I 5.0 58.4 48.0 34.3 25.7 0.5740 0.7451 0.7883 0.8534 0.9001 1853 10623 3347 24739 23842

4.62 0.45 0.68 4.56 1.78 13.27 4.42 35.40 35.98 2.(YJ 64404
36.7
0.~413 64417

H20
CI-C3 C4 C5.350 350.,400 400.650 650-975 975+ TOTAL (::4-975 C5.975

3.{FJ 17.70 5.SR

2.00 1h.49 5.20

0 1 6 31 509 38380 38 38

0 0 3 6 256 3514 9 9

0 0 0 3 148 5414 3 3

115434 30478 307895 312970 18160 898170 790291 774777

412~
39.74

3..41
37.02

103.27
90.R6

107.34
107.3(~

l(XI.('Xl
I(X1.()2

35.1

0.1i493

62552

89.08

104.25

97.12

4-10

Sour Water Stripper A single sour water stripping system with a capacity of approximately 222 USGPM is provided. Waste Water Treatment This unit is sized to treat the various waste water from the Base Case Upgrader. Steam and Power Plant This plant is designed to make the upgrader complex self sufficient in steam and dea~ated, boiler feedwater. This unit also generates a portion of the upgrader complexes electric power requirements by expansion of 600 psig steam. ^ spat boiler is sized and included for start-up and upsets. Tankage~ Fi_g.ure4.3-1 illustrates the ~ l a n n e d Diluent from e x i s t i n g . Diluent return to existing..~peline. Short S.C.O. line to Shell refinery_!.(and by crossovers to both the Suncor S.C.O. and via the latest to Shell to the AOSPL S_.vncrud_e S.C.O. ~ But n o ~ i f i c blending facilities are provided. and using.an existing S.C.O. line to Edmonton f o l l o w i n ~ l i n e s R.O.W. in Edmonton's congested east end. Cross ties to Edmonton refineries. in the Base Case:

4-11

Return from 2 Edmonton area S.C.O. tanks to InterProvincial to 0ermit batches to full line #2 rate. if desirecl and to TransMountain ~ e r as lines 1 ~ 0 0 0 8PSD ca acit is not sufficient. (This IPPL' smaller roach.) ene~ic S.C.O. t a n k a ~ (Suncor a_p_parentlv is now

contamination with other S.C.O.'s. lannin thesamea

A cross tie to ImEerial's (hearT..) crude line running south may also be 9rovided to allow S.C.O. to move to Montana refineries. Table 4.3-3 outlines the antici ated u Raw Water TreaCment "lids unit is designed to treat raw water from the North Saskatchewan River for portable water upgrader utility water, cooling tower make.up and boiler feedwater make-up. Other Offsites and Utilities Plant and instrument air, cooling water, fuel gas, flares and flare headers, /ire protection, etc., will be based on conventional refinery systems. Interconnecting Pipeways These will be provided as required. rader related tankag.~..

4-12

,
II

DILUT~ BITUMEN 16" OU.~n" R~URH ~"

REGIONAL U~ER

16" S.C.O.
~'r

AEC PIPELINES

;(xn'FORD -"

~' ~

...y

i i i
.

.,B~INERY

/.l'i//
/
~ U ~ ~WLAKE &SCOI"FORDAREA & REFINERIES

~II~LS

r o h ' ~ u ~ o ~

1 AEC L I N E ~
~OOUCI"ION REID "

OUTING ONLY ;~E:~ 1"0 RPELINE

= PEIRO ~ EDMOm~ f

RB:INERY PIPELINES EDMONTON TERMINAL LEGEND

. .... " "

AND ~

MOVEMEN'TS

MOUNTAIN

,IOUNTAIN
:!I L

SEE BOW-UP

BASE CASE

UPGRADER/EDMONTON
TRANSFER

REPLACE EXISTING NEW U N E FOR ATHABA.SCABITUMEN NEW BASE CASE U N E

SYSTEMS
FIG 4.5-.I

Table 4.3.3 Basic Upgrader Tznkage Where Material uay= I Use/Produ,:;.;.on ',toe'age I Rate BPDS No. of
Tanks

Individual Tank Size (~ross bbls) 220,000 120,000

Type/Speclals

Site

Diluted Bitumen

Site Site

Diluent Virgin Als'nos Distillates (<700*F) Vacuum Gas Oil

81 sl
31

110,000 (rmu~ 43,000 (max} (To) 16,00O (max) Co)

Cone roof (a) c/w mixers Floating roof

2
1

SS,O00 Cone roof - N~ blanke,, . circ heat/mix system

60,000

Site

31

17,OO0 (max) (b)

Cone roof
- N~ blanket

- insulated - circ heat/mix system

m

Site

Vacuum Bottoms

31

36,000 (max} (c)

120,000

Cone roof insuiated - drc heal/mix system Floadng roof - circ headmix system Floating eooi" Cone roof -circ heo~mix system Floating roof Cone roof c/w heating system - insulated Cone roof - insulated/heated/special water draw

Site Edmonton
Site

S.C.O.

101 (S) I

70,000 (300,000 bbl batches)

180,000 170,000
20,000

S.C.O. S.C.O. Quality Slops Light Sour Slop Heavy Slop

2
1 1 1

S~te
S;te

10,000 30,000

Site

Wet Slop
I

1,000

Notes: (a) (b) (c)

Provide vapour recovery rystem to minimize odours. Sized for 1009, Cold lake bitumen. Sized for 100% Athabasca bitumen.

4-14

Common and Services Buildings Operating Centre - control room, switchgear, change, etc. Central Maintenance Medical Centre Fire House Central Laboratory Offices Central Warehouse

4.4

PRODUCTYIELDS AND PROPERTIES .Table4.3-1 above provic;ledthe estimated yield structure and elemental balance for the Base, C'ase for Cold Lake crude. There is significant hydrocracking in the secondary hydrotreating, and yield patterns can be adjusted by changing the conditions in ",hatstep during operations and by changing catalysts to suit.

4.5

UTILITY BALANCE The upgrader complex is designed to be self-sufficient in steam and the treatment and distribution of water obtained from lfie nearby North Saskatchewan River. Essentially all of the required fuels for the upgrader complex is produced in the upgrader in the form of gas from primary/secondary conversion units. Natural gas is imported for hydrogen plant feed. A portion of the upgrader complex's power requirement is generated in the steam and power plant by expansion of excess high pressure steam. The remainder of the required power is purchased. The net gas and power imports are summarized in Table 4.8-1.

4-15

4.6

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES Capital cost estimates are expressed on 1093 Canadian dollars. The costs of Table B-1 of Appendix B were developed as follows except for the hydrogen units: a) b) ~..eg.eneralbases for the 1990 "Diverse Interests" case were reviewed. A~ro~riate factors were then used for each account in the Table,to convert from 4 89 costs to 1 93 costs allowin for inflation and minor construction related practice chang..~, to match those ex_x.pectedin the 1994 to 1996 field construction oeriod. ~ e f l ui units were estimated b develo in a new rocess desi n com lete with ui ment from file data and with Foster Wheeler

ent sizes and ricin all ma'or

a ~ i ~ c e for the steam methane reformer oer se. The Direct Field Expenses estimated for each plant sector were consolidated for estimating the general field expenses, engineering and procurement, owners budget, start-up budget, capital spares, and allowances for omissions and contingencies. The 1990 report's estimates for initial catalysts and chemicals was prorated to IQ93 costs. The total in.stalled plant cost in Appendix B includes all these cost elements. The Base Case Capital sector Direct Field costs were developed as not~ above. The other costs were developed as follows:

4-16

General Field Expense These are construction costs for supporting the direct field labour, including field supervision, temporary facilities, c.onstruaion equipment, consumable supplies, tools and services. This expense was estimated at 144% of field labour. Engineering and Procurement Costs This covers all the costs for engineering, lxocuring and constructing the project as incurred by the EPC contractors. This cost is based on an average requirement of 3,400 manhours per million dollars of direct field cost expenditure and is costed at $52.00 per manhour. Bussing and Travel Premiums This allowance covers the cost of bussing for the direct subcontraa labour.
,-

Initial Catalysts and Chemicals This cost reflects the initial inventories of catalysts and chemicals. It was originally derived in detail based on individual unit requirements and those estimates were inflated to 1Q93 values. Owner's Budget This is an allowance which covers owner's staff costs during.engineering and

construction, the cost of obtaining all necessary permits, studies, insurances and
other miscellaneous costs not part of the construaion estimates. This budget is estimated at 10% of total constructed cost.

4-17

Start-up Budget This budget allows for personnel costs and fixed operating costs for the initial startup. It Includes permanent staff plus contraaor, licensor and equipment vendor personnel. This budget Is estimated at 5% of total constructed cost. Capital Spares This is an allowance which covers the cost of spare parts in the warehouse and is estimated at 3% of equipment cost. Installed spares are included in the direct field costs. Allowance for Omissions This is an allowance to cover design and for estimating deficiencies, and is estimated at 10% of all costs discussed above. Contingency This is an allowance for unforeseen costs which are likely to occur, and is estimated at 10% of all capital cost items discussed above. This allowance should .brin8 the total estimated costs to the order of 30% of aaual. The followin 8 items are not included in the capital cost estimate: costs, leases and right.of-way

Land

.
.

Access roads to the plant's fence Railroads Escalation

4-18

Financing charges Process royalties Production related costs 4,7 WORKING CAPITAL ESTIMATES Working capital is shown in Table 4.7-1 and includes the value of raw materials, intermediate product and synthetic crude oil at the values of Appendix A, assuming all tanks are half full. 4.8 OPERATINGCOST ESTIMATES Operating costs were re-estimated from the 1990 report on the following bases, as reported in Table 4.8-1: Energy Imports The natural ~ at $1.55 per million BTU's as in Appendix A (but the

variation with time must be noted). The average cost of electricity at a plant service factor of 0.9 was developed by increasing the average demand by 10% to develop the peak demand for demand cost component determination, with the average usage rate used to develop the energy charge cost. ~ for the 0.9 seh,,ice factor. electricity for pumping is Included. Catalysts Chemicals and The annual cost is based on individual unit requirements inflated to 1Q93 from the 1990 report. A shows the a ~ Raw river water was assumed free, but

4-19

Operating Labour This is the cost for the staff directly concerned with the upgrader operations. Laboratory and technical staff are also included in this category at 25% of direct operating labour. Operating labour was costed at S76.000 per man-year. This amount includes payroll burden and fringe benefits at the rate of 30% of base salary. Maintenance Labour This is equivalent annually to 2% of the total constructed cost, and based on the.use of subcontract labour. Maintenance Material This is equivalent annually to 2% of the total constructed cost. Miscellaneous Operating Supplies This item was assumed at $0.55 million ( ~ r c e n t Administrative and Support Expenses This is the cost for administrative and support staff costed at $76,000 per man-year. This amount includes payroll burden and fringe benefits at the rate of 30% of base salary. from 1990).

4-20

Office Costs and Miscellaneous This allowance covers other office expenses, travel and contractual services not related to the upgrader per se. This item was assumed at S0.55 million (uo 1~/o .from the earlier rel:)on.). Insurances The annual cost is estimated at 0.25% of the total installed plant cost. Local Taxes The annual cost is estimated at 0.5% of the total installed plant cost. Interest on Working Capital An annual cost of 7% of working capital is assumed.

4-21

Table 4.7-1 Base Case Working Capital in 1,00O's of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars Feed/Product Diluted Bitumen Diluent Intermediates and Slop S.C.O. Total Working Cap|tal [ Average Value S/bid 17.58 24.91 18.27 26.54

Average Inveqtory bbls

440,000 120,000 147,750 530,000

Cost 1,000's 7,735 2,989 2,699 14,066 27,489

Table 4.8-1 Base Case Operatlng Cost E~|mat~ in 1,000's of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars Var|able Cost Natural Gas (51,680 x 106 BTU/CD) Elecldcity (33.6 MW average) Catalysts and Chemicals PiLch Disposal SubTotal Seml Variable Cost * Operating Labour Maintenance Labour Maintenance Materials Miscellaneous Operating Supplies t~Jministra|ion and Support Office Costs and Miscellaneous Insurances Local Taxes Interest on Working Capital Sub Total Total Operating Costs

29,238 8,273 8,902 4,022 50,435 12,920 22,295 22,295 550 4,560 55O 2,787 5,574 1,924 73,455 123,890

4-22

5.0 5.1

EXPANDEDBASE CASE " INTRODUCTION This section covers the design concepts and capital and operating costs for a Regional Upgrader 50 percent larger than the basic 60,000 BPCD of bitumen feed case, This case was added to provide a comparison between the economics of added products and a larger upgrade='. The 50 percent increase was based on a third primary/secondaryupgrading train identical to the two of the basic plant. The battery limit and scope definitions continue as in the Base Case, including upgrading, associated upgrader site utilities and offsites, local pipelines and an Edmonton terminal.

5.2

DESIGNBASES design bases remain unchanged from the Base Case, with the exception of the following: a) b) c) d) Capacity now 90,000 BPCD, 3 primary and secondary upgrading trains of equal size, 3 hydrogen production trains (versus 2 in the Base Case), and 3 sulphur production trains, each 50 percent of capacity, with 99.0 percent recovery efficiency (versus 2 at 98.7% in the Base Case).

S.3

DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN With the above revisions to the number of trains, prorating of other unit/sector sizes to 1.5 times the capacity, is applicable in all cases, except that the pipeline size rises only to 18 inch

II
5-1

5.0 5.1

EXPANDEDBASE CASE INTRODUCTION This s.=ction covers the design concepts and capital and operating costs for a Regional Upgrader 50 percent larger than the basic 60,000 BPCD of bitumen feed case. This case was added to provide a comparison between the economics of added products and a larger upgrader. The 50 percent increase was based on a third primary/secondary upgrading train identical to the two of the basic plant. :? ~,,.~

The battery limit and scope definitions continue as in the Base Case, including upgrading, a.%~:~.J.atedupgrader site utilities and offsites, local pipelines and an Edmonton terminal., .... 5.2 DESIGN BASES The design bases remain unchanged from the Base Case, with the exception of the following:

a)
b) c) d)

Capacity now 90,000 BPCD, 3 primary and secondary upgrading trains of equal size, 3 hydrogen production trains (versus 2 in the Base Case), and 3 sulphur production trains, each S0 percent of capacity, with 99.0 percent recovery efficiency (versus 2 at 98.7% in the Base Case).

5.3

DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN

With the above revisions to the number of trains, prorating of other unit]sector sizes to 1.S times the capacity, is applicable in all cases, except that the pipeline size rises only to 18 inch.

5-1

5.4

PRODUCT YIELDS AND PROPERTIES Table 4.3-I In the Basic Upgrad.er section, and Table 2.1-1, provide data on the qualities of the product. The overall yields (on a Cold Lake only basis) are estimated at 96,626 BPCD on a C4/975F basis and 93,828 BPCD on a Cs/97SF basis.

5.5

UTILITY BALANCES Capital costs for the Expanded BaseCase are set out in Appendix B. Fuel gas purchases and electricity demands will each rise by 50 percent over the Base Case.

5".6

CAPITALCOST ESTIA4~'EES The capital costs (see Appendix B-l) for these expanded cases have been adjusted linearly from the Base Case where trains are added and at appropriate exponents for all other cost sectors. The latter generally follow those used previously to convert from 30,000 to 60,000 BPCD, but it must be recognized that the atmospheric and vacuum units will be the largest by far in Alberta and field erection of the two major columns will be needed. The added sulphur recovery efficiency is believed achievable without significant changes and, hence, no c~rrection was made to the unit cost. However, use of identical costs for incremental trains does add some fat as there will be savings due to much joint purchasing and design. (Identical not mirror image trains are assumed throughout this study.)

5.7

WORKING CAPITAL ESTIMATES See Table 4.7-1 in the Basic Upgrader section, with money tied up increased by a factor of 1.5 to $41,234,000.

5-2

5.8

OPERATING COST ESTIMATES These generally prorate up from the Base Case following the bctors used there or 1.5 times in the case of u':'ities, as shown in Ai:~..endix B. Miscellaneous operating, administration and support, and office and miscellaneous costs were increased over the Base Case by 20% after a 10% inflation adjustment.
Table S.8-1 Expanded Case Operating Cost Estimates in 1,000's of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars

Variable Cost Natural Gas (77,520 million BTU/CD) Electricity (50.4 MW a~tsa~e~ C.a~ysls ~nd~Chem[cals Pitch DisposalSub Total Semi Variable Cost Operating Labour Maintenance Labour Maintenance Materials Miscellaneous Operating Supplies Administration and Support Office Costs and Miscellaneous
INsurances

43,857 12,358 13,333 6,033 75,601 14,820 31,622 31,622 700 5,472 700 3,933 7,905 2,885

Local Taxes Intereston Working Capital Sub Total Total

99,G80 175,281

OperatingCosts

t
5-3

6.0 6.1

FISCHER-TROPSCH CASE " INTRODUCTION A natural gas conversion to hydrogen and incremental liquid products system is added to the Base Case in this section. The Fischer-Tropsch process was selected for detailed study due to two current major projects invoducing natural gas as a feedstock and prior selection as the most promising route for this study.2 Figure 61-1 provides an overview of the various process steps The initial steam methane reformers convert natural gas, steam and recycle CO2 to an H~/CO/CO~/CHJtr N= raw synthesis gas. As the CO= does not react in F-T synthesis, it is removed and recycled to produce mo~CO' rn the reformers. The 400 psig gas is now separat.ed !ntoa pure (99.5% plus) hydrogen for upgrading needs - 168 million scfd - and feed for F-T synthesis with an Ha/CO ratio of 2/1. The F-T synthesis reactions convert that synthesis gas to a wide boiling range of hydrocarbons and a variety of oxygenates. These liquids are further processed to produce naphtha and middle distillate products, the latter of exceptional properties due to the near total absence of aromatics. Section 3.3 above discussed the valuation of the middle distillate - Jet A and diesel - boiling range material.~:The naphtha product will receive approximately light sweet crude oil as a petrochemical feedstock. The butane content of the product will be discounted to fieldbutane value due to its high concentration, but will join the naphtha as ethylene feedstock.

Shell in Malq, sia and South/U'ric~n group have mzjor n~und gas based F-T p l ~ in construaion. A small Colorado plan( ~aned up in 1991 Io ~ landfill methane and COa to diesel and wax speciaJi|y products. But FT has been used for many yean in South Jd'rlca converting coal derived synthesis gas to petroleum products.

6-]

UPGe ~DING

TO

}4j~KEUP

COMPRESSOR

BOOSI.ERI~'~"

C..~,,~

PURGE GAS RECOVERY

~.cxcu~i=1

H2

FT

,.-J
GAS

t PROOUCT FT ,
FINISHING

.E~,. !=
|
"

H2

1
, I ~-J
I I I

=,,-(REFINERY Ck,SE ONLY) I:1" =,- NAPHTHA +C, MIDOLE DISTILLATE

C3C4

SMR

~. /~UEOUS/
---Pl

/TREATM~/ /

/ WASTE F---~t COOU.G TOWER

OVERALL FISCHER TROPSCH SYSTEM FIG 6.1-1

The estimated liquid product yield is 16,735 BPCD; 1,295 of butanes, .5,765 of Cs-C 9 naphtha, and 9,675 of C~oto 343C end point middle distillates. There is no oxygen left and the streams are sulphur and nitrogen free. The naphtha is a very paraffinic material suited best for ethylene product!on; the premium middle distillate qualities were noted and valued in Section 3.3 above. Neglecting Ic, utanes, the liquid yields are about 24 percent on the bitumen feed to the upgrader and 23 percent of the Cs plus S.C.O. from the Basic Upgrader. The F-T liquids could be blended with S.C.O, but are much likely to be sold separately. This section adds a complete F-T complex on the same site as the BaseCase Upgrader, with additional local pipeline and added tankage on the Edmonton end. The F-T synthesis system pro:.ess balances were developed by Energy International wire the study team handling all other aspects. There are some proprietary portions of the process not developed here in detail.
6.2 DESIGN BASES

The upgrad~,r's design bases continue as in the Base Case, except for pipelines and tankage. Some utility, an6 waste treatment revisions are noted in the next section. The F-T system is based on 520 million sc'fsd of synthesis gas to F-T synthesis and 168 million scfsd of hydrogen to upgrading at the same pressure as in the Base Case. Pipelines, tankage, F-T utilities and waste treatment are discussed in the next section.

6-3

6.3

STEAMMETHANE REFORMING As shown in Figure 6.3-1, natural gas feedstock is desulphurized using ZnO adsorbent in order to prevent sulphur passing to the reformer catalyst in this step. The sulphur content is reduced to less than 0.S ppm. The desulphurized gas is then mixed with superheated steam and the carbon dioxide stream from the COz removal unit, and is then further heated to ca 9S0=F before enter!ng the catalyst filled tubes of the reforming furnace. For this project, a steam to carbon ratio of 2:1 has been set with reformer tube outlet conditiqps of 880C and 254 psia. The syn gas produced has a hydrogen to carbon monoxide rat!o of 3:1. The hot flue gas after the reforming section is used to preheat natural gas, superheat steam, heat boiler feedwater and preheat combustion air for the reforming furnace. The hot syn gas leaving the reformer tubes is cooled by steam generation and preheating of boiler feedwater. The cooled syn gas is separated from the condensed water. Capital costing has been developed from Foster Wheeler cost data for the reformer furnace plus study team process design of the up and downstream ends of the system.

6.4

CO= RECOVERY The carbon dioxide from the syn gas from reforming section is removed in a DGA unit, as shown in Figure 6.4-1. The water saturated syn gas is contacted with a solution in the contactor for CO2 removal. The CO= lean gas leaves the contactor at about 250 psia and 110F and is fed to the membrane unit, where one-third of the hydrogen in the gas is removed to make syn gas with hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio of 2:1.3.
A poltion of the 3H#rCO syn gas may bypass the membr=ne unit with tho lailor producing 1/1 or $imil;u"blend.
il now i p p e , n t h l a P.S.A. system w~il be needed (o*"the final dean-up.

6.-4

Zl~J PRLIll~lIJl IIFJCIOR

SUPER I-IF.A11~

SIENd

PfR}IEATt.'R

I l'.&l)

SlIu~M

1~,oof

DRUM

!yo..~.4
GEHERATOR

SYNKJ'WCd~ -'t~.'.'~CO(.q.ER .XN ~GAS ~,=~ BOOER ~t E102

SYN CAS DFW

,,un~,.,RECOWZCr "='nOO~'R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vj,.K.~ o u r '"'"'~ "CO~.~ . . . ~.;r~a COL.,lZESSOR ORUU ~ur,R~:SSOR(S')

u~Jrrs)

(,IH UF'GR/~)ING

STEAM COIL

C02
NATURAL ~

GAS

i l l

H102

3000
m ~

(> (

R~ol

.vI.oI. Vo

C.30_._!

-,-I <,
d

K.30_._!I

,,ooj __tT. ~=~_. s, -J -r:--- ,3:~'~.~.~

i i i i i i I i

I I K~O_.__E2 wo.__~3

I I ~Ero~.~

I
I.

VI02

Etot A/'e E1o__~2|

i

BFW
GONDENI~J~TE

PROCESS

FT CASE SMR PROCESS FLOWSHEET

FIG 8,3-1

"

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ir

II1

v-20~
~rtJcloR

c-20~

p-;~02 A/B

U-201

S-201

S-202

U-202

P-20~

E-201

P-204

~;-20,,3, P-201 A/8

E-202

C-202

T-202

E-203

I'1 II

I-"-1-i l

----A--" ~

I l

.,

r---

,,

i.~:~:~

~'--=D-~-x__,-?

:F

: ,?yl 'l

I l........

,,! ~ I .

CO= RECOVERY SY'SEM

/1G IL,.= !

All equipment shown was sized and costed from file data in developing the capital cost estimate. 6.5 HYDROGEN SEPARATION After prolonged consideration of alternates a scheme, proposed by Air Products, was selected with only a portion of the synthesis gas is processed through two parallel Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)trains to separate out the hydrogen for upg.rading. The synthesis gas from the PSA trains is recompressed to F-T synthesis pressure. This system provides the upgrader hydrogen at less pressure than from the hydrogen units of the Base Case; hence, a booster compression is shown. The latter also provides added l~,t,u~ f~ hydrl~ make-up to F.T product finishing. The economic need for high purity hydrogen in the upgrader ruled out single membrane separation schemes. Although one membrane systemvendor came close, there were doubts as to maintaining hydrogen purity over a suitably long period and a follow-up PSA unit appeared Inevitable. The capital cost for this section was developed from an Air Products proposal plus study team assessmentof auxiliary facility needs. 6.6 F'iSCHER-TROPSCH SYNTHESIS

6.6.1 PREAMBLE The following descriptions are taken from the Energy International report on F-T synthesis over promoted cobalt catalyst in the tubes of 16 boiling water temperature controlled reactors. 8 in each of two trains. The F-T synthesis system receives its 2 H2/1 CO synthesis

6-7

gas directly from the upstream hydrogen separation system - i.e. there is not compression of the bulk of the 520 million scfd of make-up synthesis gas feed the F-T synthesis process at 775 psig. But there is very significant recirculation of gas to achieve a high level of conversion. ~

The El report, available as a separate document, should be consulted for details. But there are certain proprietary factors, such as catalyst promoter, not covered in the report and only available under a confidentiality agreement;
6.6.2 FISCHER-TROPSCH PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Gas"~ oil, technology is a means of producing premium grade light hydrocarbons in the transportation fuel range from natural gas through the catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (syn gas) to paraffinic light liquid products. This technology referred to as the Fischer-Tropsch process has been known for nearly 70 years and usually uses an iron or cobalt catalyst to convert the syngas to a wide boiling range mixture of liquids. The process the El designed in thls report is based on reacting a syngas produced by reforming natural gas with an adjusted hydrogen to carbon monoxide molar ratio of 2 to 1 over a cobalt catalyst. Following a description of the synthesis unit of the F-T process shown in the one flow sheet 6.6.2-1. Syn gas at a pressure of 275 psig and a temperature of IO0F hydrogen concentration adjust system following the COz removal system of the natural gas reforming plant is fed to Location 1 at a hydrogen to carbon monoxide ration of 2.0. While the flow sheet depicts a single item for each function, the plant design is actually based on two identical trains, with each train utilizing eight F-T synthesis reactors.

6-8

m4
I

STEAM

.L

.,..J
OIL TO Sl"ABlUZER

],
FEED GAS

TO WASlEWATER TREATME~ ~OCTO STABUZR

BRINE
Jl

TO WASTEWATER TREATMEHT

PURGE RECYCLE COMPRESSOR ,..._,_.,..~ OIL TO STABIUZE]~

L-J

~..~,.,____.~o
j r -~. SYSTEM RECYCLE F--" TO REFORMER / FEED

,,,z ~

r-~J
TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT BLEED GAS

| L

--~I ~.J

TYPICAL OF 4 TRAINS

FISCHER TROPSCH SYNTHESIS

Figure 6.6-1

The fresh syn gas from is blended with recycle synthesis gas from the compressor to provide the total syngas feed to the F-T reactors. The total syngas feed is preheated by heat exchange with the reactor effluent to a temperature of 422F at Location 4 from whence it is directed to the inlet of the multitubular fixed bed catalytic reactor. Flow distribution to the individual tubes within the reactor is controlled passively by the catalyst loading procedure that assures an equal charge of carefully screened catalyst within each of the multiplicity of tubes within plus or minus 5 percent by weight. The F-T reaction takes place at a steady rates as the syngas flows downward over the catalyst in each tube, producing a range of hydrocarbons with a carbon number distribution governed by the Schulz-Flory probability relationship. The substantial quantity of heat liberated by the F-T heat of reaction is largely removed by the flow of pressurized liquid water flowing co-currently downward to the shell side oi the reactor. The water remains single phase throughout the shell with the water flashing to steam in the steam drum as shown. The temperature of the inlet cooling water is regulated by control of the pressure on the steam drum. A small portion of the F-T heat of reaction is accounted for by the temperature rise of the syngas as it flows downward through the tubes, with the outlet syngas at Location 5 of 442F being 20 elevated over the inlet temperature. And, finally, a small amount of additional heat is generated in the reactor and removed by the cooling water as a result of the inevitable condensation of a portion of the heavier hydrocarbons forrned, as governed by vapour-liquid equilibrium considerations. The vapour-liquid stream from the reactors interchanges heat with the reactor feed stream, dropping its temperature to 210F, and is then directed to oil/water/vapour separator MS 301. The vapour stream from this separator is cooled in two steps to 50F. The remaining synthesis gas at is split into two parts. The larger fractions are recycled via the recycle gas

6-I0

compressor to blend with the flesh synthesis gas,"The smaller fraction is further cooled with refrigerant to a temperature of-3SF to wring out most of the remaining liquid hydrocarbons before retrieving the purge gas stream for recycle to either the reformer feed or use in the plant fuel circuit. The multiple levels of cooling and liquid separation are necessary to prevent freezing of the several liquid streams that are recovered. These individual hydrocarbon liquid streams are combined to form the feed to the stabilizer column. A single stabilized liquid product is produced that is suitable for intermediate storage prior to hydrocracking/hydrotreating. The co-product water contains most of the oxygenates produced as a byproduct of the F-T reaction. This water requires treatment prior to discharge. The concentrations and nature of the contained materials is such that simple biological oxidation provfdes an environmentally acceptable solution.
6.6.~

CATALYST SPECIFICATIONS El has had commercial experience with a number of the preferred cobalt based F-T catalysts and has just completed a major survey of the technical and patent literature on all aspects of the subject. The catalyst selected for this design study is a generic cobalt based catalyst containing 20% cobalt supported on 1/16 inch extrusions of gamma alumina with small qualities (-1-2% total) of additional constituents that both aid in the reduction of the cobalt and promote hydrocarbon chain growth. Following are typical physical properties which were used as the basis for the process design providecl in this report: Surface Area Pore Volume Bulk Density 130 0.5 squaremeters per gram cubic centimeters per gram

45 pounds per cubic foot

6-11

Side Crush Strength Average Size Diameter Length

14 pounds per square inch 0.064 inches 0.141 inches

The price of the catalyst with current metal prices is approximately $15.00 per pound, FOB manufacturer. vendors who are capable of providing catalysts of this type include: El for kilogram quantities Maffinckrodt Specialty Chemicals Co. Davidson Division of W.R. Grace Company El has clients who prefer to have El specify, test and provide them with tonnage commercial quantities. El undertakes the full responsibility for the catalyst supply and selects the company that will actually manufacture the catalyst to El's specifications. The spent catalyst is usually returned to the supplier for reprocessing 9r metals recovery and disposal.
6.6.4

CATALYST LIFE AND REGENERATION The useful life of the typical supported cobalt F-T catalyst is likely to be in excess of S years in the absence of sulphur poisoning; the sulphur gathering activity of the steam methane reforming catalyst from whence the syngas is procluced is such that inadvertent exposure to sulphur is quite unlikely. Likewise, physical decrepitation of the catalyst is unlikely given mild flow and temperature conditions of the application, combined with the inherent strength and stability of the gamma alumina support. The current pilot operating experience

6-12

suggests that 5 years is a conservative life time for the catalyst from a cost estimating standpoint. There is a slow decline in catalyst activity that accompanies gradual accumulation of heavy F-T wax in the cataly~itpines, that results in a need to regenerate the catalyst on a scheduled yeady basis. The regeneration operations involved three steps: hydrogen stripping, a treatment with hydrogen to hydrocrack w~x deposits on the catalyst; a two step oxidation in which the": ~ ' catalytic metals are first oxidized at 100.120aC, and then the carbon is burned off" at temperatures up to 310-340C; and reduction of the cobalt and metal oxides in hydrogen Qver a programmed temperature range up to 300-320C. The hydrogen stripping step of the regeneration procedure, which remove large amounts of accumulated wax from the interstices and pores of the catalyst, is absolutely essential to the smooth Conduct of the subsequent oxidation steps. The hydrogen stripping operation is conducted at a space velocity of approximately 1000 scftgvolume of catalyst, and ls increased to 2000 as the hydrogen feed displaces the other gases initially present. Hydrogen stripping will be complete in 24 hours; the temperature will then be reduced to 100C. At this time, the system is ready for the initiation of the two stage oxidation. Oxygen is provided by mixing air with nitrogen to produce an oxygen concentration of approximately 0.4%. This gas is introduced at a space velocity of approximately 1000, and (he temperature is maintained at lOOeC for 4 hours, completely oxidizing the cobalt and other metals present. Subsequently, the temperature is increased to approximately 300C and is held there for 48 hours, allowing for the complete burn off of the residual carbon
. . . .

6-13

from the hydrogen stripping operation. Upon completion of this step, hydrogen reduction is accomplished by following the procedure for the initial activation of the catalyst. Total time for regeneration is approximately 76 hours. Given the multiplicity of reactors, there may well be an advantage is providing for the sequential regeneration of 1 or 2 reactors at a time while the plant remains on stream.
6.6.5

CATALYST INSITU ACTIVATION

:;

The F-T catalyst requires activation after loading in the multi-tubular fixed bed-reactor. This would typically be accomplished as a phase of the initial start-up of the plant. By purging the reactorpdor to shutdown and maintaining an inert atmosphere (nitrogen or natural gas preferably) during any shutdown period, the catalyst will be maintained in a process ready condition. The activation procedure is basically a combination of drying ~nd reduction of the cobalt and other metal oxides that are present. The gamma alumina support itself undergoes no chemical change under the conditions used. The conceptual procedure is to purge the reactor with an inert gas followed by purging with hydrogen to be provided from elsewhere within the complex. The purity of the hydrogen is not critical other than requiring a sulphur level no greater than the sulphur level acceptable f~ methane steam reformer operation, and might be nominally set at 90 percent or higher hydrogen purity. Hydrogen flow would be initiated at ambient temperature, with temperature programmed to Increase to 100C to cover no less than a 10-hour period of time. Temperature would be held at 100C for no less than 8 hours. Hydrogen throughout should be maintained at a space velocity of approximately 1000 scfh/~ catalyst.

6-14

Next increase the hydrogen temperature at a rate of 10C per hour or less until the catalyst temperature reach 300C. Maintain the hydrogen mas~flow rate at the same level as before, "and at no less than 300C and not more than 325C for 16 hours. At the end of 16 hours, reduce temperature to 200~C while maintaining hydrogen flow, and hold at 200C until ready to introduce synthesis gas preparatory to the start-up of F-T operations.
6.6.6 F-T PURGE GAS PROCESSING

The purge gas contains a substantial volume of hydrogen, much of which will be recovered in a P.S.A. system to provide hydrogen for F-T product finished. bulk. o~ the remaFnder i's methane, it will go to fuel gas. The nitrogen from the original natural gas feed ends up in this" purge gas which precludes total recycle to steam methane reforming without elaborate processing for it removal. In practice, recycle of 50 to 60 percent is foreseen. In the future the C3 and C, content of this stream should be exploited - they are roughly 25% oleflns and should be considered for at least alkylation feed in a refinery. 6.7
6.7.1

(The small residual

hydrogen demand will be taken from the "margin" in hydrogen supply to upgrading.) As the

F-T PRODUCT FINISHING

PREAMBLE

Figure 6.7.1-1 provides a quick overview of the major flows through the single train F-T product finishing system. While the unit titles appear relatively commonplace in practice, the actual services are quite different, especially in the "hydrocracker" area.

6-15

,,4101

['4101

r4so__!

n4toz

~. ~ y

t42

HYOm~O~ $u1'91.1

~_.~_t.~

~i I
'il~l
1.~ '

I II .~-~,To

- - , ~ ! ~ ~ r~ I I~i
H'rpROCnACK.'~Q r-'t
OL'W~/S~UA'~TE
H|O P4t~O~~ C~ 04~ I~[YCU[

i
"
- - - - - -

SO S~O~CC

o I
*

[4,1
I

L--

---,.1o

I~0 I~lflt.l~ll

sc.o.

I* ".O~D PU*~J

liC R*~t.

CONO(NIIA

n l i l ~ l l l l l J o ~ fl~l. pC~L~NGIA (~)UDN

RI~tD11~ I~'11t.1~1( RIIO/OIIIIDIII~I(~N4Illl (~OL,~UI O~IR l~a~N(~[~ IKJK~fJI A(I~ n 145N~31 ~

F"T PRODUCT RNISHING SYSTEM

FKIIXI I I,t*l

I AlCV=r Pt~P

a~ Pu~r',J

(rr~'~o~s P ~

Licensors were reluctant to provide data for the F-T "hydrocracker"o but Mobil has provided comments on the dewaxing of middle distillates and the subsequent saturation oi" olefins produced in dewaxing. Generally the F-T hydrocracker balances are drawing on 1988 UOP hydrocracking of a different Fischer-Tropsch wax. The overall process yields are not considered of the same cfegt~ of accuJ'acy a~ t~O~ Ordther sections of this study. But the data are considered sufficiently accurate for preliminary cost development to the :~.5 percent accuracy level (after 10 percent additions for allowances and another 10 percent for contingencies.) Both hydrocracking and dewaxln~saturation units will operate at pressures below 1000 psig, in a range wh~e conventronar ffydrotreating costs can be emended to provide "reasonable" capital and operating costs. 6.7.2 HYDROCRACKING Ti~e raw F-T liquids are def'med_i~IJ:~e Fa:~e~gy J~temational report as follows:
Rate:

184,696 pounds per day, 16,900 BPCD (@ 0.75 S.G.) C/s - 4 weight percent, Cs-C8 - 24, C,-C~o- 49, C21+ - 21 and oxygenates 2 Saturates - 82 weight percent (linear paraffins) Olefins - 16 Oxygenates - 2

Composition:

There are essentially no cyclic materials present and only a small portion of isoparai'fins. The cloud and pour point of the Cg-Czo middle distillate fraction are high - probably in the order of +20C with the heavier material near +80C.

6-17

.T~k~7.1

F'~chcr.T~'opsch Product Rn;sh;nl 8:d:~ce Pr,l'm~r/ 8PCD

M~ix

Comsp~ment

ml of Raw

L
C.'s
26

(S.GJ
ss (.S2) 37 (.~) 55 (.Psi

M~ MD 1,293

+1
"1'6 +14 -21 ...... -2"
o2"

+0.5
1.5 -6
0

1,295
6.623
8.817
0

3.767
9,673 0 0

Cm-CN (343~:~ CH',' Oxyge~t~ ToLd S.C. 81~0

47 21 Z 100 0.75 16,9<)0

-O.S"

97.5
0.71

16,735

16,735

---

Noles:.
41

Hych'ogen zck:lifionallowed. tn CJnal~d'~ blend. In F-T middle di~illate lxoduct.

6-18

The raw F-T liquids are very readily cracked and they must be treated gently. Shell recommends a trickle type reactor with only liquids passing slowly downwards. The reactor "" must convert oxygenates to water and hydrocarbons, saturate olefins, and crack the over 343C portion, preferably to 170 to 343C boiling range material: At the same time, significant isomerization of the linear paraffins to iso-paraffins should be achieved. The catalyst Shell will use in its Malaysia F-T to middle distillate complex is proprietary with no performance data available. The data used here followed published UOP hyd(ocracking work on wax from another F-T process and, hence, are not fully comparable. . . . . However, it is clear that a single reactor operating under 1000 psig - probably near 600 psig - will provide the desired heavy ends cracking, deoxidation and bulk olefin saturation. Quench will be needed at several points to control temperatures as exothermic reactions predominate, fn practice, to provide such control, liquid recycle may be added to hydrogen quenching. A relatively conventional f.ractionation of reactor products is propos.=dwith column bottoms recycling to the reactor. The conversion of heavy ends per pass will be limited in the interest of minimizing reaction temperatures,s
6.7.3 MIDDLE DISTILLATE IMPROVEMENT

While significant isomerization is planned in the hydrocracker, the middle distillate fractions of its product will still have waxy components as evidenced by high cloud points, even at acceptable pour points.

In Full Rcfinlng cases, it would appear logical to oonslder pu(ting the heavy fractions of the raw FT liquid direct to c=lalytic era.doing due to their low volume and processing only the <343"C mater.'al in the FT system. -:"+

6-19

Mobil's middle distillate dewaxing process is planned to extract and crack the waxy linear paraffins. As the resulting product will be olefinic, a saturation step is needed to meet Jet
A specifications.

A common reactor is plannc~! with dew-axing at the top and saturation at the bottom. The latter operation requires a lower temperature, hence, an interstage quench is needed. These systems will operate at about 600 psig with significant hydrogen rec3'cle. 6.7.4 PRODUCT FRACTIONATION A rerun tower will fractiortate out the middle distillate product and a C3C, naphtha overhead which will be depropanized in a second tower. (In Full Refining Cases, the latter column
P

will operate as a debutanizer.) FURTHER WORK There is more uncertainty in these steps of the F.T system than in any other portion of all cases considered in this study. Aside from pilot tests on F-T synthesis per se, much work remains on optimizing the F-T product finishing - catalyst selections and process configuration/optimizing being paramount concerns. F-T AREA WASTE TREATMENT Water produced in F-T synthesis will be treated for use in cooling tower make-up throughout the complex. Approximately 3,480 pph of oxygenates enter the system in 572 USGPM of waste water from F-T ~ynth~s (plus 20 to 30 USGPM fromthe hydrocracker section). The treatment consists of a plate type oily water separator, dissolved air Aoatation, activated sludge, aerated holding ponds, followed by chlorination or other sterilization. A small

6.7.5

6.8

6-20

amount of clean sludge will be withdrawn from the systemand land farmed, sent to landfill or to farms as fertilizer. ,.~ small parallel API separator will handle hydrocarbon drains and washdown water from the F.T product finishing area. Boiler blowdown from the SMR's and F-T reactors will be routed to the upgrader's central boiler blowdown treating system. 6,9
6.9.1

F-T AREA UTILITIES

REFRIGERATION

Two conventional propane refrigeration systems will be provided.

6.9.2 CHILLED WATER

In order to supply the chilled water required for F-T product condensing, two large chiller 6,9.3 STEAMSYSTEMS Boiler feedwater make-up will be drawn from the upgrader for both the steam methane reformers and the F-T reactor boiler loops. The steam methane reformers will be designed for internal steam production with a 1500 psig superheated steam byproduct. But the F-T synthesis will produce 1.1 million pph of 150 psig steam. The latter will be used in CO2 recovery, F-T raw liquid naphtha depropanizing. The surplus of 0.6 million pph over those needs will be superheated in a fired heater and then used, along with the 1500 psig steam surplus to SMR use, to drive the

6-21

F-T recycle gas compressors and generate approximately 80 MW of electricity for onsite use and off-site sale. Turbine exhaust steam will be condensed against cooling water. CONDENSATE AND BOILER FEEDWATER All possible steam condensate will be recovered with for reuse inside the F-T complex. The unit will obtain its boiler feedwater from an added treatment train in the upgrader's utility plant. 6.9.5 COOLING WATER A 100,000 USGPM cooling water system will serve the two F-T synthesis systems. Make-up water will be from the F-T waste treatment system and from river water. 6.9.6 INSTRUMENT AIR The F.T complex will draw on an added S00 scfm air compressor and air drier in the central utility plant. 6.9.7 FUEL GAS The F.T complex will have its own fuel gas system with natural gas supplementing off gases from the various processes. This system will have continuous BTU content analysis to provide tight control with varying rates of fuel gas make-up streams. Note that there wil! always be a net make-up to the F-T complex due to very large ~MR fuel needs.

6.9.4

6-22

6.9.8

FLARES Each F-T synthesis train will have its own flare of the cylindrical grand flare type for major emergencies. An elevated flare will serve the other portions of the plant as well as the small needs of F-T synthesis.

6.9.9

PIPELINES

Figure 6.9.10-1 outlines the connecting pipelines. 6.9.10 TANKAGE Tabte 6.9.t~-I sets out the proposed F-T Case tankage. 6.10 PRODUCTYIELDS AND PROPERTIES Table 6.7-1 set out the estimated product rates and discussed product qualities. 6.11 UTILITY BALANCE The natural gas and electricity ~:equirernents are set out in the operating cost table of Section 6.14. It is to be noted an electrical surplus is indicated with export to the provincial grid of an average of 18.8 MW.

6-23

Table 6.9.10-1 F-T CaseTanka~

~

Where

Material

U~/Producgon Days Rate IIPSO Stor~e I

8

Site Site Site

Diluent Bitumen Diluent Bitumen Viqlln A~os Di~illates (<700"F)

J

110,000 (max) 43,000 (max) (b)

t 6,ooo {max} ~)

E
m

No. of Tanks

lmEvlcluaJ Tank S~ze (grou bbls)

220,000

Type/~:ials

4 2 i

Cone root (~ c/w mixers See 6~c Upgrade~TahOe See Basic Upgrad~ Tankage

5 3

! 20,000 55,000

Site
Site

Vacuum Gas Oil Bolmrns

! 7,000 (max?0~) 36,OOO(max) (c) 70,000 (300,OOObbl b,,f~e-J 11,o00

! !

60,000
120,000

See Basic Upgrade~Ta.,dcage See BasicUpgradef TankaEe See Basic Upgrader Tankage Bullet tb} See BasicUpgrade~Tas~kase See BasicUpgrade{.Ta~cage See BasicUpgr~der Tankage See BasicUpgradet Tankage See BasicU p ~ Tankase

3 S.C.O.
F-T C)C~ Prem Mid Dis(

Site Site

i0 (6) I0

4 ! 2 I 1 1 i

180,000 S.000 60,000

20,000 I 0,000 20,000

Site
Site Site Site

ek~d~l~ S~:k s,c.o, c ~ . ~ Slo~ Lisl'~ Sour Slop Heavy Sk)p

Wel Sk3p S.C.O. Prem Mid 0 ~ (S~ (12]

Site Edmonton

1,000 170,000 170,000

(3OO,O0Obid b~ched (ISO,OOObid -.che,J

2 I

See Basic Upgradef Tankage Cone ro<g

Edmonton

elendln]l Stock

Note~c.

(a)

(b)

See BasicCaseUl:~mder Tanka$e. Provide $ days naphtha s~orageif deb~a~izef bulk - 25,000 bb4 IIoaling ~

lank.

6-24

ATHABASCA

,II . . . . .

DILUTED BITUMEN 2" DILUE~ RE-I'URN 8"

RE~ONAL

is" s.c.o./
=X-

)CIITFORD' 1=" s c o / ~ _ s ~ _ L ~
;I.IELL EFINERY

_i ~

,//,
FROM/tO COLD U ~
& SCOTFORD AREA
"

AEC PIPELINES

/
g'l,
. ~\

/-F ;.i_/

PROVIDE SYNCRUDE/~NCOR S.C.O. AND REQ'D. UPGR. BLD<~. STCCK MiX=NO ~ ( S ) .

DETAIL "B"

~
_ ~ / r R O M ~MORrON

COND. LINE TO EDMONTON

-=
16" AEC U N E - ~ ~'OOUCTION RELD "~ O(mNG ONLY 10 PIPELINE

/./'~/i

I,

PETRO CANADA EDMONTON RERNER'Y "

:5 :IN L

-~INT~NCIAL
SEE BLOW-UP
~,

iwrE~- PROVINC/AL AND TRANS MOUNTAIN UOVEUENTS

PIPELINES EDMONTON TERMIICN.

LEGE]O REPLACEExIsnNGNEW UNE FOR ATHABASCA BITUMEN ......... NEW BASE CASE LINE - - X - - X - - X - - N E W FT ~ LINE A

FI C,~E
UPGRADER,/F_.DMONTON
TRANSFER

,.

sYsr~
6.9.10--1

6.12

CAPITALCOST ESTIMATE Table 6.12-1 sets out the estimated capital costs by process units for this case, with Table B-1 of Appendix B setting out the overall costs. All equipment was sized and estimates on an equipment factored basis, except for the product finishing area where capacity factoring was done using Turbo file data for similar pressure hydroprocessing units hydrotreating systems, corrected as appropriate for recycle gas rates, etc.

6.13

WORKING CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Table 6.13-1 has been developed on the same bases as used in the Base Case for material inventories.
,.

6.14

OPERATINGCOST ESTIMATES Table B-2 of Appendix B sets out operating costs developed as in the Base Case.

6-26

Table 6.12-1 Fischer-Tmpsch Process Unit Direct Field Cost in 1,000 of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars Unit SM Reforming CO2 Recovery 1-12Recovery H2 Recovery Purge Gas F-T Synthesis F-T Hyclrocracker F-T Dewaxing F-T Depropanizer To~l Direct Field Costs 209,711 33,053 36,250 4,775 143,805 36,000 - 19,000 2,500 485,094

Table 6.13-1

F-T CaseWorking Capl(-~l In 1,000'sof 1Q93 CanadlanDollars Material Diluted Bitumen Diluent Intermediates/Slop S.C.O. FT Oist Product Total
Average

Value 17.58

Inventory 440,000 120,000 143,000 $30,000 145,000 1,378,000

Value 7,792 2,989 2,617 14,066 5,177

32,584

24.91 18.27 26.54 35.70

6-27

II
Variable Cost Natural Gas (10s BTU/CD) Electricity (MW) Catalysts and Chemicals Pitch Disposal SubTotal
Semi

Table 6.14-1 F-T CaseOperating Cost Estimates in l~O00's of l q 9 3 Canadian Dollars

(241.1)

(-~8.8)

136,374 ~,673 16,630 4,022 152,3S3 15,580 36,433 36,433 550 4,560 550 4,~54 9,108 2,281 110,049
262,402

Variable Cost Operating Labour Maintenance Labour Maintenance Materials Miscellaneous Operating Supplies Administration aM Support Office Costs and Miscellaneous I/lsuraflces ,, Local Taxes Interest on Working Capital Sub Total Total Operating Costs

|
6-28

7.0 7.1

PARTIAL REFINING CASES INTRODUCTION This section covers the development of concepts, and capital and operating costs for the following ,'wo sub cases: a) Fractionation of S.C.O. added to Basic Upgrade;" to produce more or less Jet A and diesel products and differentiated S.C.O.'s. b) Addition of 12,000 BPCD of diluent related hydrotreater capacity.

In practice, the hydrotreater could well operate without the S.C.O. with its product, being blended directly to S.C.O. The hydrotreater will be designed for a heavy sour condensate feed should such prove more viable than use of diluent return. (Refiners will prefer the heavier naphtha from such a condensate, although processing it themselves.) The battery limit definitions continue as in all other cases, including the Basic Upgrader, partial refining units, associated upgrader site utilities and offsites, local pipelines and an Edmonton terminal. The Partial Refining Cases are primarily related to increasing upgrader return via differentiating the product S.C.O. into a variety of special S.C.O. blends and into Jet A (kerosene type aircraft turbine fuel) and diesel for direct sale. Adding naphtha to the S.C.O. increases its marketability, especially as a refiner's basic crude oil, as opposed to an incremental crude to be bought to fill short term needs. ..

definitely

they often have trouble

7-1

In the Partial Refining cases, the ~.C~O. fracti.anation capability has been set at 100 percent of S.C.O. ptoductlon to provide maximum flexibility. However, studies indicate that it is probably safe to assume regular sale of only about 20 percent of the middle distillate as distlnct products without impacting on S.C.O. netbacks.
7.2 DESIGN BASES

The Basic Upgrader design bases were described in Section 4 above and do not change for these sub cases, except for tankage (and related pipelines). Cold Lake bitumen has been used as the basis for yields considered in this section but cost and other factors do not change significantly with use of mixed or 100 percent Athabasca bitumen upgrader feed. The distribution of overall S.C.O. fractions with and without withdrawal of specification Jet A and diesel products at rates considered, will vary slightly with the feed but no impact on average unit of value of S.C.O. is anticipated. Variations in S.C.O. fractional yields due to varying feedstocks, will be har~ed'by-s~ight variatiohs'in middle distillate and differentiated S.C.O. sales. The partial refining facilities will be single train with an availability above that of the Basic Upgrader's assumed 90 percent. The partial refining facilities will be air cooled and only incremental fuel, electricity and a small amount of instrument air will be needed. The estimates for utility consumption are based on fractionator operations 25 percent of the time. Tankage bases are set out in Table 7.3-1 below. 7.3 DESCRIPTIONOF OVERALL DESIGN The new units are as follows:
S.C.O. Fractionation

7-2

The i~rocess concept is outlined in Figure 7.3-1. Due to the highvolume of butane in the whole S.C.O., a debutanizer has been added to allow reduction of the butane content if/when desired. NaphthaHydrotreater This is a simple hydrotreater to process up to 12,000 BPCD of the diluent normally returned to the field. The stabilizer shown in Figure 7.3-2 could function as a debutanizer, if desired, with a C, rich sidecut being taken to the S.C.O. fractionator's debutanizer. If it is desired to process heavy sour condensates, these must first be distilled to transfer heavier fractions to the secondary hydrotreating units in the upgrading complex. Of the process and utility facilities of the Basic Upgrader, only the following change: Hydrogen Production In the condensate sub case, up to I million scfd of the "million surplus" hydrogen available from the 2 trains will be needed, hence, no new capacity is planned. SulphurProduction Up to about 8 tpd of added sulphur will be produced in the condensate addition sub case, but as this is only 1.5 percent of total production, no change in sulphur plant capacity of capital or operating costs is proposed.

7-3

$C0.

~ _

jl ?
,

TO S'E~R~ E

K[I~OSL'N n3 STOR~,

- Iff~W (~[SCL TO S'I"OI~b~:;C

-~,~,FROu P ~ Y Ou~J~ H~I~ROm[AT~O UNI13

,-Lr ~
~_1 I

.
t '~'~

'~

~,,

,..o.~ -,Od~ OIL TO fCCU

l'

L_~

'

'

r"
C,kS OK. TO STO~GI:

r'n
SCO. IIlO $C0. C~O PRIk~ UPGKN0[R
U~

~ PRItAkJ~Y UPGRAO~qO h"Y~'II~S ~A~ ~.., ~LPImlA OIRCCT TO $.C O, TO Ib,,"T1D~TPO~'~-fOLIE:

PARTIAL REFINING CASE S.C.O. FRACTIONATION

FIG 7,3-!

il
DILUENT

!1

(EMERCL:TCY

R1/) BOOSTER PUMP

M~E~P

ONLY}

I DILUENT~ RECYCLE COMPRESSOR

PURGE TO FUEL GAS :~ I

'TO H2S REMOVAL

SOUR FUEL GAS

t.

ATMOS,~ TOWER OOHD SYSTEM

R ,,, UNDOWN LINE

[~ -

=.. FCCU GAS CONC. OR PRIM/SEC.CONV. UNIT GAS PROCESING

C3C4 TO

FUTURE RAW

I ~HOT

OIL FROM

~lC. " ' ]

~ , ~

,,

- TO NAPHTHA STORAGE TANK

H20
(OCAStON~)

OPTIONAL NAPHTHA HYDROTREATER IN

_ PARTIAL REFINING CASE
FIG 7.3-2

Table 7.3-1 Partial Refinln~ Case Tanka~e (b) Material Days Storage 8 S 3 Use/Ptock~:don Rate 8PSD 110,000 (max) 43,,000 O'nax) (b) 16,000 (max) ~)
J

Where

,Io. of ranks 4 2 1

--Ind;v;du~J "F Tank Size | 220,000 120,000 SS,O00

T~,pc/Speclals

Site Site Site

Diluted Bitumen Diluent Return Vi~in Atmos Oisiillates

Cone roof (aJ c/w mixers r__. Floating ~

(,:TCX~n
Site Vacuum Gas Oil 3 17.00O ~ (b)

Cone roof - N 2 blanket . cltc heaLImix ,;ys~em

Cor~ fool

GO,C00

insulated - cite heat Vacuum BoSoms 3 36,000 (max) (c) I 120.000

Nz bl.,',kc~.

C~one~0r

- insulated -circ heat Floa~in~ roof Cone roof . insulated - ckc heat system Cone roof . insulatc.,Jtnead .special water draw

Site Site Heavy Slop

Variable Variable

1 1

20.000 40.000

Sile

Wet Slop

Highly variable

1.000

Site Site Siu~

Buu~e Naphtha Kefos4me Medium Diesel

:3 .. 10 10 O max 10 7 max (15) 10

2,000 rnzx 9.000 (b) I S,O00 6.000 32.000 max (15.000 he0 25,000

I 2 (hi 2 t 2
o d

6.0OO S0.000 (b) 75.000

Floa~ing roof Co) Cone rooi Cone roof

Cone roof . cite he",( sy~em Cone roof in~al',ted - circ heat ~-ys~em Floating roof mixers Florin 8 roof mixers Cone roOf mixers FIo=in8 roof

75.000

Site Site

Heavy OieseVOiesel Gas Oil

7s.0oo
140.000

Site Edmonton Edmo~on Edmonton

S.C.OJS.C.O. JetA Diesel S.C.OdSwlng

63.200 max ( 1.SO,O00 b/N batches) (I SO,000 bbi batches) (Up m 3oo,ooo bb4 batches)

75,000 170.000 i 70,000 ! 70,000

Notc-~. (a) (b) Vent gas to be treated foe odour control. tn the sub case with naphtha hydrouealeradded, I~0duction rate can go as high as 20,000 BPCD and number of tanks goes to 3 cad'= at 70,000 bid capacity.

7-6

ATHAB~CA

I i I~-I

INI
t.~E ~RF~

.ll

[~LUTED BITUMEN 24" D(WE]qT RETURN 8"

REGIONAL ~ E R

~s" SPECU.. S.C.O./ --r-- ~ - 7

+F

i
i

I I I I I

l AEC PIPEUNES

,~U~.L

~CO1TORD -= 'EFINERY

12" sPEcuJ, s.c.o. (LOW PRESS.)t

i i

,FROMpO
ON O NC, L F'RAC/STGE

COLD LAKE

PROVIDE SYNCRUDE/SUNCOR S.C.O. AND REQ'D. UPGR. BLDG. STOCK MIXIN(; SYSTEm(S).

DETAIL "13"
TO/FROM EI)MONTON TERMINALS & REFINERIES

,.>??? /

DETAIL " A "

\
TO APPL PUMP S"TAI"}O N

/,
-/

NG 16" N[C UNE PROOUCTION RELO ROUllNG ONLY

JF_ .s.c_.o._j"
S.C.O.

HIGHWAY 93

KX:~SS 10 PIPELINE

BLEND

1N.

TRANSFER PUMP

SURGE TANKS FOR INTER-PROVINC.JAL& TRANS MOUNTNN MOVEMENTS

I,q.

Sm~ BLOW-UP

"r~MINN.
LEGENO

It

EXISTING
- - ' ~ , - " ~ , r - ~ - - REPt~E E:~STING NEW UNE FOR ATHABASCA BITUMEN NEW BASE CASE UNE .... PARTIAL RE~INING

PARTIAL REFINING CASE UPGRADF_.R/EDMONTON TRANSFER SYSTEM

FIG 7 . 3 - 3

Sour Water Stripper Th.~re may be an intermittent flow of 10 to 20 USGPM of sour water flom the hydrotreater condenser water wash, less than I0 percent of the design feed rate. It is assumed that no change is needed to handle this stream.

Waste Water Treating The fractionator overhead system will condense 20 USGPM of water when operating. This water will be sweet and very pure - with clay waste water treatment facilities is likely.
or

other

adsorbent it can easily be used for boiler feedwater. Thus, no change ,in

Steam Plant The fractionator w;l! need up to 10,000 pounds per hour of medium pressure steam for stripping. No added boiler capacity is foreseen.

Tankage and Pipelines See Table 7.3-I and Figure 7.3-3 above. The tankage and blending systems allows for blending and shipping of an infinite range of differentiated S.C.O.'s and middle distillate products, with up to 150,000 barrels per batch down the Interprovincial system. Differentiated S.C.O.'s will use the base components from the S.C.O. fractionator and the debutanizer's butane through an in-line blending system.

7-8

Buildings A minor increase in laboratory capacity will be needed, complete with cetane engine for diesel testing. 7.4 PRODUCTQUALITIES Standard S.C.O. was previously described in Table 4.3.1. Where diluent (or extraneous condensate naphtha) is added, the sulphur and nitrogen Specifications of the basic S.C.O. naphtha fraction will apply - see Table 2.1-1. CGS8 specifications will apply for Jet A and diesels with customers to set pour point needs for the latter. Note that static dissipator additive will be used in such products although specified only in Canada. 7.5 UTILITY BALANCES The partial refining facilities utility estimates appear in Table 7.8-1. The estimates assume fractionation only 25% of the time, but naphtha d~ulphurization all the time where relevant. 7.6 CAPITALCOST ESTIMATES The S.C.O. fractionator has been estimated from Turbo actual cost data for a 30,000 BPSD atmospheric column system, very close in other than size, to that of the Partial Refining Case. A size exponent of 0.6 was used. An air preheater system was added to the feed heater to improve fuel efficiency to the 90% level. The same time related changes were used as in the various previous cases. . . .

7-9

Turbo's naphtha hydrotreater costs provided a similar guide to costs here. The pressure and space velocities were identical to those used here and different sizes were equated with a 0.65 exponent. Initial catalyst charge for the hydrotreater sub case was estima:ed from Turbo data.
i

Minor allowances have been made in Basic Upgrader accounts relative to the waste water and utility aspects of partial refining. 7.7 WORKING CAPITAL ESTIMATES Table 7.7-I presents estimated working capital for the partial refining alternates. ,,

7.8

OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Table B-2 of Appendix B presents the revised operating costs using the bases previously discussed above under Basic Upgrader for the 3 options.
Table 7.7.1 Pazti~l Refinlr~ C.J~.es"Wor~ng Capital in %000%of IC~3 CanadianDoll:us Sub Case Materlai Averse value S.C..O. Fra, NHT bbls 440,000 120.000 147,750 530 OCK) SO,O00 . . . . .
28.816

S.C.O. Rract + NHT Value 7.735 2,989 2,699 14,066 1,327 I bids 440,000 120,000 i 47,,"~0 225,000 413,000 170,000 L Value 7,733 2.989 2,689 3,972 ! 1,014 3,374 3S.783

bids
O,luted Bilumen i Diluent Inlem~ediates/Slop S.C.O. S.C,O. Interm Prcx]ucts To(aJ 17.58 24.91 18.27 26.54 26.54 3161 av~ 440.000 120.OOO
147,750

V:~e
7,735 2,989 2.699 5,972 9,687 5,374 34,4S6

225,0(30 365.000 170,OQO

7-10

Table 7.8.1 Pa.rt;"1 Refin;n~ Sub CasesOperal;ng Cost Est|mates in 1,000's o( IQ93 Can:vJ;anDollars Onstream Factor S.C.O. Fracl Only 23% V~Cd)le Cost Natural Gas (I0' BTU/CD) i Electricity (MW) CaL~ysts and Chemicals Pitch Disposal Sub To[al Semi Variable Cost * Opera~ing Lab<.,ur MaintenanCe Labour Maintenance Materials Miscellaneous Operating Suppffes Adminis~lio~ and Suppo~ Office Cosl.sand Misce[laneous |ns.urllz~es Local Taxes Ir~ere~ on Wo~ing C~oilal -- ~ Sub Total Total Oper3a;ngCosts (33~) (34.6] 30,098 8,S16 8,902 4,022 51,538 ! 3,680 24,133 24,133 $50 4,560 550 3,017 6,033 2,412 79,067 130,605 Sub Cases NHT Only 100% S.C.O. + Fr~ct + NHT 25/10{)% 29,645 8,613 9,302 4,022 (S3.?) (33.6) 30,494 8.739 9,302 4.022 32.377 13.832 25.069 25,069 -~50 4,360 330 3,134 6,267 2.305 81.536

(52.4)
(35.0)

51,382
13,680 23,470 23,470 530 4,560 550 2,934 5.868 2,017 77,099 128,681

,~,

134,113

7-11

8.0 8.1

INTEGRATEDCASE INTRODUCTION This case considers both F-T and S.C.O. fractionation with added condensate being added to the Basic Upgrader. This case represents the maximum upgrader output per barrel of bitumen considered in this study. As will be seen, the F-T and partial refining options do not mesh significantly unless a 45 plus cetane is required in the marl.;et place, other than as upgrader hydrogen needs are provided from the F-T system. The Integrated Case, however, provides the maximum flexibility in differentiated S.C.O.'s to suit many refinery interests. Indeed, differentiated S.C.O. marketing will be a very major:x. fa.ctor in the success of an integrated upgrader. Figure 8.1-I provides a quick overview of the many differentiated S.C.O. options. The business complexity of this case rises significantly as very precise product blending to meet extremely sophisticated marketing will be essential to success. The battery limit and scope definitions continue as in the Base Case, including upgrading, associated upgrader site utilities and offsite, local pipelines and an Edmonton terminal.

8.2

DESIGN BASES

The design bases are essentially the sum of those for the F-T and partial refining with condensate bases, except for pipeline and storage as defined in Figure 8.3-1 and Table 8.3-1 below.

8-I

sour~ccs

s~.....__~_~

On.U1ED arisEN OILUmT 03.000](=) SOUR CO.~ENSAT~ (rmueO COMPONENt" C=C+

GROSS RUNDOWN ON SITE TRNtSFERS STORAG_._. E E 200,000 (11o.ooo) APPROX

240,000

PRINCIPALPRODUCT BLENDINGOPTIONS

FIHAL PROOUCT

TRANSFERS

PROOUCT

FT

(1.o00)

. ~ ~

t O.O00

C3C4

F'l'. SASK. FRACpIJ4'~T5 V~, FT. ,'$/~K. IT. CONO.PUS. (~)BLEND IN EDMONTOL'I

pARAFFINICI,~HTHA (4.500) PREMIUMMIO 0151" (tO.500)

25,000

PETROCHEM FEED S.C.O. 8LO0. I

POOR

BASIC/PI~'RAL RERHING

C, NAPHntA
KEROSENE

(2.800)

I
I

(20,000) ~
(15,000)

I II I
200.000
I~0.000 (2)
--r-] ......

! -.,-.'-'1--"

II

L"!,

T'''"

NAPHTIUk(OCCASlOHALSALE5 ONLY) JET B" JET A (~VIA IPPL,/~tn

ii
I

MEO DIESEL ~rv'( DIESEL

c/~ OIL

(8,~)0)

75.000

h2.ooo TOt

~, 14.000 J
(2o.o~ TOt -..---.-----~ 23.000 J

~5.ooo
2eo.ooO

DIESELS SPECt.~.L

(~A

IPPL/I~tn

s.c.o. BL~NDS (~)ESSO-~CEL~O

~)~A IPPL/~'Mt n/

~lc

s co.

(oppOSe)

.........

I~o.ooo

BASIC S.C.O. (~)VIA IPPL/TMIn

LEGEND BATCH IN PIPELINETO "EDMONTONWITH 8 EDMONTONEND T,~'qK (~ EAClt OF tTO.O00 bbl=. TO PROVIDEPIPEUNEBATCHESTO 3Oh.DO0 bbl". (~ CAN BATCHTO SHELLIN LOCALPIPEUNE (~) ADD ,~)DnlVI~

.--.----- PRIMARYFLOWS . . . . . . OPllONALFLOWS NO TANK IN CURRENTSCIEME

INTEGRATED CASE PRODUCT BLENDING

FIG 8.1-t

8.3

DESCRIPTIONOF DESIGN All of the components have been reviewed above in the basic case, F-T Case and partial refining with condensate addition sub case. The proposed tankage is spelled out in Table 8.3-I and the pipeline connections appear on Figure ,3.3-I.

8.4

PRODUCT YIELDS AND PROPERTIES Appendix C summarizes the yields for this case. Property data appears in the basic case, F-T Case and Partial Refining with condensate sub case discussions.

8.5

UTILITY BALANCES Natural gas and electricity demands are shown in Table 8.8-1.

8.6

CAPITALCOSTS Capital cost development was discussed above relative to FiT and Partial Refining Cases and cost estimates appear in Appendix B.

8.7

WORKING CAPITAL Table 8.7-1 presents the estimated value of average inventories.

8.8

OPERATING COSTS Generally these costs were derived from Basic Upgrader, F-T and Partial Refining Gases.

8-3

AT'r~ .K~.L.C.~ =.
I x

I,-.I l~I
C..,CLD LAXE AREA

DfLLK~ BITUME~I 2#
ul

REGIO~

Dn-U~T R~ruRH e" 7

- ' ,16" .SPEC%ALS.C.O./ "4 -i -~ - ....... I

/ , ,

SO~JE USE LIKELY OF THIS UNE P:?,COUCTS voR sP~c~. ~ ~ i ~s/OR P

SHELL

~~-~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RETI ER'Y --I -/
6" C~C

~2" SPEC~ S.CO./BU~

,H, APlI4&

/ /

; /

I
PRC".iDE S',/NC.FUCE/S;NC'OR S.C.O.

FROM/TO COLD LAJ~ & ~OITDRD AR~

MD(]NG ~ ( $ )

IN EX]S'I~NG TANKAGE.

/-F

TO EDMONTON

TJ~ ~-

- ~?

~"

,I ~
--

\ I ~ ~ - - ~

\TC \

~,:

.J

- ' - ~ ' '~ " V

'~.~
pIPELINES

1
, ~ / ,

~--- ~ ~U~TON

,~_~o~y

TR~-.OUN'rA~N

BLOW-UP
_ ,. EXiStING RETI./C.E EXISlING

INTEGRATED CASE

. . . . . .

NEW UN( FOR A ' I ~ r . A BITUMEN -NEW BA~ O ~ LINE

U G A E I D 4 NO P R D RE N O I N '
TRANSFER

--X~X~X-NEW FT C A ~ UNE .+~+~+-NE'# PR C J ~ UN : ; -_ FT & PR e.J~ IJNE

SYS~
FIG 8..5--I

Table 8--3-1 lltetrile~# C u e T a h O e

Yg1~ef

M.at+riaJ

Oayi Storage

Use/Production Rate BPSD

I~llvlclu iI Tank S~ze 81trois 220,000 120,000 55,000

Type/ 51x-~inh,

Oil ull~l bitumtn Dilu~nl Sk+e V'i~lin Almol O i l

110,0(30 max 43,000 m ~ 16,CX)0 r n ~

Cc~e roof c,~v m;xe's (z) F ~ i n ~ roof C~.e roof . N~ bla~e~ - OsC hea!.,m,x $ys'.e~ Co~e roof Hi bZlr,~e~ |rm.hiled Cz.'Chea~/n'.ia, syile,'n

S~

Vacuum C i i Oil

17.O00

60.~.X3

S~

V l c u u ~ g<~otr~

36.0OO m.~

12~0C~

Co,'.eroof - insulated . clrc~ ~,.rl~ hel t

S~

Lltl~l Sour SIo~ H e a ~ Slop 20.000 C o ~ fool . ir,~lateO CIfC heat,r~ iy'~te-n Cc~e too( draw

1,00~

c.
Sile H ipii~ 0~lriff~n,cl

3 S 10 10 10 @ ~a.~

3.500 4,000 1400~ 20.003 0:)) 1 5 . C ~ max

10 C~C
25,000 80000

S~e,e F~,aun~ roof Cot~ roof

Pre~ Mid Dig S,le S;te S~lt Sill S~ h l ~ Ke.n~...'~e Med Diesel Hv'y D~sei/D.es~l Gas Oil (Co~venl~r~aJ)

75 +~.i~ 75 C~.~"

Co~e roof CorserOOf Co,~eroof itC'.alihl~1 I ~ l l i ViIL~ ~') Co~e roof - insulx~l - c.c healin~ sy,Ite,~ Floa~',-~roof
C~ roof

7 mix (I SI 10

32.(330 (1 S,O00) 25,000

75.0c~ 280 ~

S~

S+CO,R.CO+ Sk)ps

-'1

72,000 max 0 S O . ~ bbl baicl~esl (I 50.000 bbl batc)'.esi

75.000
170,C~10

I~'~+ M i d O~c

(10) l1 2)
IS ,)

ldmo~o~
lckno~o~

let ^ Die.el

170,000

C o ~ rool
- ITlilef$

(; 5o.oo<3~ l
batcheS) (300.000 I~1 bilcl-~l

170 OcX.'
! 70 OC~

Co,~e~'oo(
l'l~ilml*ro,of

ldm~mo~

SIX'c~al S C O ,

CO

(3 -)

Nole.JL:

Pro~+d,e vapcx.w recover-/ $y~e,"~ to "~,"~.Ze odoq.,~

8-$

Table 8.7-I Integrated Case Wor~Jn~ C~p;tal in 1,000"s of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars Material Diluted Bitumen Oilu~t InlecmediatedSIop S.CO. S.C.O. Inten'nediates Products Total Average Value 17.58 24.91 18.27 26.54 26.54 31.61 avg Inventory
440,000

Value 7,73~ 2,989 2,403 6,.~02

. 17,118

12o,o00
133,(~30 245,000
645,000

255,000
1,838.000

8,061 44,833

Table 8.8-1 Intel~ted Case Operating Cost Estimates in 1,000"s of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars Variable Cost Natural Gas (10' BTU/CD) Catalysts and Chemicals Pitch Dis,,>osal Sub Total" Sen~ Variable Cost Ope~aling LaJ~x:r Mainlenan~e Labour Maintenance Materials Miscellaneous Operating Supplies )~dminis~tion and Support Office Costs and Miscellaneous Insurances Local Taxes Int~,~-~on Workir~ Capital
Sub Total

(241|
(.16.8)

136,374
.4.188

17.030 4,022
1S3,238

16,492 39,182 39,182 350 4,360 35O 9,793 3,138

118,347 271,585

4,698

Total Operatlng Costs

8-6

9.0 9.1

FULL REFINING CASES INTRODUCTION This section describes the development of concepts, and capital and operating costs for the Full Relining sub cases:
a)

Added to Base Upgrader As a) with F-T synthesis added As a) with 12,000 BPCD of diluent added Base UpBrader plus 12,000 BPCD of diluent and F-T synthesis

b) c) d)

The basic refining scheme relies on S.C.O. fractionation, catalytic, cracking, C3C, isomerization, TAME and light cycle oil hydrotreating processes to p~'oduce gasolines to Canadian market qualities (with some export potential for U.S. reformulated gasolines) and Jet A and diesel for Canadian and U.S. markets. A capability is provided ,to add MTBE to gasoline in Edmonton to provide (more) oxygen to the extent needed for reformulated gasolines for U.S. northern tier markets as far as Ohio if desired. The capability for differentiated S.C.O. sales also exists, if/as refined product sales do not match upgrading/refining capacity. The process yields and unit costs have been developed from licensor discussions and literature, and from a detailed analysis of the Canadian Turbo Calgary refinery's initial and revamp costs and utility balances. The latter refinery's configuration includes many units essentially duplicated here (other than as to size) resulting in a high degree of confidence in capital and operating costs. -.....

9-1

The battery limit definitions of all Full Refining Cases follows the same outline as in all other cases, including the Basic Upgrader refining units, associated upgraders site utilities and ogsites, local pipelines and an Edmonton terminal. Maximum and minimum gasoline production levels were set for each of the 4:sub cases, In the case of minimum gasoline cases, summer gasoline vapour pressure and RVP turned out to be well over the 7.5 psi maximum in early trials, but this was lowered to 7 or.l~s.s through addition of the TAME unit to convert high pressure Cs olefins to a high octane oxygenate of much lower vapour pressure. (The minimum gasoline case with F-T and condensate processing added still has a 7.5 range RVP.) The addition of a TAME unit also provides one source of oxygenates for use in U.S. reformulated gasoline grades - it also significantly reduces olefins, probably allowing the finished gasoline to meet U.S. north and midwest reformulated specifications (with the addition of some MTBE to bring the total oxygen to the correct level) - when the late 1990 specifications are set. The refining units have not been fully optimized as that is a very major task well beyond this study. However, all yields are consistent or below expected practice in 2000 and, hence, conservative. 9.2 DESIGN BASES The following are the design bases for each plant section: Capacity The complex is designed to process 60,000 BPCD of bitumen. In sub ca~;es b) and d), F-T synthesis is added to produce the hydrogen needed in the complex and added naphtha and distillates. In sub cases c) and d), 12,000 BPCD of diluent has been added to the feed.

9-2

Other Feeds Field butanes are acquired via a local pipeline. Methanol for TAME via truck (from Celanese Edmonton). MTBE if/as needed over fence at Edmonton terminal from Alberta Envirofuels.

Crude Assay The Full Refining Cases have considered only Cold Lake bitumen. However, refinery flexibility will result in essentially the same range of product slates being possible for Athabasca as for Cold Lake. The synergy of catalytic cracking and residual hydroprocessing is pronounced and results in significant flexibility in the refining yield structure.

Synthetic Crude Oil Qualities While not considered other than as a study byproduct to keep bitumen processing at a constant rates (as at NewGrade), a complete range of high quaZity differentiated S.C.O.'s can be produced. (Seepreceding Base Case table).

Gasoline Quality Pool octane of 89 road (R+M/2) and 7.5 psi maximum summer/9 annual average RVP, benzene below 0.8 volume percent, plus regular CGSB specifications are the minimum specifications. As noted above, the addition of less than 10% MTBE would bring the gasoline product to expected U.S. future national reformulated gasoline standards. Provision is made for that at Edmonton.

9-3

MMT can be added to increase octane by about 1 octane number if desired for Canadian gasolines. An in-line blending system allows production of any octane grade from 87 to 93 in batches up to 150,000 barrels for regular and 75,000 for other grades. The MTBE would be batch added in Edmonton. Note that adding MTBE to export gasoline at Edmonton will save much in MTBE transportation costs, as no special handling systems would be needed. (This appears the only approach to MTBE transport to the U.S. mid west, for example, displacing a rail alternate.) Jet A Specification CGSB specifications with 21 minimum smoke point and aromatics at or below 20 percent.
,l tC)

Diesel Specification
CGSB specifications (now with 40 minimum cetane numbed and pour point differentiated in in-line blending of 4 components to suit end user needs. Actual cetane number will average about 43 for the configuration shown. A consistent 4S cetane equivalent would need an added aromatic saturation unit not now in scope. (except for the cases with F.T where the pool cetane will be approximately 47). Propane Quality Current merchant propane specifications will prevail.

9-4

Number of Trains The refining units added to the Basic Upgrader will all be single train.

Hydrogen Supply Full on-site supply is planned using the 2 trains of the Basic Upgrader (84 million scfsd at 99.5+% purity - capacity incudes some margin over total net availability). The refining units will use hydrogen from catalytic reforming preferentially with final balancing with the surplus in the upgrader's hydrogen system.

Residue Disposal See Basic Upgrader - no change but slightly greater quantity (20 tons per day range) due to processing of catalytic cracking residuals). Spent catalytic cracking catalyst will go to cement or landfill (low metals content will permit). All other catalysts will be returned to the vendor or his assignee when spent.

Utility Philosophy Purchase natural gas and electricity to extent needed to balance demand.

Location See Basic Upgrader.

9-5

Service Factor 90% used for all units as consistent with refinery experience. Note that differentiated S.C.O.'s will be produced whenever refined product demands are not equal to available upgrade+"capacity.
9.3

DESCRIPTION OF OVERALL DESIGN The processing scheme in the full refining units is shown in Figure 9.3-1 with high and low gasoline product yields shown in Table 9.3-1, assuming 100 percent S.C.O. conversion to refined products. The same table also shows units throughputs "with the larger size of high and low gasoline options used for costing. The Basic Upgrader process is unchanged from the preceding discussions, except as follows: a) Primary Upgrader Accepts 1,000 to 2,000 BPO of FCCU bottoms in addition to vacuum bottoms from bitumen fraction. This recycle will probably be routed to one train with some conventional feed transferred to the other train to balance operations. It is not expected to significantly impact on the co-processing of vacuum bottoms. Virtually all of (his recycle will be recovered in S.C.O. with significant cracking and hydrogenation. No increase in capital or operating costs are anticipated in this study; a possible minor over simplification.

9-6

'

4-i

t----

I~-

r~l

C~,

| I ~ )

t mC~ SPul"r~ ~(C, . ~ 1 , . . cJ3cxJm] CsCe ISOUOU~11~ PNoautJ mo ~ , nt'clxj~

,Or,~S

tccu /1310. *3$uwG) HEllE J~ Lj~TrI~. 0. ~ 0

~0 0mCN (ro~ cxmoot~E3).

C. I~PM40 ~ H~qQIli~ER & ~ DI SllICAU TO ~ ~ ~ A~JCAeUL CONOOF~ &/On ~PHT~ O. tCCU U' Fl~tl. ON. CAN CO Om~CT 10 frO. OUT VO~Y10W O(l~O RQUtfl~ COMMON O~'L/UrO P ~ D u c / ~ WC'S'ITJI~I ~ suc~r I~C~(A~ u,Y K ;~(1c~) IH lU~ CtJ~S t~4T (IllClOJCY OUT TO SMALL (Y So~ m rLtE ,~. INT SQX 11uJ~Srl~ CM~4.YST~ IN rCCU SHOULD C0i~T~

i
t IN RnNtNG CASE 1o1

rim. H I GAS

HI

' i

I
C~C, S~JllTR r.l'. Ck~ U~U~OS SCO vml !

R~ C~ Hw I~GrOm~11[

r. NED lro~q S{~{:NIY 0r ~TUI~T1ON I.~M~. rT UQOK)S ADOTO, BUT S),I1JA~IIONV~.t,'U((C ~ 11wt c~r/3(TS N)O{'D OP tO00 PS~ O l ~ . O. AOO m L"DtaONTO~CIRCCT ~ ,~I.JKW'TA D~ROrUnJ r ~ REr0maUL~ED CASCUI~( It. 9 I ~ I.]-3

: j-~
:

,~.
o~E ".

]"
t

I1 - 7 _ ~
I'~'. ' I .~w

mo o e ~ .

I t ~ W {ll:f~rl.

',L_J
L__ ..... J

I
LClL'NO Cs POIOCP, S.C.O. COuPCNrJ~I" STRCAM N. (~-PURt~ICtSfD-R(C[/VO BY PtPQJN( ~ K : n.OW 0FT~ONAL(/xtr NOllE: POS~tBE troumuL"1,cr SiZE CHANGr':) PUg'CtIAS(D-R(crNEo BY 1]~UCX

O~lOK*t 4kI 041. at%"~Ct TO Bt.'t~ )T'S I~ n(DUC( ~ -.,e On. pI~OOUC11C~

---(~)~

ii

fl =" ! ,, o,
U~Ob(
1'0 n(S~) HC VIRGtH ONCS~ ~r.posoJ( (~" IXSm(o) (,)

J ~ A-! DCS(I~ u' ruo. ocs (o)

FULL REFINING PROCESS SCHEUE Ir~ 1.3-1

Table 9.3-1 RefininGCaseAnalysis Summary ~elimlnary LMoptimizedlC~C.AIIoflation IPCD Aam.id A v e r a g e s

.,~,-_~-u~umC.,.,,i!~ (0
Ihu~alJ

Minimum Gasoline (t) Total 60.000 12.000

1,050
gaf,4~

+FT
,m

+ Cord

+FT 60,000

+ Cord 60,000
12.000

Tolal 60,000 12,0C~ 0 S00 e00 8O0

60,000 Diluent P--J Purchased But._~:~_(a| (e) Purchased Me!h~ol Pro~_'.'.'_Sales(e)

0

60.000

00,000 12.000

60,000

2,850 700 7S0

0 32.428 32.656 .99

1,550

2,400 700 9OO

0

1,200 SOn 60O

0

60O

700 850
0 37,736 " 41,473 .91

700 1,000
t

500 700 200

500
700 0

eu,~ ~

(a)

Gasoline (89 oct min) (9/I average RVP) Middle Dbtillalet (40 plus cemne) (21 plus smoke on Jet A-l) G/D Principal Unit lhrouEhpuls, IIPCD (b) (c) CsC~ Ison~tlzation Catalytic Re/oeming FCCU (Catalytic Clacking) AlkylaHon (C3C4)
T^ME

42.077 33,616
1.25

47,(~13

23,373 39,015 0.60

27,907
48,688

31,952 40,935 0.7n

36,831
50,607
0.73

42,433 1.13

0.57

L.C.O. Hyd,ol+ealer C. Isomerizalion (Convetslon) (d)

4.700 7,100 24,400 6.900 2.300 4,600 3,700

7,000 12,400 24,400 6.900 2,300 4.600 3,700

9,900 13,800 24.400 6,900 2,300 4,600 " 3,700

12,100
19,100 24,400 6,900 2.300 4.600 3,700

4.500 5,300 24.400 4,600

1,900

9,100 2,500

6,700 9,t~)0 24,400 4,600 i ,900 9,100 2,500

i !.n00 24.4(~

I t oAO0 15,5(10

24.4(10
4,600

4.500

1,900
9,100 2,500

1,9oo 9.100 2,500

9-~

Table 9.3-I Reran;nit CanesAmdyAm Sumn~ry Preliminary UnoplimizerllC~C, AIk~/iation IIPCD Annual A v e r a ~ (conllnued) Noles: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (I) Varies IhtOUllh ~eer. These rates should be correcled Io aeesm day IxD~ at sc, r~ce faclor or 0.9. In all cases, lhe maximum gasoline tub case will Sel unit slzes or all bul lhe L.C.O. hydrolreater, whose hydraulic capacity will be sel by lhe minimum gasoline case (reactor capacity need Is probably ue,changed). The assoclaled de.K:, column will have c-,pacily of reushly 2.5 limes the converslon capacity. C1's enlering with purchase Ix~anes neglecled In lhls analysis. In the maximum Ilasoline case, Ihe rCCU ol)~ale1,11 high severily and Ihe naphlha/disllUale cul polnls are al aboul 350"F. In Ihe minimum 8asollne case, Iho latter reduces In 300F. The gasoline pool will meel 1995 U.S. refeemulaled slandards excepl for oxygenales, bul I0% MT[IE can be added In Edmonton tankage if desbed. However, oleGns are well above 1996 California standards in all Ihe sub cases holed - fulure addition of Cs Io alkylation will decrease olenns In gasolines bul nG: IO California h..vels. A 7,5 psi RVP is attainable In summer mnnlhs (bul is llghll), especially In Ihe fuel sub cases.

(g)

9-9

b)

SecondaryUpgrader Recycle product hydrogenation will add slightly to hydrogen needs. Added flexibility in degree of gas oil hydrocracking and of middle distillate aromatic saturation would be desirable but these must be addressed in further pilot and study work.

c)

Hydrogen Production Up to 80 percent of the 6 percent capacity margin may be needed in t h~ . refining units, depending upon the severity of gasoline reforming. Minor additional funds are allowed for compression of reformer byproduct hydrogen to 1,000 psig for LCO hydrotreater.use, to 700 psig for naphtha hydrotreater, and to 400 psig for isomerization and C=C, butadiene saturation.

d)

Sulphur Plant Added production of up to 9 tpd of sulphur is anticipated to have no material impact on the 2 sulphur trains, as they have 50% spare capacity with both on-line. Very minor - 1 tlXI - increase in sulphur plant recovery efficiency is needed, due to recovery from FCCU off gases. Overall recovery must be increased slightly to offset minor amount of SO= in FCCU flue gas.

e)

Sour Water Stripper There will be an added load due to the FCCU overhead waters containing traces of H2S and phenols. Allowances have been made for this added load

9-10

in capital and operating costs. (A second SWS would allow reuse of FCCU water, but such is not assumed.)

Waste Water The F-T sub case has its own waste water treatment system, but the FCCU introduces some added waste streams from sour water stripping and 3 small dilute caustic wash systems. ~

g)

Steam and Power Plant An additional boiler is added to provide enough 600 psig superheated steam for the FCCU air blower and the reformer recycle compressor steam turbine. (In the F.T sub cases, superheated 150 psig would be used for these services, partly in lieu of electricity generation, and no new boiler added.)

h)

Tankage Tankage is planned for each sub case as set out in Table 9.3-2. Product blending will be via in-line computer controlled systems using online RVP and octane controls for gasoline. Figure 9.3-2 sets out the planned pipeline transfer systems - the only change between sub cases being a slightly larger pipeline in the combined F-T plus condensate sub case.

9-11

i)

Raw Water Treatment Refinery units will be totally air cooled, hence, no changes will be needed relative to cooling water. A minor amount of added boiler feed water makeup will be needed along with expanded condensate systems. "i'he FCCU's steam turbine exhaust steam will be condensed with air (as at Turbo). Other Off-Sites Additions to suit refinery areas and prgcesses in instrumenting fuel system, flare, fire protection, etc., will be needed.

k)

Interconnecting Pipeways For each sub case, allowances have been made for refining related piperacks. Common Buildings Extensions the buildings of the Basic Upgrader have been allowed to to handle added technical and administrative staff, added laboratory facilities and added "first aid" type maintenance.

9-12

Table 9.3.2 Full Refirdng Case Tankage Sizes in 1,0@O'sof Barrels

Where

Service

S,.~ C.a~
+ Condensate + F-T 4 220 (2) 0 t 2O (1) e ss (1) 60 i 0120 2015 I 040 1@2 305 I010 I010
I e3o

Type Total 4 @ 220 (.2) 0 120 (1) @ ss (1) @ 60 1 0 120 2015

! @40

Site S~e Site Sile Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

Diluted Bitumen

(4) 22o
(2) 120

4 220 (2) 120 (I) @ SS (1) 60 1 0 120 2015 I 040 102 305
i @ 10

CR CW mixers b; FR CR, Bl~, Ht, hSlx ' CR, a r c Heat CR, Ins. Cffc I-It FR CRo Ins, CH CR, Ins, CHqBullets

Vi~in A~rnos Olst Vacuum Gas Oil Vacuum Bottoms

(1) SS (1) 0 60 I0 120

L~

Slop

2010 ! 040 IO2 305

I 0 I0

He.~ S ~
w e Slop Propane n.Butane igo-Sulane Naphtha (HT'} Kerosene Medium Diesel Heavy Diesel Gas Oil S.C.OJS.C.O. Slops LisI~ Cycle Oil C~Ct Isomef~e : Low Ocuu,,e Ref Hilth Octaz~ Re[

i02 305 1010 l@lO

I @30

I 0 10 I 030 2 @ 75 I 075 3 @ 75
I 0 140

I 0 10 1030 2 @ 75 1075 3 0 75
I @ 140

S~e~e
FR CR CR CR CR FR c./w mixers

2 @ 90 ! 01OO 3 080
I O 140

2 0 90 I01OO 3 @ 80
I @ 140

2075 2050
I 040

2075 2050
10 i00

2@75 2@SO
1 @80

2075 2 050
2@70

CR
FR FR FR FR FR FR

I 025 1 15
1080

I 060 I 030 1080 2 070

I 060
I 30

I 0100
1 @ 40 1080

Nh.late
FCC C,,asoline C.,a,,oiine Blending

1080 2 070
4 e80

2070
4080

2 070
4080

4eeo

9-13

Table 9.3-2 Full Refinlng Case T~nk~e (continued)

Wl~re

Sub Cases

Type + F-T
I@5 ! @20

g~c
Site SiLe EdmonLon Edmonton Edmonton Edmor~on Edmonton Edmonton MeU~4 TAME (c) Jet A Oie~l Casollne (d) Prem/Mid Range (d) S.C.O,/Swing Slop/Inlerfa~e
IOS I@20 I 0!70

Condensate
IOS I @20 ! @170

Total
I@5 ! @20 I @!70 FR FR CR

! O170

I l 170 I I 170 I g 80 I G 170 I @ IO

I @ 170 I @ 170 i @ 80 I @ 170 I @ 10

I @ 170 ! G 170 I G/30 I ~ 170 I G IO

I @ 170 I @ 170 i @80 I @ 170 I @ I0

CR FR mixers FR mixers FR FR

Note,=

(,1) OJ)
(d (cO

Vent 8as processing foe odouc control. Pcovifion foe future MTBE addidon ~ Alberta Envltol'uels. Provide kx truck receipt. Provide toc MTBE addition.

9-14

A ~

DILUTED BITUMEN 26"

RF_GIONAL UPGRADER REFINERY ~'1--,4<-

DILUENT R~'URN 8"

II

,R

SOME USE UKE1.Y OF THIS NOW UNUSED 6" UNE. --e.g. JET A TO COLD LAKE AIR BASE. AEC PIPELINES

,~f"

S O F R S E-~12" SPECIALS.C.O./Bt..DG ~ C TO D H L L

..~'/:

5" MIXED BUTANE FE~ UNE /--X~X~X~X~X~

7
AREA

PROVIDE SYNCRUDE/SUNCOR S.C.O. AND REQ'D. UPGR. BLDG. STOCK MIXING ~'~'II)~(S),

DETAIL "B"

/-F
RON tf

~,o,,/ro COLD I.,~E

mAc/s~
~
N'~L.

& SC~

co

TO/FROM EDMONTON
i l l /

/
.x/
|

__......ULINI."-A-

"1-

STA'nON

: "i Y l

, iLL,,

~:eY--

_ -

I '

~l~. --':~'

N \11
~

' ~
~

_l ~

l
,

S -~' @ ==.'-MOUNTAIN .l~r.~ )ICrON tlNAL

!~

I . .. I \-^-J

--~ IR ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ L NT NC TE~'MnNIAL LEGEND EXISTING

-..-t

rr.t.a~r.~ EDMONTON

BlOW-UP

SEE

SURCET N S F R A; O I T RP O t C ~ & N E - R VN L L T A SM U T N RN O N~ U VU NS OZET

REP~ EX1STING --NEW U N E FOR A1T.IABASCA BITUMEN . . . . . . . . . NEW ~ CASE UNE -X--X--X-NEW FT ~ UHE

,i .

~ .

-,-

FULL REFINING CASE UPGRADER/EDMONTON

T A SE R NFR SSE YTM
RO 9 . 3 - 2

Following Figure 9.3-2, the following units will be needed for converting S.C.O. to gasolines and diesels: a) S.C.O. Fractionator This is identical to that of the Partial Refining Case, except that in sub cases with F-T synthesis, deethanized dewax/saturator produa will move directly to this fractionator to separate F-T kerosene and other middle distillates along with S.C.O. materials. The end point of the overhead naphtha will be controlled in this tower, setting the volume going to catalytic reforming. b) Naphtha Debutanizer In the refining cases as much propane as possible should be recovered upstream in the Basic Upgrader. This will maximize C4 recovery as well as provide a marginally attractive addition to the propane produced in the refining units in any case. The debutanizer is planned to minimize C3C,'s in naphtha hydrotreater feed. c) Naphtha Hydrotreater In the basic sub case this unit processes only deeply hydrotreated feedstock, but such a unit is still considered essential to prevent excursions of sulphur and nitrogen reaching downstream catalysts.

9-16

When diluent (or extraneous condensate) is added6, this unit's duty increases appreciably as it must reduce sulphur to below 0.5 ppm and nitrogen even lower. In order to allow for variations in diluent (and/or condensate) composition, a 650 I~ig unit is planned well above light crude refinery standards (except at Turbo where sour condensates were contemplated). A space velocity of approximately 2 is anticipated with a nickel molybdenum catalyst. Even with such a design, this unit will have a nickel catalyst guard bed on the product full range naphtha going to splitting to provide even more assurance of downstream catalyst protection. d) Naphtha Splitter This will be a conventional distillation system providing an accurate separation between CsC6 feed to the isomerizatiori unit and the catalytic reforming unit. It requires a fired reboiler. e) Catalytic Reforming The balances developed in this study indicate a low severity required compared to most North American refinery reformer operations, due to the octane contributions of other gasoline components. However, some diluent (and condensates) have poor reforming octane producing characteristics - e.g. as measured by naphthenes plus 2 times aromatics - and F-T naphtha is as bad as can be found. Note that the low severity operation will significantly reduce gasoline aromatic content.
:" t . . . . r i

The assumed awail=bility of the AEC 6" line I'mm Edmonton permits accessto some heavy sour condensates if clesired. Use of such condensate; will require an extra small distillation un;[ Io control the end Ix)in( of matedal going to the naphtha hydro{reater.

9-17

Thus, the basic sub case has a four reactor semi regenerative design - rather old fashioned but low cost - and the other sub cases add a cycling capability to the last two reactors is proposed. The off-line reactor is then regenerated as in more conventional cyclic reforming units (as Imperial's Strathcona unit). The hybrid system was used successfully at Shell's Boniface refinery 20 years ago and is an ideal fit for the low average severity needed here, permitting high severity short runs as required. This approach does not optimize. hydrogen production and has a slight yield disadvantage compared to continuous catalytic reforming, but the penalties are considered less important here than lower c:apital and operating costs. fl ReformateSplitting The reformer's product will contain benzene from the feed (minor) and reformer reactions. In order to control benzene in the overall gasoline pool, the reformate is separated into a CsC, stream (of relatively low octane) for further processing in CsC6 isomerizatlon and a high octane aromatics rich stream. g) CsC6 Isomerization The naphtha and reformate splitter overhead streams, after drying along with a small amount of hydrogen, go first to a benzene saturation step and then to fixed bed precious metal isomerization reaction. (A very acidic reaaion environment is used, maintained with chloride injection. Caustic scrubbing of the off gas is used to capture all HCI produced.) The product is stabilized before going to the gasoline pool.

9-18

h)

Catalytic Cracking The very low sulphur and nitrogen contents and the highly hydrogenated nature of the S.C.O. gas oil creates an ideal Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) feedstock. Due to low coke expected on the circulating catalyst, a fired feed heater is planned to ensure sufficient heat for reaction. A very short residence reaction system is planned for the maximum gasoline case, but lower temperatures at some residence time may have to be provided ior times when middle distillates are to be maximized. However, in this study the minimum gasoline case is largely defined by reducing the end point of the FCCU gasoline. This reduces the aromatics going to gasoline - and those backed out are largely higher aromatics, undesirable in reformulated gasoline in any case. The fractionator of the FCCU produces a heavy bottoms fraction with some catalyst fines to be recycled to the primary upgrading units, light cycle oil to hydrotreating, and light ends to the gas concentration system.

i)

FCCU Gas Concentration This standard absorption/desorption system will capture over 93 percent of propylene and virtually all heavier materials from the FCCU gases. Lighter components will pass through an amine wash for removal of traces of H=S before going to fuel gas. An olefinic C=C4stream is forwarded to alkylation and Cs plus components go to the TAME complex.

9-19

Alkylation The olefinic C3C,'s are lightly hydrotreated to saturate traces of butadiene in the top of the gas concentrations debutanizer before going to an i-IF alkylation unit. This unit will be of a new ultra low HF hold-up design to minimize potential for significant HF releases under any circumstances. HF is selected due to the much lower catalyst make-up rate and no need for expensive, environmentally sensitive regeneration compared to an H2SO4 approach. Crhe 2 Edmonton refineries each have large older design HF C3C, alkylation units.) Propane and n-butane are fractionatecl out of the alternate product for sale and use in gasoline blending, respectively. Make-up iso-butane is supplied from the C, isomerization unit. k)

C4 Isomerization
This study concluded it would be difficult to continually purchase enough iso-butane for alkylation. (The existing MTBE plant, for example, indicated little or no surplus i-butane and there are no regional field butane splitters.) Hence, to supplement mixed C4's from reforming and saturated C3C, treating, field butanes will be purchased fo," feed to a C4 splitter, integrated with an n-C, isomerization unit. This approach, as practised in the 2 Edmonton r~neries, minimizes C4 purchases and maximizes profits. The isomerization unit product has about 55 percent i-butane and recycles through the de.isobutanizer. A purge of C3 rich material will be routed to the saturate C)C, processing system to dispose of C., entering with the field butanes. Cs's in the field butanes will be purged out the bottom ot" the deisobutanizer along with n-butane needed for gasoline blending.

9-20

I)

TAME Complex The two TAME systems will react methanol with certain Cs iso-olefins to produce Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether, with an intermediate isomerization step to convert ocher Cs olefins to reactive species. CD Tech technology is assumed here for TAME along with Lyondells new Cs isomerization process. A prior depentanizer is required on the Cs plus FCC gasoline stream. Figure 9.3-3 outlines this systen~which became essential to control summer time RVP to reasonable levels. (In F-T Cases, a small amount of

CsQ,

isomerization feed may still have to be rejected to hold a 7.5 psi RVP level in the final gasoline.) This route is less expensive and safer than adding Cs alkylation capacity - it also increases gasoline volume the least while adding oxygen to the final gasolines - to about the 0.8 weight percent level - onethird or so of U.S. reformulated gasolines. The system shown also eliminates from final gasoline, 85 percent or so of Cs olefins which are the most reactive in producing s m o g gasolines. m) Heavy FCC Gasoline Treating In order to remove traces of me.~captans, a small fixed bed treater will oxidize these to disulphides using a small amount of air, using UOP or Merichem technology. another environmental plus as well as perhaps a necessity in future reformulated

9-21

FCC Cs'S

~r------"~,~UN~

TO

co ~

BUTEDtENE \
SATURAllON

-~

..,.~

I
I

&

T~
TO

RAW " H=-----~~ FCCU rCCU~ Ic, ASou~aE

c,Asou~

Oa=On'ANUOm

_~

~
H~W

GASOUNE
BL~BNG

TAME

COMPLEX

FiG 9.3--3

n)

Light Cycle Oil Hydrotreater This unit is not needed to meet the new diesel sulphur 0.05% sulphur specification, but rather to saturate traces of olet'ins and significant quantities of aromatics. The LCO hydrotreater is envisaged as a low space velocity 900 psig unit using initially a single aromatics saturation, non precious metal catalyst capable of coping with 100 ppm of sulphur in the feed. However, the unit will be designed to permit future conversion to a two stage system desulphurization to the 10 ppm level, followed by precious metal catalyst aromatic saturation with intermediate HzS withdrawal as in the Criterion/CE Lummus SynSat process. Note that the liquid yield was estimated here at 105 percent of feed - saturation costs are more than paid for in yield gain. The LCO Ixoduct is expected to have a cetane number in the order of 35 to 40 in the initial configuration, sufficiently high to achieve over 40 cetane in all diesel blends. This is sufficient with F-T to achieve 45 but added middle distillate aromatic saturation is needed in all other cases if a 45 cetane specification becomes fact. m)

Saturate Gas Processing

When diluent or extraneous condensates are to be processed, the C3C4from the de-butanizer will contain sulphur compounds requiring a small chemical treating system consisting of amine wash followed by a chemical treater of the Merox type. The treated C3C4'swill be combined with C3 purge from the C4 splitter, a small C4 and lighter liquid stream from the CsC, isomerization unit and raw C~C4from the reformer's stabilizer before deethanizing (to fuel

9-23

gas) and depropanizing with propane joining propane from the alkylation unit for sale. The depropanizer bottoms go to the C4 splitter to maximize "internal iC, recovery and provide n-C4 for isomerization. 9.4 PRODUCT YIELDS The expected annual average yields in the various full refining sub cases are shown in Table 9.3-1. Specifications for products were noted above. Note that no S.C.O. product is shown - only gasoline and middle distillates. 9.5 UTILITY BALANCES Table 9.8-1 summarizes the average natural gas and electricity demands for the various 1"ull refining sub cases. 9.6 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES The capital cost estimating approaches for this study were discussed in Section 4 above. The following notes refer specifically to the refining related units and tankage system. Capital cost estimates are shown in Appendix B-I.
~tj ,

a)

Revision in Basic Upgrader

Allowances were added relative to minor changes in sour water stripping, waste. water treating, steam plant, other sites and common buildings to cover revisions .,, noted in Section 3 above. preliminary estimates. The piperacks account was increased based on

9-24

TaMe 9.4-1 Gacol'me and Middle D;dillale Pool Composition IEslimlel BPCO Unless Noted
m

Maximum C a ~ l i . e
IlalNI

M ; . k . u m C,a~di~

+F-T

---J-mmmm~mml

+ Cond

Total

Bale

+ F-T

+ (:end

Tolal

C a o i i n e Pool omtPmit;o, (Annual Average) (a) Re.finale Isomerate rCC Gasoline (i)) C:C. ^lkylale TAME n-Bulane Tobl (RVP before n.butane) (Reformer Severily - RON) M.iddle Distillate Composition (c} Straight Run S.C.O. r-T Middle DIs|illate Condensate Middle Dis:lllate HT Light Crude Oil
:J

4,825 4,642 12,218 6,903 2,333 I,S06

7,760 6,863 12,218 6,903 2,333 1,659 37,736 6.3 89.6 28.098 8,fll7 0 4,558 (d)
I

9,368 9,674 12.218 6,903 2,333 1.5flO 42,O77 6.7 91.6 28.O98 0 96O 4,556 33,616 1.252 (d)

12.534 11,903 12.218 6,903 2.333 1,712 47.6(13 6.8 92 6 28.098 8.817 960 4.558 42,433

3,385 4,450 8,126 4,560 1509 943 23,373 6.4 87.0 29.flgn o o 9,117 39,015
=:=::::~=:::=:

5.721 6.5a7 a,126 4.560 1,909 1003 27,906

7.o4o 9,440 fl,126 4,560 1,909 876 31,952

7.3 93.4 29,898 0 !.920 9,117 40,935 .781

9,659 ! i ,627 fl,126 4,560 1,909 950

32,428
6.1 87.0 28,098 0 0 4,558

36,831
7.5 94.0
29.898

6.8 91.6
29,898 9,673 O 9,117

9,673
1.920 9.117

Total Gasoi;nelD;~el

i~

32.656

41.473
.910

(d}

48,688
.573

(o~ S0,G07 .77fl

.599

Notes: (a) (b) (c) (d) f19 mad oclane, 9 psi RVP annual avorage, CGS8 speclficalion$, 40.fl w~ % oxygen, Ix..nt.ne <o.fl ~ %, no MMT. Includes some polymer from Ihe C t oiL[in isomedzalion process. Kerosene fracllon suilable far Jel Ao whole bollin 8 range >40 celane ,umlx:r. Overall pour poinl in .3(1"C lange except .25"C In r.T Cases. Pool celane >45.

9-25

Tankage was estimated for each sub case using Kilborn model (consistent with all other cases). b) Refining Process Units The following unit costs were scales off actual Turbo costs, with minor corrections for differences in scope: S.C.O. fractienator, naphtha hydrotreating and splitting, FCCU and gas concentration, catalytic reforming, Cs isomerization and light cycle oil hydrotreating (actually processing a blend of LCO and virgin distillates at Turbo). The unit capital costs for other units were developed from CD Tech data (TAME complex) and file data (splitters, C, isomerization, C3C, alkylation) checked with recent literature reference. 9.7 WORKING CAPITAL Table 9.7-I summarizes working capital estimates for all cases, based on 50% of tankage being full. 9.8 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Table 9.8-1 summarizes operating cost estimates based on the bases noted previously in the
Basic Upgrader section, with the following changes in the Full Refining Cases:

a)

Gasoline, Jet A and diesel additives were estimated. Note that MMT - gasoline manganese additive - has not been used due to possible gasoline export (not accepted in the U.S.) and lack of need for incremental octane.

1-26

b)

Various overhead accounts were adjusted to cover added operational overheads, administrative support, and marketing changes as follows: 60,000 BPCD Other Cases Miscellaneous Operating Expenses Administration and Support Office and Miscellaneous 0.55 million 4.56 million 0.55 million

Refining Cases 0.8 million 6.9 million 1.0 million

1-27

tt
Table 9.7-1 Full Refinin&CaseWorking Capital in 1,000% 1Q93 Canadian Dollars
, . . .

Malerial

AveraBe. Value 17.58 24.91 18.27 15.35 14.70 26.S4 31,50 31.60 21.00 31.61 avg 26.54

Base lnvenlory
n . .

+ Cond Va|ue 7,735 2,989 2,713 IS4 37 4,246 8,663 10,112 52.5 9,325 Inventory 440,000 120,000 153,500 10,000 2,S00 160,000 275,000 375,000 2,500 295,000 Value 7,735

4 F-T Inventory Value

Total Inventory 440,000 120,000 Value 7,735

Diluted Bilun~n Dilue,lJRaw Naphtha Intermediales?31r, p 0ulane Propane S.C.O. Inlermediate$ " Oislillate Blendstocks
, , , , , ~

440,000 120,000 148,500

440,OO0 120,OOO 153,500 10,000 2,S00 160,000 31O,OOO 365,000 2,500 295,000

7,735
"2,989 2,804 154 J7

2,989 2,804
154 37 4,246 ~663 11,850 52.5 9,325 2,389 50,244.5

2,989 2,804
154

153,500

I0,000
2,S00

2.SOO 16O,OOO 310,000 420,OO0 2,500 295,000 90,000 2,003,500

37 4,246 9,765 13,272 52.5 9,325 2,3E19 52,76B.5

160,000
275,OO0 320,0G0 2,500 295,000

4,246
9,265 11,534 S2.5 9,325

Gasoline 81endstock$ Melhanol Pfoducls

S.C.O.
Totals

90,000
1,863,500

2,389
48,415.5

90,000 1,923,500

90,000
1,948,500

2,389
51,030.5

9-2~

Table 9.8-1 Full Refininl~Sub Cases Operatins Cost Estimates in 1,OO~'s of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars BaR Variable Cost Natural Gas (10t 8TU/CD) Electricity (MW) Catalysis and Chemicals Pkch Disposal Base + F-T Base + Cond ISS.S) (S2.6) 33,096 12,892 14,600 4,022 64,610 16,720 31,715 31,71S 8O0 6,900 1,0O0 3,964 7,929 3,517 104,260 168,870 (241.1) (0.2)
Total

(57.8) (51.6) ..-..-.----. :

32,7OO (241.1)
12,649 13,500 4,022 ____..-----. 62,871 16,568 30,761 30,761 8O0 6,90O 1,000 3,845 7,600 3,389 (-0.8)

136,374 -247 21,130 4,022 161,279 18,620 44,689 44,689 8OO 6,900

136,374 65 22,230 4,022 162,691 18,620 45,410 45,410 800 6,900 1,000

Sub Towal
Semi Variable Cos| Operating Cost Maintenance Labour MaintenanCe Materials Miscellaneous Operallns Supplies Mmlnislralion and Suppod Office Costs and Miscellaneous InsuranCes Local Taxes Interest on Workin 8 Capilal Sub Total Total Operating Cotte ..___.._.__.

1,000
5,586 11,172 3,$72 137,028 298,307

$,676
11,3S2 3,694
,.m....,,.,.*..-.-..

I011714 1G4,S85

138,8-2 30%$$3
I

9-29

10.0 10.1

SPECIALCASES PREAMBLE This study has briefly examined 3 other cases to determine whether there is a fit for a) purchased hydrogen, b) partial oxidation of natural gas for F-T synthesis, and c) a methanol based route in lieu of F.T to synergistic incremental products via natural gas conversion. _

10.2

BUY OR MAKE HYDROGEN The cost of acquiring byproduct hydrogen at 70% of Base Case requirements was developed in section 2.2 above. The $1.56 per 1000 scf of hydrogen valuation included the following components: Purchase Raw Byproduct Hydrogen of (gas replacement + seller's margin) Pipeline Charges Other Facilities Operating Costs Sub Total Other Facilities Capital
0.06

0.56

0.3__2o
1.01

0.53

The "other facilities" capital totals approximately $90 million in 1Q93 dollars. Analyzing Base Case data provides the comparison as noted in Table 10.2-1. Thus, a very simple R.O.I. of 15% before tax is indicated. The differential capital and operating costs could well vary significantly from the above. Hence, these return estimates must be considered as very approximate. Increasing natural gas costs will only very marginally change the above total operating cost differential in favour of the "buy" option, due to fuel needs in steam methane reforming.
=

10-I

There is no..__tt enough byproduct hydrogen available to provide all the hydrogen for the upgrader, even with a storage bullet. Full output is needed from one of the large suppliers when the other is off.line, hence, the supply system must have 100% capability of supply from each. There is a very significant cost risk to the upgrader if both major suppliers are out at the same time. This fact would probably sway the upgrader operator to have 100 percent on-site capacity. While this study has looked in some detail at on-site hydrogen production facilities, it has not examined the 1990 recovery facility-concepts to see if new technolr~gies and/or more cost competitiveness would result in lower costs and/or higher yields at the same cost. 10.3 PARTIAL OXIDATION FOR SYNTHESIS GAS In Malaysia, Shell's natural gas based F-T facility will be using partial oxidation to produce the 2 HJ 1 CO synthesis gas needed for F-T synthesis. They will also have a small steam methane hydrogen unit for F-T product finishing. The larger South African natural gas based F-T project appears to be using the same route. But such a route would dissaggregate the F.T system from the upBrader. Both Texaco and Shell provide natural gas partial oxidation technologies, as simpler versions of their well proven coal and oil .technologies for hydrogen and/or synthesis gas. Unfortunately Texaco require a fee for provision of preliminary data, and S~ell did not respond. Published data for a small Texaco case has been used to develop approximate capital costs. Partial oxidation results in appreciably less CO2 and CH, in the raw synthesis gas, allowing elimination of the CO z recovery system in the F-T complex as defined in Section 6 above, as seen in Table 10.3-1. Also, the purge gas volume is significantly less. Partial oxidation

10-2

also permits higher pressure F-T synthesis operation, reducing recycle compression and piping and catalyst/reactor volumes. At 650 tpd, an on-site oxygen plant could be considered, but an over-the fence supply appears more realistic in the region of the upgrade', given large oxygen demands nearby for ethylene oxide production. There is already a large air separation unit within 10 kilometers, and another train and a pipeline there would be less expensive than a new unit in the upgrader. At the central air separation plant, there will be liquid oxygen surge storage as well as added surety of supply as there are several separation trains. But concerns regarding strikes and other upgrade" uncontrolled oxygen supply outages must be addressed in future studies. The partial oxidation cost is very preliminary and requires checking. However, from the very preliminary data of Table 10.3-2, it can be seen that a partial oxidation route appears better economically than the steam methane reforming for the upgrader plus F-T synthesis, and probably better. The COz and hydrogen recovery steps are a major contributor to the SMR route's costs. 10.4 METHANOL VERSUS FISCHER-TROPSCH In New Zealand, gasoline is produced from natural gas via methanol as an intermediate. While Mobil offers a route to approximately 60/40 gasolines/middle distillates via methanol, they consider F-T a more viable altemate when maximum middle distillates are desired as here. While there may appear to be synergy between a methanol route and the Full Refining Cases TAME unit's methanol needs, the latter uses only about 3 percent of the methanol needed to match the F-T synthesis considered above. Even a world scale MTBE plant would need only about 13 percent.

10-3

Table 10.2-1 Buy or Make Hydrogen Cost Bases in Millions of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars Make Natural Gas Purchase Hydrogen Purchase Hydrogen Pipeline Hydrogen Recycle Operation Hydrogen Production Operation Total Operating Costs Related Capital Costs (Total) .-3.0a~m~ 32.2 246 ' 29.2 Buy 70% 8.9 22.7 O;ff'erentlal -20.3 +22.7

3,0
14.0 2.0 50.6 123

+3.0
+14.0 -1.0 + 18.4 .123

Table 10.3-1 Dry Raw Syn Gas Compositions Component Feed to PSA in F-T Case After CO2 Removal Typical Partial Oxidation Cas (b)

H2
CO CO2 CH,

69.43
23.29

47.9
47.9 3.5 <0.3 est 0.4

(a)

0.25 6.74 0.29

N2

Notes:

(a)
(b) ()

Note that CO2 recycled Io reformer in this case. Assumes 99.S% purity oxygen used. Ratio can be adjusted to increase H~CO ratio by addition of steam. 0.2 tools of steam to tool of feed gas assumed in this ratio. CO2 addition can be used to decrease ratio.

10-4

Table 10.3-2 Synthesis Gas Partial Oxidation Versus Steam Methane Reform;ng in 1,000's of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars This Stud), Bases SMR Hydrogen Production (SMR/PSA)
Steam Med~ane Reformers cJw Catalyst

Partial Oxidation 116

Different~l ...... +116 -220

~
220

CO~ Recovery H~ Separation F-T Syn Loop Changes Partial Oxidation for Syn Gas Only Oxygen Supply (over fence) Total Direct Field Expense Only Operating Costs * Natural Gas * Electricity Oxygen @ $36/ionne delVd 00) Catalysts and Chemicals * Maintenance * Othee Operating Costs
Total

33 36
Base

---

"

-33 -36

Base -15 140 [c) +10 256

Base -20 Base -1.5

-.-15
, , , ,,

~ ~ 289
Base

.I-140 +10 -23 -2.0 -1.5 +7.7 -1.0 -3.0 -3.0

.2.8

Base Base
Base Base Base

7.7
Base -1.0 Base -3.0 Base -3.0 Base -2.8

"

Notes: (a) 0o) [c)

10% added for F-T product finishing needs (Io BaseCase costs), but this is offset by savings in upgrader hydrogen compression costs. Praxair preliminary estimate. This is very preliminary and requires checking.

10-5

A preliminary analysis indicates that the hydrocarbon liquids production rates will be nearly identical for both F-T and methanol routes. But the methanol route will produce more gasoline and less middle distillates. The latter will be lower in cetane and smoke point than th.,t for the F-T route, but still of good marketable quality. The low temperature properties of the middle distillates are better than those from F-T due to highly branched structures. The gasoline will be very olefinic and aromatic - not much different from FCCU gasoline. The economics of the methanol route Improve significantly if only light olefins and gasoline components are desired. Such a methanol route fits well with the gasoline component, producing alkylation and TAME units discussed in the Full Refining Cases. But gasoline is in surplus supply at this time . . . .

This study draws no conclusions regarding the relative economics of F-T and a methanol route. Inherently a methanol plant based only on natural gas has a hydrogen surplus equal to that of the F.T Case discussed previously. Most such modern methanol complexes use such hydrogen as fuel and are essentially in fuel balance with natural gas only going in as reformer feed. However, the feed to the steam methane reformers of the methanol unit is often spiked with CO z to convert a portion of the surplus hydrogen as is planned at Novacor's Medicine Hat plant. In such a case, added natural gas is purchased to make up the fuel shortage. To match the upgrader's hydrogen demands, approximately 4,500 tonnes a day of methanol capacity will be needed. This would be added via 2 methanol trains, each the size of that at Celanese in Edmonton. The study team developed a cost estimate for such a system for the following trial comparison of an overall methanol system as shown in Figure 10.4-1 with the previous Fischer-Tropsch Case.

10-6

HYDROGEN " TO UPGP, ADING

SYNTHES:S ~L.

&
METHANOL UNn'5

To
FUEL C=~S

[
"MOGO" -'1 C,~OUNEi--"
FR/I"
OPTIONAL

C3C40LERNIC MIX
= TO ALK'YLATIOH~

PROOUCT - - , - ~ RAPHTHA HYOROCID, I , - - ~ JET & ,-,--~ D l l ~

Ot.EF1NIC C-,,~UNE =k -- TO TAME &: C . ~ U N E

IN FULl. RETININO CASES

METHANOL TO NAPHTHA AND MIDDLE DISTILLATE

FIG 10.4--1

The comparison shows little capital difference and operating costs are nearly identical. The product value for the methanol route will be below that of the F-T route (except in ref'ining cases) due to less premium m i d d l e distillate and that of lower value.

Table 10.4-1 F-T Versus Methanol to Incremental UqukJs Preliminary Capital Costs |n 1Q93 Milliom of Canadian Dollars Incremental to Base Upjcr-ader Rscher.Tropsch F-T System('rcxal from Table 8-I ) Methanol Units Hydrogen Recovery Methanol Conversion
Related OlTsite and Utility Systems

Methanol -750 60 I S0
80

Note 4,500tpd For upgrader H: MTO + MOGD

1,049 ~ -~

UpEr'~ler Hz Compmsslon Credit To~l Likely Range 1,049

800 to 1,200

-30
1,010

H~ is at 1000 psig

800 to 1,200

10-8

11.0

ECONOMIC COMPARISONS

11.1 PREAMBLE This study is about how to improve upgrader economics, starting from the Basic Upgrader developed for the 1990 Regional Upgrader Business Plan. Thus, the emphasis here is on differentials from the Base Case. The economic analysis is based on the net operating cash flow (before tax, excluding inflation and with no allowance for grants or special financing) over the project life, assuming constant annual production volumes and feedstock/product pricing as per the Purvin and Gertz forecast. The various cases are compared by: a) b) Ratio of gross margin to total capital cost. Net present value (10% discount) of net operating cash flow. Internal rate of return based on net operating cash flow.

The Expanded Base Case was deliberately added to provide a comparison of upgrading per se with the add-on alternates at a constant bitumen rate. G.S.T. has not been considered in this study as significant export volumes are expected in all cases, resulting in a =zero balance" G.S.T. situation in all cases. If only domestic sales were envisaged, there will be a slight reduction in revenues minus operating cost margins due to profit and non G.S.T. related costs - e.g. internal labour, nor do the costs include any corporate overheads or marketing costs.

11-1

'iraI~lt 1 1 . 1 . 1 case Annual Revenue and ~ Summary (in Millions of 1QII3 Canadian Dollun~

No.

Sub C a ~

Revenu~ Feed~ock

Non Capital Co~ts

Variable Semi Variable 73.5 99.7 110.0 79,1 77.5 81.5 118.3 101.7 137.0 104.3 138.9 Total

GrOlll

C,~al

M~ll;n

Marlin/ Capital
(%)

NPV"
10%

I,~rnal Ic~e o(
Rdurn

(~)
198.1 307.8 245.4 202.6 200.2 206.4 254.6 251.9 290.5 263.9 307.5 1680.7 2365.8 2730.3 1810.0 1775.8 18~0.9 2528.7 2275.2 3311.2 2342.6 3363.5 11 .Tg 13.01 8.99 11.20 11.27 10.97 251.4 571.6 .406.8 163.8 195.8 138.8
11.67

Base Expanded nas~ L F'T

L

101 201 301 401 402 403 501 601 602

------" I'faa Only Co~d Only I'racl 4 Cond rtacs * C ~ Oa~lc ReF/ Rely * F.T * F-T

626.6 940.0 812.4 637.$ 743.0

304.6 456.9

50.4 75.6 152.4

428.5

632.2
$67.0 435.2 542.8 547.8 685.3 479.5 606.6 589.6

12.65 ~.14
11.03

304.6 3O4.6
413.7 413.7

Partial Eehnin E
Partial Rehning

51.5
52.6 52.6 153.2 62.9 161.3 &4.6 162.7

11,24 10.84 7.82 1(I.46

Panlal Eellnlnjt Imelpa~ed full Reflnlnl[ rull Rcflnlnl; Full Refining Full Rel'lnlng

754.2
939.9 731.5 897.1

413.7
314.9 308.3 420.7 417.4

"8.69 _ -507.2
11.07 0.77 11.27 5.14 .8.2 -714.$ 4.4

7,20
1(1.02

603
604

Rely Cond,
Rely * Concl r-T

853.6
1026.4

Note~
i'J,i~d on net oj~falin~ fcv~nuc L~fuee lax ov~t i)~ojecl life.

1 I-2

T|ble 11,1-2 Ampul DN~.~nllsIs Venul 8 ~ Cam.," Swnmary tin Mill;ore or 1Q4J3 C M ~ I ~ Ooltm)
i

Case

Sub C~Je

Re~
Feedstock
m

Non Ca mild Co~s Vadal~ ~md Varlalde To~d

M,,#~

Gross

c ~ "a

Cot

~s;,,/
(%)

t-.p;,,l

hrV'* 10%

, I

Inlemd R~te a( Rclum**

(,~)

B&Case* Expanded Base

101

I
N

626.6
313.3

304.6
152.1 0 0 109,1 109.1 109.1 10.3

50.4 25.2 101 ,$ 1 .I ! .1 ' 2.1 102.8 12.4 110.8 14.2 112,3

7:1.5
26.2
J

420.S

198.1 109.6

1680.7 685.2 1049.8 129.3 95.1 200.2 1248.0 594.6 1630.6 661 .g

11.Tg 16.0
i

251.4 320.2 .658.1

i

11.67 14.91 .2.0 .3.~2 0.2 0.7 3.5 3.3 2.1 1.g 1.8

~ ~
: 401 [ 402

203.7
138.5
J

r.T
Partial Refining Partial Refining Partial Refining Inlegraled rull Relining lull Reflnln 8 rull Refining rull Refinln 8

185.7

36.6 5.5 4.0 8.1 44.9 28.3 63.5 .10.~1 6S.4

47.2
4.5 2.1 8.2 56.5 53.8 92.4 65.8
i

4.5 3.5

I r,act On~
Cond Only
J

11.2 116.4

6.7
114.1

.87.6 -55.6 -112.6 .758.6

i

2.2
4.1 4.5 9.1
i

lrract .~ C ~ I 501 601 602 603 604 tract + C~x~l r.T naslc Reey ReEf * F-T Rery * C o d Rely * Cond 4 r.T

127.6
313.3 104.8 270.4 226.5

119.1
2S6.8 $1.o 178.1 Ibi.1 ~90.5 ! ,

-259.6 -965.9

3.7
116.1 112.8

5.6 9.9

.247.0
-903.1

39~.8

109.1

16~2d J

6.s

Notes!

,!

nase Case actual values shown f ~ ,ere,ence. Ilased on r,e! opezalln8 revenue before lax over i~oject llfe.

11-3

Table I 1.I-I presents a summary of the revenues, non capital charges, and capital costs for the principal alternates, with Table 11.1-2 presenting differentials off the Base Case being of more interest and importance. Appendix B presents the breakdowns of capit~l and operating costs from which these data were developed. 11.2 EXPANDEDBASE CASE DISCUSSION As expected, the Expanded Base Case presents a more favourable financial picture than does the Base Case per se. But of more importance here is its 12.7% R.O.i. (and $572 million NPV at 10%). The incremental costs between the Expanded Case and the Base Case shows 14.9% R.O.I. (an improvement of $320 million with NPV at 10%). However, the length of construction has been assumed to be the same as ,.hat of the Base Case which is probably incorrect and an alternate case was tested with construction taking a year longer, dropping NPV to $466 million at 10% and R.O.I. to 12.2%. 11.3 FISCHER-TROPSCHCASE For the addition of Fischer-Tropsch conversion to the Base Case, the basic R.O.I. is only 8.14% and NPV of $.407 million (at 10% discount) as shown in Table 11 .I .I. Table 11.3-I presents a variety of sensitivities on these incremental costs to test the impacts of capital differences and unit revenues. The estimated premium value for the F-T middle distillate may not materialize, hence, the sensitivity from the reference sub case where the premium calculated in Section 3.4 above has been used.

1 1-4

TaMe 11.3-1 Fischer-Tropsch Sem;llvllles Inducting BaseCase (in Millions of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars) I Sub Case F-T Reference F-T Low Pnxluct Price (a) F-T Capital -20% ~) FI O p ~ n l ~
(c) - 2 0 %

Capllal

OM/Cap;tal (%)
8.99 8.45 12.03 10.88 13.96

NI~"

Inlenu] Rile of Return

(%)

245.4 230.6 262.7 297.0 304.9

2730.3 2730.3 2184..2 2730.3 2184.2

-380.3
-477.5

8.27 7.81 10.93 10.19 12.93

173.4 43.0
574.0

F-T C~o~lal & Opening Co)(d 20% Notes:

(a)

(I)) (c)

Middle dis~illale t'raciion at diesel price. C.apilal costs reduced b'! 20% kx ihe whole c~.nplex including Upgrader potion. C)pe~dng mils (including n~uraJ gas feedstOCkIo ihe F-T process) are reducedby 20~/,, 8ilumen feedstock cos~Io the upsrader is no; m.~ced by 20%. Table 11.4-1 Part|al Ref'mlng Sub Case Sensitiv|ties Including Base Case (in Millions of 1Q93 Canadian Dollars) Sub Case Operat;r~ Marg~ 202.6 200.2 238.8
(a)

Capltal

O/Vl/capltal (%) 11.20 11.27 12.36 12.83

11.51

NPV 10% 163.8 195.8 329.0 404.2 221.9 332.8

Internal Rate of Relum

(%)

Partial Refining - $.C.O. Fric~ Only Reference (a) Partial Refining

. With Condensate

1810.0 1775.8 1810.0 1775.8 1810.0

1880.9

11.03 11.24 12.04 12.52 11.39

11.99

PP,/5.C.O. Frad
- 5.C.O. + S l ~ o l

PR~.CO. + Condensa|e - S.C.O. + Sl.00tobl

-

227.9 208.3 231.9

PP,/S.C.O. Fmct High Middle Distillate Sales ~)

PP,/S.C.O. Fract

12.33

+ Cor~ensate ~ i l l o n + SlY)hi for 5.C.O.

Noter

(a)

Co)

6,000 BPCD of middle distillate direct to sales. 9,000 BPCD of middle distillate direct to sales.

11-5

F-T capital and operating (excluding natural gas) costs were developed on less reliable bases than other costs in this study, hence, the capital and operating cost sensitivities. The return on the addition of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is not economically attractive, despite the premium some of the liquid products will receive. ..

It appears very likely that the use of partial oxidation can reduce costs with today'~s economics. As noted above, anF-T synthesis facility with partial oxidation can be located anywhere - it has not particular synergy with the upgrader. Reduced synthesis gas costs and reduced F-T synthesis costs must be targeted in future work. The F-T product finishing section is also an area offering some cost saving potential. PARTIAL REFINING CASES In the Partial Refining Cases, a full S.C.O. capability fractionator is costed but assumed to operate only 20% of the time to produce 6,000 BPCD of Jet A and diesel (in a I12 ratio) direct to market. The fractionator also allows production of all S.C.O. as differentiated S.C.O.'s with fractional compositions to meet customer refinery needs. Addition of 12,000 BPCD of diluent via a new hydrotreater is also considered to provide an average S.C.O. nearer the fractional composition of conventional light crude oils. The capital costs of the S.C.O. fractionator and the naphtha are considered reliable. But this case is based on achieving a higher return on product sales and the sensitivities will be primarily market related. Additional naphtha in the total S.C.O. will obtain the premium of Regional Upgrade" S.C.O. over light sweet crudes and, thus, the condensate addition itself is investigated in one

11.4

11-6

sensitivity. The added naphtha should also take the S.C.O. into the "basic crude" category at many refineries rather "than one to be considered to fill out the overall crude slate. The underlying sub studies leading to this report indicated that at least 20% of the S.C.O.'s middle distillates could be produced as product, but perhaps as much as 30% is possible without impacting S.C.O. value. The addition of the S.C.O. fractionator and the resulting ability to differentiate S.C:O.'s i'or each customer should improve netbacks, if Suncor experience is any criteria. However, this ability may only offset an otherwise below predicted value for the S.C.O. Hence, the test at S.C.O. plus $1/bbl should be considered only related to the reference case and~not as a stand-alone case. The data of the table indicate "fair" returns on the partial refining alternates. However, the study team believes that such operations should be integral with any new upgrader in order to achieve full market value for the products. ~ 11.5 INTEGRATEDCASE As the F.T Case has poor results, the addition of S.C.O. fractionation and naphtha hydrotreating does not add enough to make an integrated scheme viable at this stage of F-T system development.
I ; .~.J T

The 1990 study considered an H-Oil ol:xlon with 3 hydrolrealers feeding into an S.C.O. blend. Obviously such an apl:xoacfl would provide much of the berets ol" the S.C.O. fractionation capability without capital addition.

11-7

11.6

FULL REFINING CASE As the F-T addition appears to have little merit, no further analyses were done beyond the summary in Table 11.2-I for F-T related cases. The addition of diluent (naphtha)'to the S.C.O. has a major affect on refining economics but via increased gasolines sales and not desired middle distillate sales. However, the addition of diluent does impact on the refinery's gasoline to diesel ratio, with a lower limit oi' about 0.78 versus 0.60 for a case without such addition. The addition of diluent at the 12,000 BPCD level also has an impact on the minimum practical summer RVP - 7.4 versus 6.5 for the basic refinery. And the composition assumed here for diluent may have been too heavy - i.e. understated the CsC6content. If so, the RVP would be even lighter and some CsC6 would have to be shipped to ethylene production in the summer, at least in F-T Cases. The addition the TAME complex reduces concern about gasoline olefins in ai, cases and adds a touch of oxygen - a public relations plus. The overall gasoline is expected to meet U.S. mid continent reformulated gasoline specifications with the addition of MTBE to provide the added oxygen. Such MTBE will be at low cost and less on a delivered in gasoline basis via the IPPL system than alternate mid west/Ontario pure MTBE alternates. However, the reference economic evaluation puts the value of gasoline at a Canadian regular quality level. The bulk of purchases will likely be independent marketers with a predominance of regular gasoline sales. There appears to be little increase in gasoline demands (before oxygenate additions) in the U.S. and possibly Ontario (with the announced reductions in gasoline exports). However, western Canada could well be short of gasoline production capacity by 2000 but a shortfall of 30,000 BPCD "feels" unlikely. valuation of the gasoline at a regular price appears justified. Thus,

1 I-8

However, a sensitivity is run for the base and condensate plus cases showing the impact of an average gasoline netback S2/bbl over Canadian quality regular. As gasoline and middle distillate prices are quite comparable, only the low gasoline production cases were considered. As middle distillate markets continue to develop, no major challenge in selling 25% as Jet A and 75% as diesel is foreseen, and thus, the middle distillate prices were,not tested.
Table 11.6-1 Full Ref'mlng Case Sensltlvitles Low Gasoline Production Operating Margin Capital OM/Capital (%) NPV @ lo% Internal Rate of Return

Sub Case

(%)

Base Reflnlng Rel'erence Condensate Added Reference Ease + S2~bl for Gasoline Condensate + $2j'obl for Gasoline

251.9 263.9 269.0 287.3

2275.2 2342.6 2275.2 2342.6

11.07 11.27 11.82

12.26

-8.2

10.46 10.02
11.20

4.4
13 0.3

184.0

10.92

1 I-9

12.0

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACTORS This study has not considered the Basic Upgrader other than as a foundation on which to build further facilities, hopefully to improve economics. As sound economic bases were paramount to this study, research and development factors are evident only in cases with poor economics. The poor F-T economics point to much potential for;
a)

Reduced cost synthesis gas production, Reduced cost synthesis, and New ~-oduct finishing routes.

b) c)

These steps are very interrelated, a point all researchers must keep in mind. Reduced cost synthesis gas systems will usually be applicable to hydrogen production as well as for synthesis gas for F-T, methanol and similar processes. The recent literature references to "breakthroughs" in going from methane to higher hydrocarbons are primarily relative to processes some time away, at best. Partial oxidation for hydrogen is generally considered as not economically competitive with SMR./PSAtoday, due largely to oxygen needs. The FoTsynthesis system is expensive and better, more active catalysts are needed to reduce gas circulation rates as well as to reduce catalyst costs. Air Products continues to move its slurry bed process originally planned for methanol towards F-Ttype products and is now at
an

intermediate DME - dimethylether - stage. (DME is an intermediate in Mobil's technology

used in New England to convert methanol to gasoline.) Air Products are working with a low HJCO ratio synthesis gas but is appears probable the process can be adapted in time of a high H2/CO gas.

12-I

F-T synthesis has seen very appreciable research worldwide for many years. But as Shell and South Africans are showing, major niches are finally being found. There remains very major interest in converting remote gas reserves to middle distillates. This study may have erred in not adapting a catalyst system produ<:ing a heavier product that would results ultimately in more middle distillate. ,.,

The Lyondell Cs olefin isomerization process points to a strong possibility that isomerization can be integrated directly into F-T synthesis to prodti~:e branched isomers, rather than waxy straight chain materials. Such a switch would greatly open up the remote marke!s i=n,ot,ed above. Shell have developed a major isomerization component in their proprietary F-T was hydrocracking catalyst, but it is not clear if dewaxing can be avoided in cold climates. It would appear preferable to have as much isomerization as possible done before the hydrocracking step. In the Basic Upgrader there appears to be significant room to adjust/revise secondary hydrocracking/hydroprocessing operations to achieve more middle distillate aromatic saturation and more control of gas oil hydrocracking.

12-2

13.0 13.1

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PREAMBLE Generally the entire complex is not seen as a major environmentai concern as all standard air (SO2, NOx), water and land criteria will be met using available technologies. The use of hydrofluoric acid as the alkylation catalyst may be controversial but is considered by the study team as a better alternate than many trucks a day of sulphuric acid and spent -, sulphuric acid from/to a regeneration site. However, this must be pursued with Alberta's disaster control agency.

13.2

AIR

The use of low NOx burners will keep NOx emissions to a level consistent with provincial national objectives for the region of the upgrader. Such burners are available even for high temperature furnaces such as the steam methane reformers. No need for flue gas NOx reduction has been seen in this study. NzO emissions are becoming of concern due to nitrous oxide's greenhouse gas contribution, but are not anticipated to be above 1 ppm in any emissions from any version of the upgrader complex except possibly from the FCCU regenerator stack and sulphur recovery incinerators, especially where any ammonia has entered the system as from sour water strippers, which does require further study. Volatile organics will be controlled at .source, especially'at potential fugitive emission points. Special procedures will be followed to monitor all potential sources during operations.

13-I

SO2 emissions will be almost entirely from the sulphur recovery units. However, in the refining cases there will be traces of SO2 in the FCCU flue gas. SOx transfer catalyst additives are available to reduce the quantity in the FCCU flue gas if essential. Carbon dioxide emissions come from the hydrogen units, boilers and smaller sources in the case of the upgrader, and from process heaters, the FCCU regenerator and steam methane reformers in the add-on units. Catalytic reforming and C~ and CsC. isomerization processes use small amountso Fchlorides to be scrubbed out of gases going to fuel in at least the last two cases. Due to the anticipated low catalytic reforming severity HCI emissions there should be within provincial guidelines, but this will need confirmation. Extremely tight HF control will be used to ensure compliance with Alberta standards. 13.3 WATER The F-T system description notes a large additional cooling tower but the refinery description notes air condensing of steam turbine exhaust. The latter is being practised more than in the past and is foreseen in detailed design for large turbines. All other cooling duties in the additional facilities have been assumed as air cooled. There are constraints in withdrawal of water from the North Saskatchewan River and a maximum air cooling will be a must. But that leaves boiler water make-up largely for hydrogen and synthesis gas production and for hydrotreater wash waters. In the F-T Case, all water used for synthesis gas going to F-T synthesis is recovered as a waste stream - 580 USGPM or so, during detailed design it is expected that such waste wat~ will be found to be treatable for recycle to SMR o r POX units.

13-2

Sour water stripper bottoms can be reused for

hydrotreater condenser wash water with

treatment for boiler feedwater to be considered in later design. The refining operation has several small caustic waste streams that may require evaporation.

13.4

LAND

",

The off-site disposal of upgrader pitch, as proposed by OSLO, was apparently acceptable to provincial agencies. FCCU spent catalyst at 700 to 1,000 tpy will also go to landfills, assuming that it metal content is as low as now anticipated due to lack of metals i,n, S.C.O. All of the other spent catalysts will be sent to off-site reclamation/disposal facilities.

13.5

NEIGHBOURS

Sounds and smells can all be readily controlled during the design phase.

13.6

APPROVALS No major challenges are seen from an environmental viewpoint - water withdrawal appears the major challenge.

13-3

14.0 14.1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS a) F-T is not a viable add-on to an Alberta upgrader at this time. Differentiated S.C.O.'s, preferably with some added naphtha available and middle distillate products offer means of improving upgrader economics at the $I to $2/bbl, of overall product level. --

b)

c)

If significant added gasoline producing capacity is needed in Western Canada and/or for U.S. northern tier markets, adding full refining to a 60,000 BPD Alberta upgrader is a viable scheme. But such a need must be identified.

d)

Significant research and development opportunities continue to present themselves in the following areas:

i)

Synthesis gas and hydrogen generation, and F-T and similar synthesis of middle distillate products from natural
gas.

ii)

14.2

RECOMMENDATIONS The search for options to improve Alberta heavy crude/bitumen utilization must continue, following potential markets; new technology development - in upgrading, refining, petrochemicals and other industries; and in business/process configuration analysis.

14-1

APPENDIX A PRICE FORECASTS

~.4

'92

13:~D

FROM

PURU|H

AHD

GERTZ

CAL

PAGE.eB~

Puny;,-,,- ~

(jE'P..TZ, II~'C.

C o.ws C'Z.TZ~-G E.~OZ~ZZ~S 172.0 SII~LI2"~ I ~ z A

Czxo.~rL A.z~s~tJ. T2P 3N-~

I'==obf.L, EL WL~z

February 24, 1993

T = uct"i z~ . ~ O ' t / 2 - 6 - 7 0 8 6 ~,AC..~r ~ ZLll: . ~ - O 3 / 3 ( ~ , - 2 5 5 6

Mr. Bert Lang Chairman. Oil Sands Task Force Alberta Chamber of Resources Suite 1410, 10235 - 101 Street Edmonton, Alberta TSJ 3G1 Dear Bert: Re: ACR File No. 83-105.01-01 We were requested by T. J. McCann to revise our October 23. 1992 price forecast for 1993 constant dollars and also to provide a forecast for gasoline, propane, iso-butane and normal butane (field butanes are available). For reformulated gasoline, add appro~Jmately $1.50 (1993 US)/B to regular gasoline for Phase 1 (1995-99) and $4.501B for Phase 2 (afl.er 2000). The revised and supplemental forecast is attached in Table 2. If you have any questions, please call. Yours very truly. PURVIN & GERIZ, INC.

Thomas H. Wise, P. Eng.

c.c. 1". J. MCann. SICL

Eflc|. THW/ab C-1838

DA LT..Ag

ROt,'~TO~

t.O~O:

Lo~ .'**3O]CZ.ZS

CAZ.GA RY

TABLE

~D

ALBERTA CHAMBER OF RESOURCES REAL PRICE FORECAST ~'; FOR PETROLEUM AT EDMONTON (Forecastin 19931].$.Della pctl~m~l, Ur~c~ Hoi~xl)
Itletorlegl l~S I ~ r l d Cru4e P e l t 4 Oubal FC4 MLdeast t r i c e d at t a u n t o n 11|~4l J n o t Oltn4 QTnChetle Crude ACR Q u a l i t y Oitumefl Outs|lad, 4el~uler Unleaded Jet Fuel A OleeeL 7Ue2, .0~le I Propane I.?uttn4 Field I~llne~ N | t u r e l I~ule I $ 1 i l O t u ) T.44 !1.411 l.ll 1.~3 1:r.71 10.$5 13.82 1.30 10.33 10.111 13.04 1.14 4 14 10.28 12.10 1.13 1920 19~I 1992 i9~1 11154 14. IQC6 1997 fortC*lt lOgS lSg~ 2000 2091 2u02 2003 2004 0 ..~ C C Z Z

15.88 *I.4C tt.3~

20.47 23.~0 13.42

II.H 20.11) 2.2~

I;'.11 19.05 nil

17.00 IS,S3 21.22) 11.13 ti.31 25.3? 23.22 '11.7g 15.51 12.24 1.24

17.48 20.94 22.34 I1.01 20.01 24.83 =0.24 12.2,6 1d.52 13.09 1.30

1~.01 ~!.7S 23.21 12.11 ~ 24 27.41 26.9! 1zi.68 II1.0~ 14.li 1.01

14.01 21.03 23.28 12.12

27.31 21.44 Ze.gd

18.01 21,1;7 ~2.$3 12.11

tf.34 21.~1 ~.129

l l . OI 21.54 23.41 12.23 2?.42 2r.55 :~)'. G3 14.57 11.341 t O.IH) 1.1;O

18.81 22.02 23.49 12.32 27.40 21.6,] 2?.04 14.84 19.41 II.O0 !.44

11.01 22.12 23.39 12.41 2~.54 27.04 21.10 14.71 19.07 10.09 1.1gl

10.01 22.1S 23.04 11~.60 27.04 21.43 21.00 14.77 IS.el !1.14 1.eo

11.0t 22.20 :~3.74 12.~18 17.33 21.61 27.045 14.|2 19.00 i s . Is 1.93

10.0t 22.34 22J.13 I2.Ofl 27.53 27.5U 2;.D4 14.80 19.1;) 11.22 1.10

18.01 22.37 23.M 12.11 27.63 21.39 27.02 14. I)4 IO.14 10.2~ 1.07

14.42 19.111 1:5. ]tO 1.0&

14.S0 111.28 10.10 I.?I

N 20116 2000 2007 20~1 2909 2OI0 ~0tl 2~12 2015 2014 2015 2OI0 2011 2014 20|S ~02~0 f-

WOrld Crude P r i c e OUbll ~ ( ] ~ l l d a a l t P r i c e s st (.*,*onion MJn4~l I~eel S t e a d 4 y n t h e t l Crude ACR O u t l i t y |Ltu~en QseOllne, Regular Unleaded Jet ~uel A D i e s e l FUel, ,08~ 8 Propane l.|utane ~t,]d~tmee Natural 4co (SlUU~tu)

tS.SS 23.01 24,51 13.25 21.17 ZO.~2 27,64 15.44 20.03 IO,SQ 2.06

Ig. lO 23.84 26,1F 10.79 ~l.12 26.80 tO.30 IS.01 28.~ 17.35 2.10

IL|4 24.28 20.10 14.30 21.48 Z0.4S 20.~ 10.37 21.0t 17,18 2.29

20.10 le.dfl 20.42 14.12 50.10 30.12 20.~1 10.84 22.11 18.42 2.40

20.74 25.45 27.04 11.33 30.?4 O0.?O 30.24 IT.33 22.?0 10.94 2.31

21.~0 ~I~.O8 2T.er 15.J0 31.31 31.40 30.64 17./'7 23.:~ 19.8<) 2.41

21.113 Itl.ed 29.2~ 10.06 32.03 32.03 31.44 fl.~ I 2S.I~I 20.02 2.72

22.37

22.02

23.4| :8.lS 30.15 15.lO 33.17 53.48 33.49 15.05 25.~8 21.0.I 3.04

24.01 20.QS 30.7T 15.79 34.61 34.29 34,15 20.I~ 28.37 22.2~ 3.|5

34.01 gO.0S 3o. TQ 16.70 34.ll =4.69 34.14 2o.15 28.1[0 22.29 3.10

24.01 21.04 30.76 16.Tll 3,1.11 34.80 34.13

24.01 20.04 30.78 10.10 34.61 =4.64 34.13

24.01 21.03 =Q.70 13.71 34.11 34.68 34.12 20.23 20.24 22.24 3.20

24.0i 20.02 eO,TG 15.79 34.11 34.37 34.12 20.~1 28.24 22.23 3.21

:?.2~ . 2 Y . i ~ 211.01 20.83 18.i2 15.02 32.88 3?.Or ~2.lO 10,?0 24.40 20,35 2,t~3 $~.$2 33.51 32.&4 19.17 2S.OT ~I.09 ~.$3

20.10 20.21 21.:~::~ 28.25 22.25 22.24 5.17 3.10

~ot*:

February. t M 3 ( I ) (1) t u r e e n s

"0 Ju r e s t a t e d rrou OCtober, 1912 f o r l c a s t In 1003 d o l l a r s . L;) I"11 Q rO

PRICING FORECAST IN CONSTANT

I~:)3 CANADIAN P~ne

DOLLARS

n ~ o c t !12
Stem
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
2025 2026 202-1

Mcdta.ol

Mol~'s (Re| U/L)

let A-I

Diesel 05% S)

Field Buumes

Sulphur

31.68 33.14 34.05 34.14 34.23 34.28 34.35 34.43 34.41 34.41 34.41 34.41 35.21 36.03 36.83 37.63 38.43 39.24 40 04 40.81 41.65 42.46 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26 43.26
43.26 43.26 43.26

31.96 33.29 34,26 34.33 34.35 34.44 34.49 34.55 34.54 34.51 34.38 34.49 35.28 3608 36.85 3'1.65 38.45 " 39.25 40.04 40.84 41.64 42.44 43.24 43.24 43.23 43.23 43.23 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21
43.21 43.21 43.21

31.51 32.80 33.64 33.'10 33.74 33.79 33,83 33.88 33.85 33.83 33.80 33.78 34.58 35.38 36.19 36.99 37,80 38,60 39.43 40.24 41.05 41.86 42.69 42,68 42.66 42.6,6 42 6~ 42.65 42,6S 42 65 42.65 42.65 42.65
42.65 42.65

1535 16.36 18.26 19.62 19.75 19.88 20.00 20.11 20.18 20.23 20.28 20.33 21.00 211~ 22.35 23.03 23.70 24.38 25.03 25.69 26.36 27.06 27.83 27.81 27.81 27.80 27.80 27 39 27.79 27.'/9 27.79 27.'19 27.79

14.70 15.33 16.94 I8.03 18.13 18.21 18.30 18.39 18.46 18.53 18.60 18.68 19.30 19.89 20.46 2 a,05 21.63 22.21 22.79 23.37 23.96 24.56 25.16 25.20 25.23 25.26 25.29 25.33 25.33 25.33 25.33 25.33 25.33
25.33 25.33

50,(~0 5000 50.00 50.00 50.(X) 50.00 50.00 50.00 50,00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50 CO 50.00 50,00 50.00 50.00 50 O0 50 03 50.00 50.00 5~,00 50.00 5OlD 50.03 50.03 50.03
50.00 50.00

27.79 27.79

1.55 1.69 1.93 2.10 123 125 2.30 2.35 137 2.41 2.44 2-46 160 2.73 2.86 3.03 3,14 3.26 3.40 3.54 3.(~ 3.80 3.94 3.95 3.q6 3.99 4.00 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01

1.56 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.80 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA HA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

21.00 21.2~ 21.70 2103 2127 2131 2141 2150 2155 22.62 22.(~ 22-71 22.'37 23.2(| 23,46 23.72 23?)8 24.21 24.47 24.73 24.96 25.2/ 25.4K 25-50 25.52 25.57 25.59 25.62 25.6)2 25.62 25.62 25.()2 25.62 25.62 25.62

I'

PRICING FORECASTIN CONSTANT 1Q93 CANADIAN S~ac, am Alberta Lig:tt Sweet Crude Raw Bitumen Diluted Bitumen Diluent Interred,ales

DOLLARS Reo~ional Up Compow'n~ FT Mid Dist FT Naplaha

Rcgional Up S.C.O.

Ye..al" 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2OO0 2001 2002 2OO3 2O04 2005 2006 2007 2008 20O9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202/I 2025 2026 2027

24,91 26.18 27.19 27 .29 27.34 27.43 27.53 27.65 27.74 27.83 27.93 27.96 28.76 29.55 30.31 31.06 31.8l 32.58 33.33 34.08 34.83 35.56 36.31 36.31 36.30 36.30 36.29 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28

13.91 14.39 15.14 15.15 15.21 15.29 15.40 15,51 15.63 15.73 15.83 15.89 16.56 17.?,4 17.88 18.53 19.16 19.81 19.94 1938 1938 19.75 19.74 1934 1934 1935 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 19.74 19.74 1934 1934

17.58 i 8.32 19.15 19.20 19.25 1933 19.44 19,56 19.66 19.76 19.86 19.91 20.63 21.34 22.02 2170 23.38 24.07 24.40 24.54 24.79 25.02 25.26 25.26 25.26 25.27 25.25 25.25 25.25 25.25 25.25 25.25 25.25 25.25 25.25

24.91 26.18 27.19 27.29 2734 27.43 27,53 27.65 27.74 27.83 27.93 27.96 2836 29.55 3031 31.06 31.81 32,58 3333 34.08 34.83 35.56 3631 363 ! 3630 3630 36.29 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28

18.08 18.82 19.~5 19.70 19.75 19.83 19.94 20.06 20.16 20.26 20.36 20.41 21.13 21.84 22.52 23.20 23.88 24.57 24.90 25.04 25.29 25.52 25.76 25.76 25.76 25.77 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75

26 .54 27.95 29.01 29.08 29.16 29.26 29.36 29.49 29,58 29.68 29.79 29.83 30.64 31.46 32.24 33.03 33.80 34.59 2536 36.14 36.91 37.69 38.46 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.44 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45

2~.54 27.95 29.01 29.08 29.15 29.26 29.36 29.49 29.58 29.68 29.79 29.83 30.64 31.46 32.24 33.03 33.80 34.59 35,36 36.14 36.91 37.69 38.46 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.44 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45 38.45

35.70 36.99 37.83 37.89 37.93 37.9g 38.02 38.07 38.04 38.02 37.99 37.97 3837 39.57 40.38 41.18 41.99 4239 43.62 44,43 45.24 46.05 46.88 46.87 46.85 46.85 46.84 46.84 46.84 46.84
46.84

46.84 46.84 46.84 46.84

2.1.91 26.18 27.19 27.29 27.34 27.43 27.53 27.65 27.74 27.83 27.93 27.96 28,76 2~55 30.31 31 .(16 31.81 32.58 33.33 34.08 34.83 35.56 36.31 36.31 36.3O 36.30 36.29 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.28 36.2ti 36.28 36.28 3fi.21~

APPENDIX B CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Appeno'~ B-1 Copl~o~Co~ ThOusondsof 1Q93Donors

CASE NUMBER DESCIIIPIION

~dmory /Seco~'~do~, UpQrodng Ttolns ~ImOSpt~ Disllllallon

~ocuum Dlsllk31Ion Sour Water Stdpper S u ~ Plan! & TollGas Unit ~/drogen Plont Waste Water Treatment ~eom Plant

P~es
Tonkoge
UIEI~s

Flcxe Raw Water Treatment

!c ~ : ~ , ~

ISle Im~ovemen~ C O Froctk~atk:~ I~lophtl~o Debulonlzer

~d~e~ef & S~or C5 C6 Iscmerlzollon Cot Refon'nm (mod~,:,d) Fbld Cc~o~Ik: Crockk~gUnit ;asollne Treating :3 C4 ,Al~ollon ;4 Isomerlzollon 'edlc~y Amyl MethylEther ;olurale Gas Plant l.JghtCycle Oil HydrotreoJer F-T Costs
~ophl~ : - T U1il~11es

TOTAL DIRECTFIELDCC~

Appenc~ B.I Capitol Co~ts 11~ousan~ of IQ93 Do~c~

C,~NU~SE~

~0~

~0~

~0~

40~
SCO +

4O2

~ E ~

EXP~

~
+F- T

PARnAL~ F ' ~ t ~
FRACT CC, X'~ ONI.Y

5os 6oI I 6o2 1 ~ I 6o4 INTEG. FULL REFINING SCO +, SCO+ , BASE F- T + COND +COND FRACT+ FRACT & F- T COte) CON~.F-T
183,368 254,5~ 3 6 . 6 7 4 50.907 3 3 . 8 0 4 46.923 253.846 352,36~ 193.525 278,70C

G;ENERAI. FIELD EXPENSE: Direct Him Suppod ConsltucJlon Mono~ement / Travel SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING & PROCUREMENI TOTAL C O ~ D COSl

14,1618 _~L~709 209.13,1 28.723 4 0 . 7 4 2 41.917 23.560 33A16 42,224 195.901 277,854 293.276 133,508 189359 222~7[~
I

155.4~ 31.091 25,56,1 212.106 144~,q)4

151.070 ' 161A86 0o7.003 177.666 249.924 30,214 3 2 , 2 9 7 45,401 35,533 49,985 25.751 2 6 , 5 5 0 4 5 , 2 1 4 32.752 46,073 207.036 220334 317.618 245.951 345.982 140,429 150,111 238.503 187.739 274,392

1.114.751 1,581.092 1.821Z~8. I~o~__Z~6 1,173,516 '1,253,453 1.959.079...I,538.040 2.234A44

1,585.754 2.270A7~

)TILERCA.~AL COSTS: InlJlol C~c4yst & Chendc~s (estimated) O~ef's n,,,-',~_ t Stadup Budget ' Capitol Sp~re~ SUBTOTA ALLOWANCE FOR OMMISSIONS "ON11NGENCY

7.078 !11.~i07 55.~ g~r,,4,4 ~~x ~'~ 129.810 142.791

10.617 63.77~ 145.34Q 133.003 78.265 76.10~ I 1.99C 14,27( 246.221 287,154; 182.731 210.88( 201J[~I~ 231.96~

7.078 115.807 58.904 9,564 191.,%~3 139.799 153.779

10.617 117.707 59.654 10.064 198.042 137.1.56 150.871

8.578 119,607 60.404 10,564 199~153

145.261 159.787

6 8 ~ 7 8 15.078 71,778 140307 131,807 153,007 8 0 . 6 0 4 68,904 89.104 9.2OO 16,27(] 3,500 302.959 219.289 323,089
226,204 175.733 255.753 248,B.24. 193,306 281329

1 6 . 0 7 8 72.7.78 133.807 155.007 69.904 90.i04

3.8O0
223,589

9.5~
327,389

180.934 259,786 199~28 285~7~

TOTAL ES11MAIEDCOSI 1.570.706 2,211.04~ 2 , 5 5 1 ~ 1.691..~ 1.659,586 1.757.653 2~737.066 2.123,368 3.094.615 2.189.305 3.143.415 G.S.T, 109.949 154.77,~ 178.6]~ 118,41(] 116.171 123,036 191,595 148.846 216.623 153.251 220.03',' TOTAL INSTALLEDPLANTCOSI: 1.680,6,$5 2.365.82~ 2.730.25c; 1.809.976 1.775.757 1.880,689 2.928.661 2.275,213 3,311.2381 2,342,,~ 3,363,~

MARCH 24.1993

Appendix B-2 Operating Costs 1~ousonds of IQ93 Dollars

CASE NUMBER

101

DESCRIPTION

EXP BASE

301 BASI

401

.402 405 PARTIALRERN1NG

601
INTEG.

602 603 FULLREFINING

604

sco+
FRACT+ FRACT+ ~OND+F-T COND _.___._J ~

ONLY

VARIABI.E COSTS:
N ~ ' d (I0x9 BTUICD) Natural Gas @ E ~ t d c Power (MW) @ .00 load factor ~ & Chemicals PitCh Disposal
~

77.52 SI.55
M ~ MBTU

s2.j_j ~....__._~ 3s.o_.___j

8.613 4,O22

241.o~

29.238 43.8.5.___ 7 ------~.---~

~,~9______~

~ 32.700 136,37..~4
12.~ 13,..%0

5&NI

~ ~0._____~

~
~

8.27"--'---~
4~

13.~____.~ ~ 6___.__~ 7s.._._~

34.6 8.516 8.902

3s...._._~
8,75~ 4X~

.~.18._____88
17.030 4.022 153.2.~

-16..___j

-0.8 ----:~-247 ~

9,3o2 9______~,

4.o22

51~____.j

62.872

~MI-VARIABLE COSTS: Operat~.g Labour (addiliBnOl_qL~_~ ~ b--~'eT~i"n~r-E~" $76.0o0 rPerson - ' ~ OPERATING LABOUR TOTALCOST Maintenance Labou_r Maintenance Material ~ p l l e s Adminlstratlon & Su.p_p_rl Office Costs & Misc Insurance TOxes Interest on Working_..~_pltol

[ (: 12.92( 22.2~, 22.2~, 5,~

2,'

1.90( 14.8201 31.6221 31.622 7O0 5A7: 70

35~ _ 2,66O 15380

---~

I[

-----~ 10

I:

-'-'---~2~
13,832 25._.__~_~ 25____~ 5,~

13.68(

13,680

47 --T.~ 3,$7; 3-----~ I&&N~. 18.62( 16.4~

------~

----~,

16.7201

18,6201

~4.13__~: 23A~____~0
24.1._.___~ 23,470

3o.76____j 39j8_____~:

36~.__.__j3
4360 ,550

4,,~0

4__...._~.~ 2.9____~_~
536~

2.78_.._~
5,57, 1.92,

3.9._____~
7.90 2.88

3.1____j3
6.26

6.03 9.108 2AI 2,2.81 " - ' - - ' - ~ ,

SUBTOTA.~
TOTAl
i

73~ 123.S__.__~

99___._~
175.28

11o~4_.____~
262AOC

39,18' 55( 4,,56( 55( 4,89~ 3.--'---~ ---~ 9.7951 3.__~_ 3,sT_.__j 3,138 101.71,~ 137.02._____j 118346

,,~.~_._~ 30.761 .44.68~; _..._-~ ----~

~o._.____~

271.58

L--.--

APPENDIX C CASE COMPARISONS

lib

BAI8

104

II~II

40~

CJ~t ~,,m,O. V(XJ.~MS Fbed~dm

I01

20t

p'leid I l K ]+Itmmd

0 O

0 0

4} 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 O 0

0 0 0 IOOCO

0 0 0 0 0

,so0~ 12000 0 0 ~

0 12000 0 0 13CC0

~ t31~O 0 0 ?31000

0 121000 0 0 12000

dKX~O 0 lllO 412 416~2

0 1180 4112 1662

~C~CO 0 0 442 d0482

0 0 0 412

12~0

411 73061

121000 ~12 412. 1~

lomo 13~30 0 412 ?2UQ

o 120~Q 0 4412 12~r2 0 0 40194 0 0 0 ~t Z~M.S2 ~

,ram 1~ 0 0 't3Doo

o 13000 " O 0 t20~ O 0 120~ 0 0 0 0 0 0

l~Nm lnmnml*~* SC O ,

I[3194 290

95141 455

F'I["~ld4b DkdUm PT ~,Slk~

J.I A-I

D4..,=a ( n'l'/. S) sl-I~,llal~ $ ~

422 14114 134 96'776

J 0 )1947 145 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 552 32092

6'3194 Z~O ~ ~7~

O 0 O 9~ 0 0 0 O 12~$ 0 16"/35

0 0
2~0 0 0 0 0 2O0O 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 O

0 0 2~K) 2'PgQS 12172 }6311 683 119 422 ??';~ 0 0 0 ~ 12172 36,516 II~ I1~1 0 13~t 2~0 $t9~ I023,( ~<~0t 7g?
428

0 0 0 0 0 ~119~2 10234 307O1

0 41 /700

27Q

2OOO

2OOO 4OOO

1295 4~ 10)19

+122 414114

4"m 7411kl

0 0 0 0 2~00 ~00 0 0 I~ 120~

2~O 96"73 .~P76~ 2[~O 4~O 13d}5 4 '~ 9=25'19

0 96?3 ~'76+7 0 2OOO 4OOO 0 12~$ 4 31735

2:510 2~P3 y7~4 2226~ ~

4"~ ~Y~I

0 0 0 2~/3 YT~ 2926t ~3 0 0 913

2~O )~1 t31~ ~P;t~6 "1"74 421

?~194 2~0

0 0
421 76114

7?4 4 2:5116

0 4 |2000

S,CO. F r Mkld~ Dkdhm Jet A.I S,dpk,~ ~-|mmm

SI10# S0,0 SO0 300 SO.0 SO.O S0.O ST.? S0,0 S421SA

tl21A $:)09.5 S41~l.t S0.0 S0,0 S00 $1~J~ $126,0 S0~ S0~ ~?.A ~LS2.4 SO~ SO J0 SO J0 'too SO+O SO~ SQ~D So.O SO0 ~0~ SGO $0.0 SQ~) ll0J) SGO S00 |lld I~ 117.7 SG0 S0# SO~) $73 17.3 S~)40CI S~|13 S81~4 S115.7

L~0JI $0~ ~K)~ SO0 S~l~l S~4~ SO~ S7.7 S0~ S~TJ

($51.11 SG0 S~L0 s0+o S23J $40 SG0 IG0 SG0 $1|.2

Si~J S0,0 SO0 S0+O 12~.,1 &44~ SlQO STJ S0# S7~4.2

$51.1 $0.0 S0.0 10.0 $"~.~ S44.0 S0.o $~I SG0 Sl2?.l

S&TT.I St260 S~2~ S~O S2.1J $44+0 S0~ S?J S73 S~3~9

ULI $1?~.0 S~2.4 S0+0 S23..I $44,0 S0~0 S~l S7J S3|3.$

J0,o ('1411L1~ 1100 SG0 SOlD S0,0 S2~3 S'Z?O~ $1|3,11 SI I).11 S3M~5 S)r34~5 J~J.2 S$.2 ~.7 SA0 S~J0" SG.0 S'~ | .S St04.|

S0+0 (~'11L9) SG+0 410.0 S00 S~0.0 11322.7 S+Y22.? $|42.0 $14~0 S~20~ 1420.0 S3.T $3,7 r;,? 14+o Sl.t 11.1 SIT/.| S2"~4

I 0 ~ ('11L1~ 110.0 110+0 S0A SG0 S30-1 S76'1..~ /,I |gA iI|gA S3~3t I~l.e3.Z 13A $~1 sTJi I&t 10+0 IG0 S~[~ A ~22~.9

S0+0 ('J~L~) S0+0 $0.0 S0~ $00 S42~& S~2~.9 $|47A SI47~ $43~S.5 $434..5 $4.~ ~ 17+1 SO.t $4~1 S4..1 $1,071+4 $~9~A

S7~2 50 n SO~ 50+0 SQn son JIG~ $7,11 10+0 S'743 ~

$111.2 S0.0 S0,0 SG0 SG.0 SOlO S~0 S~,I SG0 $|1A

n"-"-" C,~,mmm P',~d llmmm l.b~m,I $,,k~d

S304A 30+0 S0.O SOJ~ S304JIi tI~0A 173.5

14541.9 1152.2 1304+41 SOD SO.O SO+0 SO.O SOD SOJ S0J SO~ SGO S4M.II $152.1 S3Q4A S7~lJ $91)? $1753 ~ ~ i ~ j

SAO $GO SGO SGO SGO

S3(X4 IQ.0 S0.0 MD S~4A $51..1 S'TYA Sl~0J S435J s~o.d $1,810A

$0.0 SG0 $GO SGO $0.0 11.1 S14 S7 I7 ~ $12~

S30+A SLOPS IOJ0 S00 $4|37 $52A SlI.S $134.J[ I~47A ~

SO.0 $10S.I $0.0 SG0 S|2~l,l 12.1 SlLI SI0.2 1119.2 SL2

S+~4.t $109J S0~ M~ $413,7 S'1S3.2 Sll|J S271~ 141S3 S3~4A s2.~l.?

S0.0 $109.1 SG,0 S&0 SI09,| 1102.11 S4~II. $147.7 1234LI SSd~ S~.2IL0

S3~IA S0~ S64 S1.7 S314.~ S42J 1101.7 SIMA l~Pl't ~J

SG+0 trY.0 S6 S3.7 SIGJ S12.4 S21.3 $4G.7 1.51.0 S~J

S'2OlJI S0.O SOJO 53.7 $'JOIJ

50.0 S0.0 IG0 S).7 13.7

S304A $101'.1 133 ]13.7 1420.7 Sd4A II04.1 $|dl.t

~ 1109.1 S).3 S3.7 Sll(l 114,2 S3GS $410

~A $109.1 5o+0 S3.7 S417A

SO.0 S34A So.O $109.1 1109,1 $109.1 SG0 ~IGJO SGO $3,7 M~ S&O $112.1 1141.3.'7 $109.1 Sl.| Sl.4 S11~,9 sr~ Sg".LI

S,m J - V ~ ~21~ 8~NJ OROSSM~lmO! 11,110,? T O T . ~ C.~Tlr'M. C0S'13 OM..'rcc TOTM, O 0 } I ' ~ [ 1 ~ COS1" $t,114 li

S2S.1[ 11.12.4 S101..9 $M3 SlIGO S34.d $SIA S2d~ - SI$I.S I]18.~ $1~d l~/J S2*S4 8151~ S47.2

S16"1J S110.8 s 1 ~ r 7 ~ S43.4 $291..1 1174+4 ll01A S:n0,4 1171.1 m.] ~

1 1 1 2 . 7 Stl2J S~A SIXJ S4.~4 S??J 13QtA $177,? SI~.7 1719+0 | ~ s~4 SlOt3 ~ s3no~ Sl.';~J

1319+41 I I ~ I A ~14~ NsJ

14~.2 s~720~ Sl.04f.4

41,110.9 $200.2

$2~2"J~.2 $~194,1 S2..111.2 I I , i 0 4 ~

14111.9 S~I41~.S SIJl2A

11,12J I
It,.ql J

SI,204A

l 1.2~.~

$1.9~,1

11..9)1.0

S2.2~ A

$1,.5151 *

SZ3~.5

$I , ~ * ~