Challenges and opportunities of 10 ppm sulphur gasoline: part 1

Prospect of a worldwide standard for ULSG and the challenges of increased heavy crude supplies demand careful consideration and selection of refinery configuration
Delphine Largeteau, Jay Ross, Marc Laborde and Larry Wisdom Axens

he worldwide refining industry has undergone a major transformation in the last decade due to changes in regulatory and market forces, such as fluctuating crude prices, tighter regulation on product quality and refinery emissions, shifting crude quality and fundamental changes in fuel demands. These forces can be seen clearly in the North American market, where crude quality has become heavier due to increasing amounts of lower-cost heavy, sour Canadian bitumen and where regulations have become more severe by limiting the sulphur level in fuels to 15 wppm in diesel and 30 wppm in gasoline. In addition to these feed and product quality changes, the overall demand for transportation fuels is shifting from a traditionally gasoline-oriented to an increasingly diesel-oriented market. Regulatory specifications for the gasoline and diesel pool, which are constantly evolving, have been in the forefront of refiners challenges in the last 10 years. In particular, the gasoline sulphur and benzene regulations have been the main drivers for the recent remodelling of the refinery configuration. This transformation has been seen all around the world, but particularly in Europe, Asia and North America. Other countries are following the trend and a common worldwide gasoline sulphur specification is on the horizon. Indeed, the overall gasoline sulphur content is likely to level off at 10 ppm across the globe. As a consequence, most refiners will face renewed challenges to be able to meet the new ultra-low-sulphur

Countries may apply lower limits for different grades, regions/cities, or based on average content. Different information on limits and regulations can be found at www.ifqc.org

Figure 1 Maximum gasoline sulphur limit around the world Source: International Fuel Quality Center, www.IFQC.org

gasoline (ULSG) specifications. However, in view of other market forces, there may also be new opportunities for refiners. This article will identify these new opportunities by reviewing the processing options and consequences of such regulation, focusing mainly on North American refineries and drawing on the European and Asian experience of meeting
Current gasoline sulphur specification
Region Gasoline sulphur, wppm Europe: EU 2005 specification 50 EU 2009 specification 10 USA: Tier 2 (2004-2006) 30 CARB 3 (California) 10 2010+ CARB 4 (California) 5 Japan: 2007 specification 10

the 10 ppm ULSG regulations. The issues, challenges and opportunities of each option will be presented and discussed. In a second article, a detailed economic assessment of each configuration will be applied in a case study.

Gasoline sulphur regulation

Table 1

There has been a steady downward trend in the sulphur content of fuels to reduce emissions from cars and trucks. Many countries mandated the production of low-sulphur gasoline (LSG) some time ago, but in recent years regulations in Western Europe, some Asian countries and California in the US have brought in even tighter specifications to lower the gasoline sulphur to 10 ppm. The different regional approaches to the gasoline sulphur specification

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q3 2012 43

compliance with gasoline sulphur regulations. When the Tier 2 regulations were proposed, many were convinced that CFHT would be the solution of 2001 2010 choice due to the resulting large Figure 2 FCC pretreatment and gasoline post-treatment trend in US refineries improvement in FCC performance. However, the high capital cost set out in Table 1 show a clear trend Undercutting of FCC gasoline to requirement for the FCC pretreattowards ULSG. Other countries are maximise diesel production. ment option coupled with low following the same path to either The EUs 10 ppm ULSG is refinery margins resulted in the meet their domestic regulatory produced mainly by using moder- wide application of FCC post-treatspecifications or be able to export ate severity FCC post-treatment. ment to reduce gasoline sulphur. and sell on the international ULSG Many catalytic feed hydrotreater Another factor that can influence market (see Figure 1). (CFHT) units installed in Asian the decision between pretreatment Although the majority of coun- refineries were designed to meet and post-treatment is FCC flue gas tries still have gasoline sulphur modern fuels and emission regula- emissions. Limits on refinery emisspecifications well above 10 ppm, tions. As such, many are designed sions and in particular those from the overall trend clearly shows that for high desulphurisation levels to the FCC have led to refinery-specific in the near future ULSG production meet refinery and SOx regulations regulation via consent decrees with will become the norm worldwide. from the FCC flue gas, resulting the EPA, resulting in much lower in low-sulphur FCC gasoline. SOx and NOx emissions. The Current refinery configuration Consequently, most refineries in preferred refinery configuration Refinery configurations vary widely, Japan have met the new ULSG limit may well have been different had depending on crude availability, of 10 ppm by adding low-severity the limits on emissions and product local demand, export markets and post-treatment units. sulphur been regulated in concert. regulatory constraints. In the same In the US, the refinery configuraMore recently, there has been an way, each market has its own set of tion was influenced by a large important trend towards the processdynamics and means of complying demand for gasoline coupled with ing of increasingly heavier crudes, with the new fuel regulations. limited fuel oil outlets, resulting in in particular heavy Canadian crude In Europe, regulations for ULSG the installation of bottom-of-the or bitumen. By 2015, there is an were adopted early and somewhat barrel conversion units and high expected increase of about 2 million influenced by a market demand, FCC feed sulphur. The US Tier 2 b/d of Canadian bitumen, which which is more heavily skewed gasoline sulphur and California Air will be largely exported to the US as toward diesel than gasoline. The Resources Board (CARB) regula- raw bitumen (DilBit) or synthetic options for ULSG compliance were tions led to a sharp increase in the bitumen (SynBit) after partial influenced by: number of FCC feed pretreatment upgrading at the production site. Processing of relatively light and and FCC gasoline post-treatment These very heavy crudes are a challow-sulphur crude oil units over a short period of time lenge for processing in existing Relatively good-quality FCC feed (see Figure 2). Essentially, all of the refinery assets due to a high acid (little cracked gas oil such as heavy US refineries now have pre- and/or content (TAN), high aromaticity and coker gas oil) post-treatment units to ensure low hydrogen content, along with very high contaminant content: sulphur, nitrogen, Conradson carbon FCC feed quality from heavy feeds and metals. A sampling of heavy crude components, which may be considered potential FCC feed, are Canadian bitumen Coker HCGO Syn. bitumen Mexican Blend Arabian Light show in Table 2 to highlight the VGO challenges of processing bitumenAPI gravity 13 13 18 22 26 Sulphur, wt% 3.3 4-5 1.7 2.2 2.2 derived materials. Nitrogen, ppm 2100 4000 1500 1000 700 As a result of these feedstock Hydrogen, wt% 10.7 10.5 11.5 11.7 12.4 trends and a renewed focus on ATB cleaner fuels, lower emissions and API gravity 5.7 9 6 17 Sulphur, wt% 4.9 3.6 3.6 3.1 even a shift in gasoline/diesel Nitrogen, ppm 5000 3500 3000 1900 production, the topic of pretreatHydrogen, wt% 9.2 10.8 9.8 11.4 ment versus post-treatment is upon Concarbon, wt% 15.3 11.2 11.6 8.1 us again. More specifically, we will Ni + V, ppm 325 200 258 49 focus on the pretreat and post-treat Table 2 issues around the FCC as it relates
Pre-treat only Post-treat only Pre- and post-treatment

FCC pretreatment vs post-treatment

44 PTQ Q3 2012

www.eptq.com

to FCC performance, emissions and the level of product gasoline posttreatment required.

85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0

20

FCC pretreatment options

The benefits of FCC feed pretreatment in a CFHT are well known and extend beyond simply reducing the sulphur level in the FCC feed. The reduction in sulphur and other contaminants is helpful in terms of reducing the FCC product sulphur level and lowering the flue gas emissions from the FCC, but the interaction with improved feed quality and increased FCC performance is also very important. Environmental regulations, and in particular the need to produce very low-sulphur gasoline, have put increased emphasis on CFHT performance and reliability. Concurrently, a lower demand for fuel oil coupled with the processing of heavier crudes has resulted in the installation of residue conversion units such as delayed cokers. These conversion units produce significant amounts of hydrogen-deficient, heteroatomrich (N and S) vacuum gas oils (VGO, HCGO), which need to be deeply hydrotreated prior to conversion in the FCC unit. As a result, modern CFHT units need to process increasingly more refractory feedstocks while achieving high desulphurisation levels to meet gasoline sulphur specifications. The increased contaminants also make it more difficult for the CFHT to upgrade the quality of the FCC feed to maintain the required yield of gasoline and LPG. In addition to the objective of hydrodesulphurisation, hydrodenitrogenation and polynuclear aromatics (PNA) saturation, the processing of cracked stocks in a CFHT, often with high end-point to maximise refinery economics, requires a careful selection of the catalytic system to take into account the potential for higher metals (nickel, vanadium, arsenic, silicon) and asphaltenes, along with the higher fouling propensity of these aromatic-rich feeds. On the other hand, this problem can turn into an opportunity to increase the severity of the CFHT,

p Pro

yle

o ep

ten

tial
Conversion Gasoline Fuel oil

18 16 14 10 8 6 4 2 13.5 0 12

wt%

Feed hydrogen, wt%

Figure 3 FCC yield vs feed hydrogen content

not only to meet sulphur targets but also to change the diesel-togasoline ratio by operating in mild hydrocracking (MHC) mode and taking advantage of low-cost natural gas to further increase volume swell. These adjustments will require some modifications to the operating conditions, selection of the optimum catalytic system and distributor internals, increased hydrogen consumption and likely upgrades throughout the unit. One of the challenges of operating in the MHC mode is the ability to meet ultra-low-sulphur diesel (ULSD) specifications throughout the MHC cycle. Moderate-pressure MHC units generally do not meet the required diesel specifications, therefore post-treatment is required. One option to meet this challenge is the HyC-10 technology developed by Axens to integrate diesel upgrading within the MHC high-pressure loop while decoupling operating conditions.1,2 Another important factor in MHC/CFHT design is the ability to maintain desulphurisation targets while meeting optimum VGO quality throughout the cycle length. In conclusion, a deep understanding of the feedstock type and the chemical reactions involved in a CFHT (kinetics, thermodynamics, contamination/poisoning) coupled with their impact on the FCC operation is paramount to selecting optimum CFHT operating conditions and design of the optimum catalyst system. The following section will examine the influence

of the CFHT operation on the FCC units performance.

Impact of CFHT on FCC performance

The FCC unit has long been the workhorse in the refinery to achieve relatively low-cost conversion of heavy crude components (VGO, HCGO and some atmospheric residue) into gasoline, butenes for high-octane alkylate production, propylene and LCO diesel blend components. Although the chemistry and catalyst systems can be complex, generally speaking the FCC unit is a hydrogen redistribution system with some carbon rejection as coke, which is consumed in the process. The performance of the FCC unit and the yield of valuable products is therefore linked to the hydrogen content of the feed. This trend is shown in Figure 3, where the conversion potential and gasoline yield increase sharply with the hydrogen content of the feed. The CFHT therefore plays a vital role in improving the FCC feed quality to enhance the yield and overall refinery profitability. As the feed contaminants of sulphur and nitrogen are reduced to improve product quality and reduce FCC emissions, multi-ring aromatics are saturated and the crackability of the feed increases. Sharp gains in conversion and gasoline yield result from the first incremental increase in hydrogen and there is some degree of diminishing returns (see Figure 3). When propylene yield is of interest, the increased hydrogen

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q3 2012 45

wt%

10000

1000

100

10 Straight run Hydrotreated 1 0.01 0.1 1 10

Feed sulphur, wt% Figure 4 FCC Gasoline sulphur vs feed sulphur and treatment

100

Cumulative sulphur, %

80 60 40 20
Mercaptans S Thiophene C2-Thiophene C1-Thiophene

Alkyl-BenzoThiophene BenzoThiophene S

0 25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Temperature, C Figure 5 FCC Gasoline sulphur profile

input is always beneficial, and in many cases high hydrogen input can be justified, particularly when hydrogen is relatively inexpensive.3 As the severity of the CFHT increases, there is also the opportunity for co-produced diesel in the CFHT via mild hydrocracking to shift the overall refinery balance between gasoline and diesel. Defining the optimal balance between severity, hydrogen input, cracking and FCC mode of opera-

tion within the existing constraints of a refinery configuration is therefore very complex. Within the context of ULSG, the more traditional role of the CFHT to consider is that of desulphurisation and the impact on the FCC gasoline produced. As the sulphur content in the FCC unit feed decreases and the extent of feed hydrotreating increases, the types of sulphur left in the FCC feed alter and the amount of sulphur found

FCC gasoline post-treatment unit design

Typical Western Europe North America California South America Japan/Korea Feed sulphur, wppm 200-1000 500-2000 100-300 500-2000 50-200 Product sulphur, wppm 10-20 30-50 10-20 30-100 10

Table 3

in the gasoline decreases. Figure 4 shows this general trend for feeds that are hydrotreated and for nonhydrotreated feeds of varying sulphur content. If one were to target the new ULSG pool sulphur level of 10 ppm, the CFHT must reduce the feed sulphur to about 200-300 ppm, considering a ratio of between 20:1 and 30:1 of the hydrotreated feed sulphur to the gasoline sulphur. This will be true even if we consider that the FCC gasoline is only about one-third of the pool and the other blend stocks are nearly sulphurfree, as refiners will leave some margin below 10 ppm to ensure compliance. When looking at the sulphur in FCC gasoline, one needs to be very clear about the gasoline cut point and the distillation tail on the produced gasoline product. In Figure 5, we can see a carefully analysed commercial FCC gasoline and the cumulative full-range gasoline sulphur versus true boiling point (TBP). Figure 5 clearly demonstrates the importance of defining the gasoline boiling range when discussing the sulphur level. In the US market, gasoline has been traditionally over-cut relative to the standard 430F (220C) cut and often extended to 450-480F (230-250C), thereby including not only benzothiophene but also some methyl-benzothiophenes in the gasoline. These compounds enter the gasoline cut just at the standard cut point and complicate accurate measurement of gasoline sulphur from non-ideal industrial samples. With the increased interest in distillate production, undercutting the gasoline to less than 430F will significantly help control the sulphur level when producing ULSG, as is done in Europe. Considering the dependence of FCC gasoline on both CFHT performance and precise fractionation of the gasoline product, meeting ULSG targets through CFHT alone is possible but challenging. There will be little room for error or deterioration in CFHT performance over the course of a production run or cycle.

46 PTQ Q3 2012

Gasoline S, wt ppm

www.eptq.com

Low/moderate HDS
FCC FRN ULSG

SHU

HDT

Prime-G+ 1-stage HDS

Moderate/high HDS

FCC FRN

SHU

ULSG

FCC FRN

SHU

HDT 1&2

ULSG

Prime-G+ 2-stage HDS

HDT
Prime-G+ 1st step (SHU & splitter) / 1-stage HDS

Very high HDS

FCC FRN

SHU

ULSG

HDT 1&2
Prime-G+ 1st step (SHU & splitter) / 2-stage HDS

Figure 6 Prime-G+ processing schemes

FCC post-treatment options to meet ULSG

In order to comply with lowsulphur gasoline regulations, a majority of refiners across the world have already invested in a FCC post-treatment unit. However, processing schemes vary greatly from one site to another, depending on sulphur specification, overall refinery configuration and crude diet (see Table 3). Most refineries in California and Japan are equipped with FCC feed pretreaters, which explains the low sulphur level in FCC naphtha. Conversely, FCC naphtha sulphur tends to be high in the Americas, and high-severity post-treaters will be required to meet the 10 ppm gasoline sulphur target. The Prime-G+ process selectively desulphurises FCC full-range naphtha (FRCN) while ensuring minimal

octane loss. It is a widely used cracked gasoline desulphurisation technology, with over 190 licensed units throughout the world.4 The technology has proven to be highly flexible, with several Prime-G+ processing schemes offered according to the targeted severity of the unit (see Figure 6).

Exploiting existing Prime-G+ units

Depending on the existing PrimeG+ configuration, meeting new ULSG regulations at 10 ppm while using the existing assets could be achieved in different ways. First, one potential solution that does not require any additional investment would be to simply increase severity (essentially reactor temperature) to lower the existing Prime-G+ product sulphur. The increased HDS level would lead to a higher octane loss and hydrogen consump-

tion, coupled with a potential cycle length reduction. Switching to higher selectivity and activity Prime-G+ catalysts may help mitigate these drawbacks, but could prove insufficient in many cases. Another solution would involve the co-processing of other sulphurrich streams in the Prime-G+ unit that previously did not require any treatment to meet the earlier sulphur specifications. The streams could be light such as light coker naphtha or visbroken naphtha that can be handled in the first step (selective hydrogenation unit SHU and splitter section). Light, straight-run naphtha, natural gasoline could also be co-processed either in the SHU upstream of the splitter or directly in the HDS section. One of the drawbacks of co-processing is possible hydraulics limitations in the unit. In addition,

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q3 2012 45

Isom

Splitter
SRN HCN Coker N

Benfree Reformer

NHT

LCN

Splitter
FRCN

MCN HCN

MoGas pool Prime-G+

Figure 7 FCC naphtha heart cut (MCN) to reformer

adding sulphur-rich streams could lead to a higher HDS level coupled with a higher octane loss and, again, the potential for a reduced cycle length. An alternative option would be to decrease the Prime-G+ feed sulphur to maintain a similar HDS level across the unit to ensure constant octane loss and cycle length. Lowering the feed sulphur could be achieved in different ways. The short-term solutions would be to use sulphur reduction additives in the FCC unit or to process lowsulphur crudes. Both of these options have limitations and are generally not practical for a significant sulphur reduction without a heavy penalty on refinery flexibility. More realistically, a reduction in the FCC naphtha end-point or changes in the CFHT could be envisioned to reduce the sulphur in the FCC naphtha. In Western Europe, it is common to reduce the FCC naphtha end-point, as it also maximises diesel production to meet market demand.

Revamping FCC post-treatment units

As most refineries are equipped with a FCC post-treatment unit to control gasoline sulphur, it is instructive to take a closer look at the revamping options around the selective FCC naphtha desulphurisation unit to meet the new ULSG

requirements. There are a number of ways to revamp an existing selective FCC naphtha desulphurisation unit to meet tighter sulphur specifications, which display different levels of complexity and associated cost: Option 1: Install a Prime-G+ first step if not existing Option 2: Add a SHU (selective hydrogenation unit) or HDS reactor if the cycle length is a limitation for the new product sulphur target Option 3: Route the medium catalytic naphtha (MCN) cut to the NHT/reformer Option 4: Process the medium catalytic naphtha (MCN) and the heavy catalytic naphtha (HCN) streams separately Option 5: Install a second-stage HDS section. In option 1, the installation of a FCC naphtha splitter downstream of the existing (or new) SHU is the Prime-G+ first step. The SHU operating conditions and catalyst design allow for the selective hydrogenation of diolefins, which may foul the desulphurisation section, and also the conversion of light sulphur species such as mercaptans to heavy boiling sulphur compounds. As a result of the chemical reactions taking place in the SHU, the downstream splitter produces a sweet, low-sulphur, light catalytic naphtha (LCN) stream rich in olefins and a heavy FCC naphtha (HCN), which

is routed to the HDS section. Such a HCN stream with its lower olefins content can be selectively desulphurised through the use of tailored catalysts to meet the ULSG target while controlling olefins saturation and thus octane loss. Addition of the splitter reduces the throughput to the HDS section and hydrogen consumption. This solution also allows the co-processing of other streams containing sulphur, such as coker naphtha, visbroken naphtha, straight-run naphtha or natural gasoline. For option 2, the addition of a SHU upstream of an existing splitter will produce a sweet low-sulphur LCN stream and provide benefits similar to those described in option 1. In case cycle length becomes limited, implementation of an additional HDS reactor in series with the existing one can be envisioned. Options 1 and 2 are easy to implement and lead to moderate capital expenditure. The typical block flow diagram of Option 3 is shown in Figure 7. This option involves revamping the existing splitter into a three-cut column in order to withdraw a heart cut (MCN) rich in olefins that contains some sulphur and exhibits a moderate octane number (especially MON). The MCN is then mixed with the normal feed to the NHT unit and reformer unit. Sending the MCN to the reformer will lead to a gasoline octane gain. However, there may be limitations in terms of capacity for both NHT and reformer sections that need to be carefully assessed and taken into account for the evaluation of the overall revamp cost. In addition, potential increased benzene production in the reformer could lead to issues in meeting the MSAT II gasoline benzene specifications. The addition of an integrated reformate splitter/benzene hydrogenation (Benfree) resolves this issue.5 While this solution offers some advantages in terms of octane, the decreased gasoline yield should also be considered. Overall, this option may be attractive, but has more implications than just making modifications to the existing FCC post-treatment section.

46 PTQ Q3 2012

www.eptq.com

Decoupling of the MCN and HCN can also be utilised to treat these streams in two separate selective HDS sections. This is option 4 and is illustrated in Figure 8. This innovative and patented scheme by Axens has the additional advantage of offering greater flexibility to route the desulphurised HCN either to the MoGas or diesel pool, according to the economics of the refinery.6 Both MCN and HCN selective HDS sections are designed to minimise octane loss while achieving 10 ppm product sulphur. Compared to the previous option, option 4 incurs more revamping costs, as a new MCN HDS section needs to be installed. But the additional cost could be easily offset by the improved octane retention compared to treating the combined MCN and HCN in a single onestage selective HDS section at ULSG levels and by the additional flexibility that this option offers. The last option explored here, option 5, is the inclusion of a second-stage HDS section to minimise octane loss and maintain or even increase the catalyst cycle length. The typical block flow diagram is shown in Figure 9. Although the splitter is shown here upstream of the HDS section, Axens also has experience of designing a two-stage HDS section on full-range FCC naphtha with no upstream splitter. In a typical one-stage HDS configuration, olefins saturation, and thus octane loss, increases rapidly above 98% HDS. At a high HDS level, the addition of a second-stage HDS section helps improve octane retention and minimise hydrogen consumption. Several Prime-G+ units have been designed for two-stage operation and many are in operation. Although this option requires additional capital investment, there is a real incentive to pursue this solution when the refinery is octane tight or hydrogen constrained. These options provide commercially proven solutions for refiners to meet new ULSG specifications with existing or modified post- treatment units. In view of the low refinery margins and octane-long

Prime-G+ selective hydrogenation MCN HDS SHU Splitter

Ultra-low S LCN to Pool, TAME or Alky Unit

ULS MCN: 150-300F to MoGas

Process integration HCN HDS

FRCN

ULS HCN: 300F-FBP to MoGas or diesel

Figure 8 Decoupling MCN and HCN processing

position resulting from the ethanol mandate, the debottlenecking of a selective FCC naphtha desulphurisation unit will likely be the preferred solution for many refiners, assuming no significant changes in their crude diet. A number of refiners are, however, envisioning the processing of heavy crudes such as those derived from Canadian oil sands due to their lower cost coupled with geopolitical reasons. Processing of these heavy crudes requires a complete refinery reconfiguration with bottom-of-the-barrel conversion units such as coking or ebullated-bed hydrocracking. As was discussed earlier, the resulting VGO and HCGO streams are very refractory with high levels of sulphur and nitrogen and a very low hydrogen content. Such feeds require deep pretreatment prior to

feeding the FCC unit to maintain acceptable yields. Since FCC pretreatment (CFHT) is mandatory in those cases, one may wonder whether a post-treatment unit is required or not. In a second article, an economic evaluation will illustrate the pros and cons of FCC pretreatment only or in combination with post-treatment.

Conclusion

North American refineries need to adapt to tightening sulphur specifications and the prospect of ULSG at 10 ppm. This challenge will be exacerbated by the increased proportion of heavy crudes and the gasoline/diesel imbalance. This article has presented commercially proven configurations that are available to meet these constraints and maintain profitability. A combination of pre- and post-treatment
Ultra-low S LCN to Pool, TAME or Alky Unit H2S Ultra-low-sulphur gasoline to MoGas

Prime-G+ selective hydrogenation

SHU Splitter

1st stage HDS

HCN 150F+

2nd stage HDS

FRCN H2 make-up

Figure 9 Revamp of Prime-G+ HDS into two-stage configuration

www.eptq.com

PTQ Q3 2012 45

may be necessary, depending on the initial refinery configuration, local market demands, emissions regulations and the crudes processed. A second article will present a detailed economic evaluation to allow comparison of the costs and returns between the FCC feed pretreatment alone and posttreatment options, as well as the optimum desulphurisation and cycle length for the CFHT when considered in combination with a post-treatment. These configurations will be applied in the context of a refinery being revamped to process heavy Canadian crudes and maintaining its FCC unit. The VGO feedstock considered for this economic evaluation will be a 55 000 b/d blend of straight-run VGO and heavy coker gas oil with 4.2 wt% sulphur.
References 1 Bonnardot J, et al, Direct Production of Euro-IV Diesel at 10 pm Sulphur via the HyC-10 Process, ERTC 9th Annual Meeting, Nov 2004. 2 Sarrazin P, et al, New mild hydrocracking route produces 10-ppmsulphur diesel, Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 2005. 3 Roux R, et al, Resid to Petrochemicals Technology, ERTC 13th Annual Meeting, Nov 2008. 4 Debuisschert Q, Prime-G+ Commercial Performance of FCC Naphtha Desulphurization Technology, AM-03-26, NPRA Annual Meeting, Mar 2006. 5 Largeteau D, et al, Benzene Management in a MSAT 2 Environment, AM-08-11, NPRA Annual Meeting, Mar 2008. 6 Debuisschert Q, et al, Technology Solutions addressing gasoline and diesel imbalances, Platts European Refining Market 4th Annual Meeting, Sept 2010.

borsig

46 PTQ Q3 2012

www.eptq.com