Removing High Sulphur Bunker from the Refineries:
Eni’s case study
Raffaele Fronteddu
Proposal Manager
Licensing Commercial Development
Refining & Marketing - Eni S.p.A
CIS Downstream SummitVienna, 28th- 30th November, 2016
IMO new regulation for Bunker and impact on Refineries 1
Bottom of the Barrel conversion: Eni’s novel approach2
3 Case Study: EST Project in Sannazzaro Refinery
Content
2
IMO new regulation for Bunker and impact on Refineries 1
In all Emission Controlled Areas the limit on sulphur content in Bunker is 0.1%wt
Starting from 2020, the global sulphur content in Bunker will be limited to 0.5%wt
International Maritime Organization: new regulation for Bunker
3
Why a new Bunker specification?
4
About 1/3 of the world’s total shipping traffic either trades to seaports or passes
through the Mediterranean (less than 1% world water surface)
Low sulphur Bunker will have significant impact
on SO2 emission reduction in all coastal areas
Impact on Bunker market
According to a CE Delft study, in 2020 (base case projection):
Global marine fuel demand will be 320 Mt/y
The use of HSFO for ships equipped with scrubbers will be limited to 36 Mt/y
The demand of LNG as alternative fuel will be limited to 12 Mt/y
»The shift to low sulphur marine bunker in 2020 will result in thesubstitution of up to 233 Mt/y of heavy high sulphur fuel oils
Shipping Industry alternatives:
Scrubbing technology (Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems) on board to limit SOx
Adapt to alternative fuels (LNG, methanol, biofuels, LPG, DME, etc.)
» expensive retrofitting of existing fleets + need for new port infrastructure
5
Refinery side alternatives:
Change in crude diet for ultra low sulphur crudes processing (North Sea, Africans, Siberian Light, Azery, CPC Blend)
» ULS crudes price (sweet/sour spread increasing) = lower margin
Destroy (Gasification)
» economically sustainable?
Upgradation:
Coking
» Petcoke issue (moreover after COP21)
Fixed bed hydroconversion
» limited in feed flexibility, low conversion
LC Fining
» low conversion with high S residue (problem reduced but not solved)
Slurry Hydrocracking
» Eni’s novel approach
6
Impact on Refineries
7
Ebullating Bed LC-Finer by CLG25,000 BPSD - since 1998Residue unstable at high conversionUnconverted bottom disposal
Tar Gasification by Shell G.S.400,000 TPY - 200 MWesince 2005
Product is electric energy
Delayed Coking by Kellogg 4,600 TPD - since 1963
Delayed Coking by Conoco3,300 TPD - since 1990Loss of liquid yield Coke disposal
Fixed Bed RHU by Shell 25,000 BPSD - since 1995 Low bottom conversionLow feed flexibilityLimited run length
Eni’s experience
IMO new regulation for Bunker and impact on Refineries1
Bottom of the Barrel conversion: Eni’s novel approach 2
3 Case Study: EST Project in Sannazzaro Refinery
Content
8
Demo Plant activities
2000 2010
Start of R&D activities
1990
Pilot Plantstart-up
Commercial Demonstration Plant start-up
First CommercialPlant Start-up
Commercial Unit in Operation
1995 2005 2015
Pilot Plant activities
Research and Development activities
First License
Agreement
9
Eni’s novel approach: E.S.T. Development Road
Nanometric Catalyst
Slurry bubble column reactors
homogeneous and isothermal
No risk of runaway (intrinsically safe)
Recycling scheme for stability and
high conversion
10
Eni’s novel approach: catalyst, reactor and scheme
6 nm
EST Catalyst EST Reactor
EST Scheme
EST vs. Other Processes – volumetric yields comparison
Coke(as wt.%)
Ebullated bed ESTDelayed coking
• Higherconversion to desideredproducts(>95%wt FF)
• 35% productsyields (in volume) higherthan DC and EB
11
LC BottomPitch
IMO new regulation for Bunker and impact on Refineries1
Bottom of the Barrel conversion: Eni’s novel approach2
3 Case Study: EST Project in Sannazzaro Refinery
Content
12
Case Study: EST Project in Sannazzaro Refinery
13
14
Diesel
LPG
Gasoline
Kero
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
HDS1/2
HDS3
Reformer
1/2/3
TIP
ALKMTBE
Fuel Oil
Bitumen
Pitch
Sannazzaro Refinery - flow scheme before EST
HDC1/2
VACUUM
FCC
VSB
IGAS
Syngas
DEASP
C
D
U
15
Sannazzaro Refinery - flow scheme with EST integration
C
D
U
DEASPEST Bitumen
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
LPG
EST Complex Timeline and Lay-out
Auxiliaries:- Steam Reforming- Sulphur Recovery- Amine Treatment- Cooling Water- Flare
Bunkerized control room
Slurry section
Diesel and VGO
Hydrotreating section
Pitch Storage and loading station
16
Jan 2009
SiteActivities
ESTOil-in
Nov 2010
Jan 2013
Jul 2013
Oct2013
FEEDstart
Steam ReformerStart-up
ESTCommissioning
EST product yields and quality
Naphtha Sulfur <5 wtppm Nitrogen <5 wtppm
Diesel (Euro V spec) Sulfur < 5 wtppm Nitrogen <5 wtppm Cetane Index min 51 Polyaromatics < 8.0 wt%
VGO (new IMO Bunker spec or to HDC/FCC) Sulfur <500 wtppm Nitrogen <500 wtppm Metals <1 wtppm
Vacuum Residue
+FCC Oil
Hydrogen make-up
Catalyst make-up
EST
Hydrotreating
LPG
Purge
VGO
17
Naphtha
AGO
EST feed flexibility: SNZ Experience
Vacuum Residue from 19 different crudes
18
19
Eni’s approach to fuel quality evolution
Eni policy approach on product quality is to anticipate environmental legislation
Specification Eni commitment(year)
Legislation Endorsement(year)
Zero Lead Gasoline 1987 2000
1%vol max Benzene 1997 2000
10 wtppm S Diesel 2002 2009
10 wtppm S Gasoline 2004 2009
2%wt PNA Diesel 2010 locally, 2016 To be defined
10% renewable Diesel 2016 2020
0,1%wt S Bunker 2016 2020
Thanks to the implementation of EST, Eni has achieved the sulfur specifications in
all fuels responsible for large amounts of SO2 emissions
Conclusion
A new product specification will impact on oil refining business.
The new sulphur specification completes the sulphur removal in allfuels, with very beneficial effects on the environment
Eni has heavily invested in R&D of new deep conversiontechnologies. This has originated EST technology, suitable for theproduction of light distillates and low sulfur bunker fuel <0.5%and/or <0.1%.
Eni is already capable of producing today from its SannazzaroRefinery over 400 kt/year of Bunker with sulfur less than 0.5% S(0.1% for ECAs areas).
20
