Presentation from downstream track at KBC Europe Software User Conference June 2018

1. 18-19.06.2018_London
Head of Process Simulation/simulation process engineer
Klára Kubovicsné Stocz /Laura Szabó
MULTI-UNIT OPTIMISATION OF FCC AND
VGOHTR
REACTOR MODELS IN
PETRO-SIM™

2. AGENDA
1. Introduction of MOL and Danube Refinery
2. Simulation activities at DR
3. VGO HTR and FCC connection
4. Investigations and calculations
a. Background and aim
b. Measured data and calculation steps
c. Financial Results
5. Summary

3. IS AN INTEGRATED, INTERNATIONAL OIL AND GAS COMPANY
IS HEADQUARTERED IN BUDAPEST, HUNGARY
HAS A TRACK RECORD OF OVER 100 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY
HAS LEAD POSITIONS IN OUR HOME MARKETS WITHIN CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE
CORE ACTIVITIES
• CcSEBITDACONTRIBUTIONOFTHEMAINSEGMENTSIN2016(USDMN) ALL FINANCIAL DATA FROM 2016
UPSTREAM
675
DOWNSTREAM
1453
GAS MIDSTREAM
194

4. Tisza
Capacity: 0.0 Mtpa
Zala
Capacity: 0.0 Mtpa
Refineries with no dist. cap.
MOL GROUP REFINERIES
THE PRODUCTS INCLUDE, AMONG OTHERS,
GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, AVIATION FUEL,
LUBRICANTS, BITUMEN, SULPHUR AND LIQUEFIED
PETROLEUM GAS
PRODUCE AND SELL PETROCHEMICALS WORLDWIDE
AND HOLD A LEADING POSITION IN THE
PETROCHEMICAL SECTOR IN THE CENTRAL EASTERN
EUROPE REGION
Refineries
Bratislava
Capacity: 6.1 Mtpa
Danube
Capacity: 8.1 Mtpa
Sisak
Capacity: 2.2 Mtpa
Rijeka
Capacity: 4.5 Mtpa
Mantua
Product logistics hub
Tiszaújváros Bratislava
Petrochemical plants

5. SIMULATION ACTIVITIES
Complete unit models
Column models
Furnace models
Detailed HTX models
Reactor models:
Reformer
VGO HTR
FCC
DCU
NHT
Crude processing evaluation
Column operation checking
HTX monitoring, cleaning strategies
HTX –heat integration
New project support
Operation support
Scheduling support

6. SCHEME OF DR VS SIMULATION MODELS
44 units
Different technologies
Atm. and vac distillation
Reforming
Isomerisation
Aromatic extraction
Fluid catalytic cracking
Desulphurisation
Hydrotreating
Delayed coking
Sulphur recovery
Hydrogen plant
Lube oil and wax production

7. VGO HTR AND FCC CONNECTION
VGOHTRUnit
• VGO HTR unit
Max. Capacity 180 kt/month
Feed properties:
• Sulphur content 1,9-2,35 wt%
Reactors:
• R101/1-2: HDS catalyst in 3 beds
• R101/3-4: HDS catalyst in first bed,
HCK catalyst in second bed
Targets:
• Gasoil Sulphur content 30-60 ppm
• Conversion 23-30 wt%
Raffinate product:
• S content usually 50-200 ppm (max. 400 ppm)
Off gas
LPG
Naphtha
Distillate
Raffinate (FCC feed)
H2 Make-up
Vacuum Gasoil
FCCunit
Gas products
C3s
Naphtha
Light Cycle oil (LCO)
Clarified Oil Product (MCB)
C4s
Heavy Cycle oil (HCO)
Coke
Feed
Treat
gas (H2)
Effluent
R101/1
R101/2
R101/3
R101/4
• FCC unit
Max. Capacity 118,5 kt/month
Feed properties:
• S content 50-200 ppm (can be 400
ppm)
Reactor:
• Reactor riser – regenerator system
Targets:
• Max C3 mixture yield
Petro-SIM™ model

8. Petro-SIM™ model
VGO_HTR
FCC

9. • VGO HTR unit revamp
• Replacement of the catalyst
• Opportunity to increase gasoil yield via raising VGO conversion (from 28 wt% to max 43wt%
vs. feed)
• Raffinate product better quality results in better FCC yields (more hydrogenated feed
to FCC).
STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS
ASSUMPTION
AIM
• Define the impact of yield increase at VGO HTR on Raffinate product properties
• Evaluation of impact of HTR enhancement on FCC conversion
• (investigating separately FCC and VGO HTR then the two unit together)
• Find the optimal operating parameter set
• Filter out the feed variance effect

10. • Measured data is filtered
• The feed of the unit is always
changing in the real life – aromatic
content, S content, SPG, ABP etc.
• At the model calculations the feed
properties were not varied
STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS
MEASURED DATA AND CALCULATION
420
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
18,00 23,00 28,00 33,00 38,00 43,00
ABT(°C)
VGO HTR conversion (wt%)
Measured parameters
ABP Volume average Boiling Temp
0,884
0,886
0,888
0,89
0,892
0,894
0,896
0,898
18,00 23,00 28,00 33,00 38,00 43,00
SPG
VGO HTR conversion (wt%)
Measured and Calc. parameters
Bottom Spec Grav. (Measured) Bottom Spec. Grav (Model calc)
• 1st study: compare measured and calculated parameters at VGO HTR by using calibrated model as base
case
Yellow : unit /measured parameters
Blue: model/calculated parameters

11. Pure comparison of VGO HTR conversion to FCC yields is not entirely correct, because
• Yields rather depend on FCC Unit`s parameters than VGO HTR conversion level.
• Other issues in real life:
• Ratio of direct and stored feed into FCC
• FCC parameters, particularly Rx outlet temperature (ROT)
• Operating mode, e.g. ZSM addition, ZSM-5 concentration in catalyst inventory, LLCO mode, HCO cut, etc.
All in all, real life data indicated above do not help too much to define right correlation because of ever changing FCC
conditions.
STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS
MEASURED DATA AND CALCULATION STEPS
• 2nd study: real plant data about FCC feed quality vs. FCC yields
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fuel gas C3 mix C4 Gasoline LCO HCO Residue Coke
Yields(wt%)
FCC yields at Low Riser Temperature
Low VGO HTR conversion Medium VGO HTR conversion High VGO HTR conversion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fuel gas C3 mix C4 Gasoline LCO HCO Residue Coke
Yields(wt%)
FCC yields at Medium Riser Temperature
Low VGO HTR conversion Medium VGO HTR conversion High VGO HTR conversion

12. -0,12%
1,01%
1,52%
1,91%
-1,08%
-0,49%
-2,68%
-0,06%
-4,0% -3,0% -2,0% -1,0% 0,0% 1,0% 2,0% 3,0% 4,0%
Fuel gas
C3 mix
C4
Gasoline
LCO
HCO
Residue
Coke
Yield deviation
Effect of higher
conversion
(lower SPG)
• FCC max. potential throughput may decrease in real life!! (Available raffinate decreases)
• The operating conditions are similar in both cases. Simplifictaions made in the model:
• only direct feed source (from VGO HTR).
• Rx outlet temperature (ROT) same
• no ZSM addition
Model calculation
STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS
MEASURED DATA AND CALCULATION STEPS
Given ranges based on
measured data
Conversion increase is
4,26%
• Effect of SPG decrease at FCC
feed
• effect of decrease feed Mass
Flow
• 3,31 wt% increase in conversion
because of decreasing SPG
• 0,95 wt% because of LSHV
decreasing
• summa 4,26 wt% increase in
FCC conversion
 ~ 1,2 M$/month (at maximum
FCC capacity)
Rule of thumb is: if the feed SG decreases by -0,01 g/l conversion
increases by 2,5% (sometimes can go up to 3-4%).
FCC conversion 79,06 83,32
FCC feed t/month 118500 107000
Conversion change means naphtha and lighter products yield changing together
MODEL with real SPG CALCULATIONS
VGO_HTR conv 21% 40%
LS VGO SPG 0.8960 0.8860
VGO_HTR

13. • 3rd study: VGO HTR and FCC models were modelled together
(max VGO HTR feed)
The reason of studying the two unit together - Although decrease of SPG at FCC feed causes conversion increase at FCC unit
but if VGO HTR is operated on higher conversion the FCC can not operate on maximum capacity  profit increase is not obvious
(FCC feed decreases ~10%)
STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS
MEASURED DATA AND CALCULATION STEPS
• Model calculation – conversion and yields and SPG are calulated
by the model
VGO_HTR conversion range 25 wt% - 40 wt%
VGO_HTR Raffinate SPG (25%) = 0,8911
VGO_HTR Raffinate SPG (40%) = 0,8888
Impact on FCC yields ---- > 1,27 wt% increase in FCC conversion

14. Results of Pessimistic estimation
(Increasing FCC conv. by only 1,27 % - 0,3 wt% increase in conversion
because of decreasing SPG and 0,98 wt% because of LSHV decrease)
Higher conversion in HDS (40 wt%)  697 k$/month
INVESTIGATIONS AND CALCULATIONS
FINANCIAL RESULTS

15. • Operating VGO_HTR on higher conversion is more valuable
• Further questions:
• SPG Sensitivity is realistic? ---> Test Run (VGO_HTR+FCC together, at the same time with VGO_HTR
Guarantee test run)
• Further tasks:
• Calculating with Hydrogen consumption and price at financial calculation
• Validating VGO HTR reactor model calculation of VGO HTR conversion effect on Raffinate SPG –
Testing HCK reactor model for MHCK unit
• Result of this evaluation will take attention our DS 2022 program
SUMMARY

16. 16
Thank you for your kind attention!