Advertisement

Analyzing the energy intensity and greenhouse gas emission of Canadian oil sands crude upgrading through process modeling and simulation

  • Anton Alvarez-Majmutov
  • Jinwen ChenEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

This paper presents an evaluation of the energy intensity and related greenhouse gas/CO2 emissions of integrated oil sands crude upgrading processes. Two major oil sands crude upgrading schemes currently used in Canadian oil sands operations were investigated: cokingbased and hydroconversion-based. The analysis, which was based on a robust process model of the entire process, was constructed in Aspen HYSYS and calibrated with representative data. Simulations were conducted for the two upgrading schemes in order to generate a detailed inventory of the required energy and utility inputs: process fuel, steam, hydrogen and power. It was concluded that while hydroconversion-based scheme yields considerably higher amount of synthetic crude oil (SCO) than the cokerbased scheme (94 wt-% vs. 76 wt-%), it consumes more energy and is therefore more CO2-intensive (413.2 kg CO2/m3 SCO vs. 216.4 kg CO2/m3 SCO). This substantial difference results from the large amount of hydrogen consumed in the ebullated-bed hydroconverter in the hydroconversion-based scheme, as hydrogen production through conventional methane steam reforming is highly energy-intensive and therefore the major source of CO2 emission. Further simulations indicated that optimization of hydroconverter operating variables had only a minor effect on the overall CO2 emission due to the complex trade-off effect between energy inputs.

Keywords

Oil sands crude upgrading hydroconversion process modeling greenhouse gas emissions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McKellar J M, Charpentier A D, Bergerson J A, MacLean H L. A life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective on liquid fuels from unconventional Canadian and US fossil sources. International Journal of Global Warming, 2009, 1(1–3): 160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burkhard J, Forrest J, Gross S. Oil sands, greenhouse gases, and European oil supply: Getting the numbers right. IHS CERA Special Report, April 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Environment Canada. 1990–2010: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. National Inventory Report, 2012Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furmisky E. Emissions of carbon dioxide from tar sands plants in Canada. Energy & Fuels, 2003, 17(6): 1541–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Environment Canada. Canada’s Emissions Trends. October 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ordorica-Garcia G, Croiset E, Douglas P, Elkamel A, Gupta M. Modeling the energy demands and greenhouse gas emissions of the Canadian oil sands industry. Energy & Fuels, 2007, 21(4): 2098–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charpentier A D, Bergerson J A, MacLean H L. Understanding the Canadian oil sands industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 2009, 4(1): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alvarez-Majmutov A, Chen J, Munteanu M. Simulation of bitumen upgrading processes. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, 2013, Q2: 31–35Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sayles S, Romero S. Understand differences between thermal and hydrocracking. Hydrocarbon Processing, 2011, September: 37–44Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yui S. Producing quality synthetic crude oil from Canadian oil sands bitumen. Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute, 2008, 51(1): 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yui S, Chung K H. Processing oil sands bitumen is Syncrude’s R&D focus. Oil & Gas Journal, 2001, 99(17): 46–53Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morawski I, Mosio-Mosiewski J. Effects of parameters in Ni-Mo catalysed hydrocracking of vacuum residue on composition and quality of obtained products. Fuel Processing Technology, 2006, 87(7): 659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danial-Fortain P, Gauthier T, Merdrignac I, Budzinski H. Reactivity study of Athabasca vacuum residue in hydroconversion conditions. Catalysis Today, 2010, 150(3–4): 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yui S, Sanford E. Mild hydrocracking of bitumen-derived coker and hydrocracker heavy gas oils: Kinetics, product yields, and product properties. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1989, 28(9): 1278–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yui S. Removing diolefins from coker naphtha necessary before hydrotreating. Oil & Gas Journal, 1999, 97(36): 64–67Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang A F, Liu Y A. Predictive modeling of large-scale integrated refinery reaction and fractionation systems from plant data. Part 1: Hydrocracking processes. Energy & Fuels, 2011, 25(11): 5264–5297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ancheyta J. Modeling and simulation of catalytic reactors for petroleum refining. Hoboken, N J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011, 211–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyober J. A review of energy consumption in Canadian oil sands operations: Heavy oil upgrading 1990, 1994 to 2001. Canadian Industry Energy End-use Data and Analysis Centre, 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spath P L, Mann M K. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via natural gas reforming. Technical Report NREL/TP-570-27637, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, February 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources CanadaCanmetENERGYDevonCanada

Personalised recommendations