Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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): 160–178

    Article  Google 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 2011

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Environment Canada. 1990–2010: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. National Inventory Report, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Furmisky E. Emissions of carbon dioxide from tar sands plants in Canada. Energy & Fuels, 2003, 17(6): 1541–1548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Environment Canada. Canada’s Emissions Trends. October 2013

    Google 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): 2098–2111

    CAS  Article  Google 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): 1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Alvarez-Majmutov A, Chen J, Munteanu M. Simulation of bitumen upgrading processes. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, 2013, Q2: 31–35

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sayles S, Romero S. Understand differences between thermal and hydrocracking. Hydrocarbon Processing, 2011, September: 37–44

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Yui S. Producing quality synthetic crude oil from Canadian oil sands bitumen. Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute, 2008, 51(1): 1–13

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Yui S, Chung K H. Processing oil sands bitumen is Syncrude’s R&D focus. Oil & Gas Journal, 2001, 99(17): 46–53

    CAS  Google 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): 659–669

    CAS  Article  Google 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): 255–263

    CAS  Article  Google 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): 1278–1284

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Yui S. Removing diolefins from coker naphtha necessary before hydrotreating. Oil & Gas Journal, 1999, 97(36): 64–67

    CAS  Google 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): 5264–5297

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ancheyta J. Modeling and simulation of catalytic reactors for petroleum refining. Hoboken, N J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011, 211–308

    Book  Google 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, 2003

    Google 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 2001

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinwen Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alvarez-Majmutov, A., Chen, J. Analyzing the energy intensity and greenhouse gas emission of Canadian oil sands crude upgrading through process modeling and simulation. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 8, 212–218 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-014-1424-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Oil sands crude upgrading
  • hydroconversion
  • process modeling
  • greenhouse gas emissions