Some investors want to adopt the following technical approach for oil refining. . . Everyone, take a look and see if it works?

Our plant has a capacity of 1 million units for atmospheric processing, without pressure reduction; there’s also 600,000 units for catalytic cracking, 150,000 units for reforming, and 150,000 units for hydroprocessing. When the scale is small, energy consumption is high, and the cost of utility services is also significant. Given the current situation, it seems unlikely that we will be able to make a profit. Also, how can the octane rating of gasoline produced by the reforming unit be adjusted?

It’s too small, right? Ask how the local refineries in Shandong handle it ? Hehehe

If funds are available, naphtha can be used for isomerization or reforming to produce higher-octane gasoline, or it can be sold directly as a chemical light oil.

1. Using MTBE to boost the octane rating of gasoline is a waste; it would be better to use MMT instead, right? 2. What happens to the coke? If cogeneration is not used to reduce energy consumption, production will be affected by fluctuations in coke prices. 3. Due to insufficient depth of coking and cracking, the olefin content in liquefied gas is high, resulting in limited benefits from recovering propylene from the gas stream. 4. It is recommended to use a combination of atmospheric and vacuum distillation, coking, reforming, hydrogenation, hydrogen production from coker dry gas, desulfurization of liquefied gas and gasoline, hydrogenation of diesel and gasoline, as well as a small-scale sulfur treatment system. If hydrogen is produced, it is necessary to install a CO2 recovery unit along with a small-scale sulfur treatment system; this approach offers good prospects for future profitability. Coke can also be used as a raw material for cogeneration.

Popular designs: coking, catalysis, hydrogenation.

The plan is feasible, but the benefits won’t be very good. A set of isomerization or reforming units for low-octane gasoline.

With only coking involved, the yield of liquefied gas is very limited; on top of that, the amount of olefins is also small. It’s unclear what can be obtained from the gaseous fraction to be used in the production of MTBE How do those coked naphtha products without high-octane components leave the factory?

A small fixed-bed reformer can be used to process large quantities of low-grade naphtha fractions; at the same time, the need for a hydrogen production facility with a capacity of 5,000 cubic meters can be eliminated. After reforming, processes such as aromatic extraction and solvent oil production can be carried out, and these smaller products are quite valuable.

For low-octane gasoline, a small reforming unit is suitable; with an naphtha feed rate of 8%, a fixed-bed reformer with a capacity of 50,000 tons is the best choice.

It is recommended that a practical process route be adopted, namely heavy oil electrodesalting – heavy oil catalysis – extraction of heavy aromatics from the oil slurry, followed by feeding the residue oil to catalysis – gas separation of liquefied gas – small-scale liquid-phase reactor – MTBE production

It’s very stressful, after all, CNPC, Sinopec, and CNOOC are all very powerful.

Currently, delayed coking units with a capacity of less than 800,000 tons **are not allowed to be built**； And it’s only coking; there isn’t much liquefied gas at all. It’s very difficult to produce gas fractions and MTBE, so they should reconsider this carefully

It’s better not to go for small-scale projects; they don’t generate profits and also pollute the environment