Regarding C5, C6 isomerization

The process selection is primarily determined based on the properties of the raw materials and the requirements of the product. For example, the higher the required octane rating of the product, the greater the amount of material that needs to be processed – up to 93 in some cases, while for a one-pass processing method the minimum value is around 82. If the raw material contains a high proportion of isopentane, an upstream isopentane removal step can also be employed. In short, the choice depends on the composition of the raw materials and the desired octane rating; the higher the requirements, the greater the costs involved. As for patent holders, abroad UOP and Axens are the most prominent companies, both of which are highly experienced in this field; UOP alone accounts for almost half of the market share. GTC from the United States is another notable player. In China, the main company in this area is the China Petroleum Research Institute

Is the technology of the Institute of Rock Mechanics mature? I don’t seem to have heard of any apps for that. We’ve also heard about GT; they boast a lot, but they can’t show any results in the domestic market

The octane number of the process in a single pass is around 82, while some cyclic processes can achieve around 88； It mainly depends on the situation with your blended oils

To be honest, the process package developed by GTC is quite poor – it’s nothing but hype; its quality is far inferior to that of UOP or Axens. The Penex process used by UOP presented significant challenges: the catalysts had extremely strict requirements regarding water, sulfur, and nitrogen, and continuous chlorine addition was necessary; moreover, hydrochloric acid gas had to be treated with alkaline solutions. As a result, both raw material purification and the handling of waste alkaline residues posed serious difficulties. However, UOP’s Par-Isom process avoids these problems, and it seems to work quite well. I don’t have much experience with Axens’ processes, but it appears that their quality is roughly on par with UOP’s – both are acceptable

In terms of domestic technology, the Shihezi Institute of Petroleum is quite good; if the requirements regarding the RON value of the product are not high, the technology available at this institute is sufficient to meet those needs. The key to isomerization lies in the development of catalysts, and the associated processes are already well-established. The catalysts used by the Shihezi Institute are likely of medium-temperature type, which requires the use of heating furnaces, resulting in higher investment costs. However, domestic technology is definitely much cheaper than that of UOP. With the recent upgrade to National Standard IV, there has been a greater focus on isomerization technologies, which is a positive development for China

You can visit UOP’s official website to learn more about their catalysts; they can meet the requirements for various raw materials and products, with a RON ranging from 80 to 93. http://www.honeywell-uop.cn/products/catalyst/isomerization/#isomerization-catalysts

Does the process using UOP’s Par-Isom catalyst not require a recycle hydrogen compressor? What are the other domestic technology manufacturers?

The data provided by several technology manufacturers is generally similar, but in terms of manufacturing processes, which one is relatively better?

Well, the good ones are expensive while the inferior ones are cheap – it depends on what your boss decides. But I strongly advise against using GTC

For isomerization, it requires reforming support. There are two UOP technologies, for low and medium temperatures. From a process perspective, the process used with the Par-Isom catalyst is superior, but why do many companies in China choose low-temperature chlorination catalysts?