RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

  • Anton ALVAREZ-MAJMUTOV ,
  • Jinwen CHEN
Expand
  • Natural Resources Canada, CanmetENERGY, One Oil Patch Drive, Devon, AB, T9G 1A8, Canada

Received date: 11 Mar 2014

Accepted date: 17 Apr 2014

Published date: 22 May 2014

Copyright

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

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: coking-based 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 coker-based scheme (94 wt-% vs. 76 wt-%), it consumes more energy and is therefore more CO2-intensive (413.2 kg CO2/m3SCO vs. 216.4 kg CO2/m3SCO). 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.

Cite this article

Anton ALVAREZ-MAJMUTOV , Jinwen CHEN . Analyzing the energy intensity and greenhouse gas emission of Canadian oil sands crude upgrading through process modeling and simulation[J]. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2014 , 8(2) : 212 -218 . DOI: 10.1007/s11705-014-1424-z

Acknowledgments

Partial funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Interdepartmental Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD 1.1.3). Comments and suggestions from Dr. Edward Little and Dr. Chandra Khulbe on revising the manuscript are greatly appreciated. The authors are grateful for the support and help from IT staff at CanmetENERGY.
1
McKellarJ M, CharpentierA D, BergersonJ A, MacLeanH 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

DOI

2
BurkhardJ, ForrestJ, GrossS. Oil sands, greenhouse gases, and European oil supply: Getting the numbers right. IHS CERA Special Report, April 2011

3
Environment Canada. 1990-2010: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. National Inventory Report, 2012

4
FurmiskyE. Emissions of carbon dioxide from tar sands plants in Canada. Energy & Fuels, 2003, 17(6): 1541-1548

DOI

5
Environment Canada. Canada’s Emissions Trends. October 2013

6
Ordorica-GarciaG, CroisetE, DouglasP, ElkamelA, GuptaM. Modeling the energy demands and greenhouse gas emissions of the Canadian oil sands industry. Energy & Fuels, 2007, 21(4): 2098-2111

DOI

7
CharpentierA D, BergersonJ A, MacLeanH L. Understanding the Canadian oil sands industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 2009, 4(1): 1-11

DOI

8
Alvarez-MajmutovA, ChenJ, MunteanuM. Simulation of bitumen upgrading processes. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, 2013, Q2: 31-35

9
SaylesS, RomeroS. Understand differences between thermal and hydrocracking. Hydrocarbon Processing, 2011, September: 37-44

10
YuiS. Producing quality synthetic crude oil from Canadian oil sands bitumen. Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute, 2008, 51(1): 1-13

DOI

11
YuiS, ChungK H. Processing oil sands bitumen is Syncrude’s R&D focus. Oil & Gas Journal, 2001, 99(17): 46-53

12
MorawskiI, Mosio-MosiewskiJ. 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

DOI

13
Danial-FortainP, GauthierT, MerdrignacI, BudzinskiH. Reactivity study of Athabasca vacuum residue in hydroconversion conditions. Catalysis Today, 2010, 150(3-4): 255-263

DOI

14
YuiS, SanfordE. 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

DOI

15
YuiS. Removing diolefins from coker naphtha necessary before hydrotreating. Oil & Gas Journal, 1999, 97(36): 64-67

16
ChangA F, LiuY 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

DOI

17
AncheytaJ. Modeling and simulation of catalytic reactors for petroleum refining. Hoboken, N J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011, 211-308

18
NyoberJ. 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

19
SpathP L, MannM K. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via natural gas reforming. Technical Report NREL/TP-570-27637, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, February 2001

Outlines

/