SECTION B:

RESIDUAL OIL
PROCESSING
 CHAPTER 8

SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Further separation of vacuum residue into fractions by distillation

without decomposition is very difficult and very expensive. It is not
practiced commercially. Solvent extraction offers a non-destructive
means of accomplishing this. In solvent extraction, separation is
primarily by type of compound and only secondarily by number of
carbon atoms per molecule.
Solvent deasphalting (SDA) was originally developed as a
means of removing asphaltenes from lubricating oil feedstock.
More recently it has become a means of obtaining additional cat-
alytic cracking feed from residual oil. The deasphalted oil (DAO)
has lower carbon residue and metals content than the untreated
oil. As we shall see, the extent to which these factors are lowered
is primarily a function of the amount of DAO recovered, and this
can be controlled.
The carbon residue content effects the amount of coke
deposited on the cat cracker catalyst and the metals decrease the
activity of (or poison) the catalyst. SDA is not so effective in low-
ering sulfur or nitrogen content in the DAO.
SDA is sometimes combined with visbreaking or coking in a
refinery process scheme. It can be employed in an indirect scheme to
produce low sulfur fuel oil from resid. The DAO can be desulfurized
and blended with the asphalt to produce a given sulfur content more
easily and at much lower cost than by the direct desulfurization of
the vacuum resid itself.1,2

101
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

SDA process description

The process is a typical extraction process involving partitioning of the
residual oil into two or more fractions on the basis of relative solubility in
a solvent. The solvent is normally a light hydrocarbon such as propane,
butane, pentane, or hexane. The mixture of oil and solvent is allowed to
separate into a DAO-rich fraction and an asphalt-rich fraction. Solvent is
stripped from each fraction and reused. Figure 8-1 is a typical simplified
process flow diagram.

Fig. 81 Solvent Deasphalting Unit

A recent development in SDA technology involves operating above the

critical temperature of the solvent in the DAO-solvent separator resulting
in a significant reduction in energy required by the process.
Also, some processes provide for the separation of an intermediateor
resinfraction. Whether or not this is practiced depends on the ultimate
use of the asphalt, since resins have a significant effect on the properties of
asphaltenes.3

SDA data correlation

Table 8-1 is a tabulation of the data gleaned from the references listed
as their source. This was the database for the various correlations developed

102
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

for reduction of the following properties in the DAO as compared with the
residue feed: Conradson carbon residue, vanadium (V), nickel (Ni), sulfur
(S), nitrogen (N), and API gravity.
At first glance, the size of the database is impressive, with 114 sets of
data. However, on close inspection it can be seen that there are many gaps
in the data. As a result, the number of complete, usable sets available to
explore a particular variable is usually considerably less than this number.
More sources reported volume percent of feed for DAO yield (91) than
reported weight percent (34). A total of 11 sets gave both volume and
weight yields.

Table 81 Solvent Deasphalting Unit

103
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Table 81 Solvent Deasphalting Unit contd

104
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Table 81 Solvent Deasphalting Unit contd

105
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Data were generally given for S, Conradson carbon residue, and API.
N, Ni, and V were less frequently given. Viscosity data were very sparse and
were not studied.
Table 8-2 is a summary of results of solvent deasphalting correlations.
The yield of DAO was chosen as the primary independent variable. Both
weight percent and volume percent were tried. With one exception, API of
DAO, the results were more satisfactory with weight than with volume. This
is despite the fact that there were always more sets of data with volume yield.
In the case of Conradson carbon residue, S, and API, correlation results
were improved by the addition of API to the feed as a second independent
variable. In the case of N, V, and Ni, the square of the yield of DAO was
used as a second independent variable.
Because of almost complete removal of V and Ni at DAO yields below
about 50%, regressions were made using the logarithms of the DAO/feed
ratios as dependent variables to reduce curvature from the resulting graphs.

Table 82 Some Results of Solvent Deasphalting Correlations

106
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

In the literature, V and Ni are frequently combined as a dependent vari-

able. To permit comparison with published correlations, regressions were
made on a volume yield basis with the results shown in Table 8-2.
The correlation of the reduction of Conradson carbon residue as a func-
tion of the weight percent yield of DAO by solvent deasphalting will serve
as an example of the method employed throughout this work.
Table 8-3 is a Lotus tabulation derived from the SDA database includ-
ing only the sets of data germane to this correlation. Note the shrinkage
from 114 sets in the database to 23 sets in Table 8-3. One of the first steps
is to calculate the ratio of Conradson carbon residue in the DAO to the
Conradson carbon residue in the feed. This ratio becomes the dependent
variable or Y. Weight percent (WT%) DAO is the independent variable first
chosen. Since this did not give a satisfactory result (R2 = 0.840), the square
of WT% DAO was added as a second independent variable.
The result of this regression is the one shown in Table 8-3a, with R2 equal
to 0.858. Based on the regression equation, calculated values of the

107
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Table 83 Solvent DeasphaltingConradson Carbon Residue Reduction

108
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Table 83a Solvent DeasphaltingConradson Carbon Residue Reduction

109
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Table 83b Solvent DeasphaltingConradson Carbon Residue Reduction

110
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Table 83c Solvent DeasphaltingConradson Carbon Residue Reduction

111
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Conradson carbon residue ratio were determined. The difference between the
actual (reported) values and the calculated values were then determined.
Comparing these differences with the standard error of the estimate (SEE) of
0.0828, it was seen that several values exceeded SEE significantly. Deleting
the set with the largest difference (-0.18), a second regression was performed
(Table 8-3b). R2 increased to 0.8927 and SEE decreased to 0.0754. Another
difference between the two tables is the sorting of the data table in terms of
increasing WT% DAO to facilitate plotting results later. Again, the set giving
the largest difference was deleted and a third regression was made (Table 8-
3c). This deletion may be questioned, since the difference was only about 1.5
times SEE. In any case the results are as shown, some slight improvement in
R2 and SEE. A graph of the actual data points and the trace of the regression
equation appears as Figure 8-2. For practical purposes, there is no difference
between the traces of the three regression equations.
Figures 8-3 is a composite chart showing the fraction of Conradson carbon
residue, S, N, Ni, V, and Ni + V in the feed remaining in the DAO vs. the weight
percent yield of DAO. Figure 8-4 is a plot of the API of DAO in terms of the

Fig. 82 Solvent Deasphalt CCR Reduction

112
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Fig. 83 SDA Yields

API of the feed and the liquid volume percent yield of DAO. Figure 8-5 is a plot
of liquid volume percent yield of DAO vs. weight percent yield.

Comparison with other correlations

A number of correlations of SDA results have been published. All have
used yield of DAO, either volume percent or weight percent, as the primary
independent variable. Agreement between the author's results and some of
these correlations has ranged from good to not-so-good, as illustrated by the
accompanying tabulations.
Bonilla's data were on a volume yield basis,4 so it was necessary to
make some additional regressions for comparison purposes. On the whole,
the author's results checked very well with Bonilla's data (Table 8-4).
Selvidge and Watkins presented data on UOP's DEMEX process for
demetallizing resids.5 The author's correlations agreed well with their API

113
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Fig. 84 API Gravity of DAO vs. Yield of DAO

Fig. 85 Lv% vs. Wt% DAO

114
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Table 84 Comparison of Correlation Results with Reference4

and S data and fairly well on Conradson carbon residue and Ni. Results on
V were not as optimistic as theirs (Table 8-5).
Viloria, et al., studied Boscan crude.6 Agreement on Conradson carbon
residue and V is fair; on the others, not so good (Table 8-6).
Ditman presented data on seven oils.2 A comparison with Ditman's
average values is not good. Few of the author's values fall within the range

115
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Table 85 Comparison of Correlation Results with Reference5

of his results (Table 8-7). Ditman's data were on a volume yield basis, so
the author's data were read from weight basis results after converting the
volume percents to weight percents by means of the regression performed
for that purpose. It is the author's opinion that this conversion had negligi-
ble effect on the outcome.
In Meyers Handbook of Petroleum Refining Processes, there is a section
on SDA by Bonilla, et al., of Foster Wheeler. One chart is a plot of volume
yield of DAO vs. Conradson carbon residue ratio with API of the feed oil as

116
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Table 86 Comparison of Correlation Results with Reference6

a second parameter. A regression by the author on this same basis resulted in

the chart shown. Agreement with Bonilla, et al., is fairly good, with the
author's curves lying slightly within the area defined by their curves. The
other correlations, all on a volume yield basis, were not checked.

117
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Table 87 Comparison of Correlation Results with Reference 2

On the whole, while it would be desirable to have exact agreement with

all other sources, it is thought that the results obtained are satisfactory for
general study purposes.

Operating requirements
Unlike most refinery processes, SDA operating requirements are more
dependent on type of solvent and solvent-to-feed ratio than on the feed rate.
However, the following set of average values can be safely used in the
absence of more specific information, especially since most processes not
using supercritical separation are using multi-effect evaporation. The quan-
tities are on a per barrel of feed basis.

Electric power 2 kWh

Steam 60 pounds
Fuel 80 kBtu
Cooling water nil

118
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Capital costs
Five capital cost values from the literature in the past 10 years were
scaled to a capacity of 30,000 BPD using a 0.7 exponent and to the first of
January, 1991 using the Nelson-Farrar cost indices as shown in the follow-
ing tabulation:

Time Size Escalated

Bbl/Day mm$ Year Index
Factor Factor Cost, mm$
13,776 13.1 81 903.8 1.374 1.724 31.0 *
20,000 26. 90 1211 1.025 1.328 35.4 **
15,000 20.3 8/90 1226 1.013 1.624 33.4 ***
30,000 30. 89 1191 1.043 1.000 31.3
12,000 16. 82 976.9 1.271 1.899 38.6
Average 33.9

*.Silkonia, et al., Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 5, 1981, p.145

**.Anon., Hydrocarbon Processing, November, 1990, p. 88
***.Ibid, p. 90
.Ibid, p. 90
.Anon., Chemical Engineering, March 22, 1982, p. 35

An average value of $34 million for a 30,000 BPD SDA unit at the
beginning of 1991 can be used as a point of departure for estimating costs
of other units different in size and time in the manner shown.

Notes
1. Billon, A., Peries, J.P., Fehr, E., and Lorenz, E., Oil & Gas
Journal, January 24, 1973, pp. 4348

2. Ditman, J.G., Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1973, pp. 110113

3. Newcomer, R.M., and Soltau, R.C., Successful Operation of the

Rose Process, 1982 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio

119
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

4. Bonilla, J.A., Delayed Coking and Solvent Deasphalting:

Options for Residue Upgrading, AIChE National Meeting,
Anaheim, June 1982

5. Selvidge, C.W., and Watkins, C.H., Demetallizing Vacuum

Residuals by the Demex Process, UOP 1973 Technology
Conference, Des Plaines, Illinois

6. Viloria, D.A., Krasuk, J.H., Rodriguez, O., Buenfama, H., and

Lubowitz, J., Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1977, pp.
109113

7. Bonilla, J.A., Feintuch, H.M., and Godino, R.L., pp. 819

through 851 in Meyers Handbook of Petroleum Refining
Processes, McGrawHill, New York, 1986

8. Silkonia et al., Oil & Gas Journal, October 5, 1981, p. 145

9. Anon., Hydrocarbon Processing, Nov. 1990, p. 88

10. Ibid, p. 90

11. Ibid, p. 90

12. Anon., Chemical Engineering, Mar. 22, 1982, p. 35

References
Anon., Solvent Decarbonizing, Kelloggram, 1956 Series, No. 3

Billon, A., Peries, J.P., Fehr, E., and Lorenz, E., Oil & Gas Journal,
January 24, 1977, pp. 4348

Bonilla, J.A., Delayed Coking and Solvent Deasphalting: Options

for Residue Upgrading, AIChE National Meeting, Anaheim,
California, June 1982

Ditman, J.G., Heat Engineering, Vol. XXXX, No. 5,

SeptemberOctober 1965

120
 CHAPTER 8 SOLVENT DEASPHALTING

Ditman, J.G., and Zahnstecher, L.W., Solvent Deasphalting for the

Production of Catalytic CrackingHydrocracking Feed &
Asphalt, NPRA National Meeting, San Francisco, March 1971

Ditman, J.G., Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1973, pp. 110113

Ditman, J.G., Oil & Gas Journal, February 18, 1974, pp. 8485

Gearhart, J.A., and Garwin, L., Oil & Gas Journal, June 14, 1976,
pp. 6366

Gearhart, J.A., Hydrocarbon Processing, May 1980, pp. 150151

Nelson, S.R., and Roodman, R.G., Chemical Engineering Progress,

May, 1985, p. 63

Marple, S., Jr., Train, K.E., and Foster, F.D., Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 57, No. 12, 1961, pp. 4448

Newcomer, R.M., and Soltau, R.C., Sucessful Operation of the Rose

Process, NPRA National Meeting, San Antonio, March 1982

Nysewander, C.W., and Durland, L.V., Oil & Gas Journal, March 23,
1950, pp. 216218

Penning, R.T., Vickers, A.G., and Shah, B.R., Hydrocarbon

Processing, May 1982, pp. 145150

Rossi, W.J., Deighton, B.S., and MacDonald, A.J., Hydrocarbon

Processing, May, 1977, pp. 105110

Selvidge, C.W., and Watkins, C.H., Demetallizing Vacuum

Residuals by the DEMEX Process, UOP 1973 Technology
Conference, Des Plaines, Illinois

Selvidge, C.W., and Ocampo, F., Processing High Metal Residues by

the Demex Process, NPRA National Meeting, San Antonio,
April 1973

Sherwood, H.D., Oil & Gas Journal, March 27, 1978, pp. 148158

Sinkar, S.R., Oil & Gas Journal, September 30, 1974, pp. 5664

121
PETROLEUM REFINERY P ROCESS ECONOMICS

Sprague, S.B., How Solvent Selection Affects Extraction

Performance, NPRA National Meeting, Los Angeles, March
1986

Thegze, V.B., Wall, R.J., Train, K.E., and Olney, R.B., Oil & Gas
Journal, May 8, 1961, pp. 9094

Viloria, D.A., Krasuk, J.H., Rodriguez, O., Buenafama, H., and

Lubkowitz, J., Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1977, pp.
109113

122