Environmental Review
Educational Sessions
Chevron Revised Renewal Project
Refinery Energy Efficiency Considerations
April 4, 2012
6 pm to 8 pm
1
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND
EDUCATION
2
Environmental Review
Educational Sessions
Educational Sessions
 July 25:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Accounting
 August 22:
Health Risk Assessment for
Airborne Emissions
 September 29:
Refinery 101
 October 19:
Guidelines
CEQA 101 and New BAAQMD
 April 4, 2012:
Energy Efficiency
3
CEQA
Environmental Review
Educational Sessions
Purpose - review basic information helpful for
understanding topics addressed in EIRs
Educational Sessions are being held prior to
the publication of the Draft Revised EIR
Educational Sessions are general in nature
and independent of any specific project
4
4
Environmental Review
Educational Sessions
Purpose of Educational Session is not to
review or discuss specific elements or potential
effects of the Chevron Revised Renewal
Project.
There will be future opportunities to ask
questions and provide comments specific to
the Revised Project and Revised EIR.
5
5
Environmental Review
Educational Sessions
Anticipated Review Sessions for Revised Draft
EIR
 Intensive 1-Day “guided tour” of Draft Revised
EIR
 Technical Workshop: Draft Revised EIR
overview and “stations” with technical experts
by topic
 Review Session for Responses to Comments
and Final Revised EIR
6
Tonight’s Meeting
 Agenda
–Presentation
–Questions and Answers
 Participation Protocol
7
Tonight’s Meeting
Participation Protocol
 Actively listen
 Respect others
 Wait to be recognized before asking questions
 Allow others an opportunity to speak
 Stay on topic
 Future opportunities to ask questions and provide
comments specific to the Revised Project and EIR
 Questions/comments specific to the Revised Project
will not be addressed
8
Shari Beth Libicki, PhD
Global Air Quality Practice Leader
Prepared numerous air
quality and GHG sections for
EIRs
PhD Chemical Engineering,
Stanford University
Emphasis on emissions
inventories and dispersion
for risk assessments
MS Chemical Engineering,
Stanford University
Development of Air Emission
Reduction Programs
BSE Chemical Engineering,
University of Michigan
Fluent with BAAQMD CEQA
guidelines
9
Experience with industrial
operations
Tonight’s Speakers
Moderator:
Shari Libicki, Ph.D., Global Air Quality Practice Area Leader,
ENVIRON
Introduction to Refinery Operations:
Thomas R. Hogan, Senior Vice President
Turner, Mason & Company
Speakers:
Greg Karras, Senior Scientist,
Communities for a Better Environment
Bill Trout, Vice President,
Refining Studies, Solomon Associates
10
REFINING – ENERGY EFFICIENCY
CONSIDERATIONS
11
Thomas Hogan, P.E.
Sr. Vice President - Turner, Mason & Co.
BS
Chemical Engineering - Michigan
State University – 1971
Formerly
associated with Mobil Oil
and Husky Oil.
 Experienced in refinery planning and economics, linear
programs, petroleum transportation and trading,
environmental assessment, regulatory fuels compliance,
litigation support, and wastewater treating.
 Licensed Professional Engineer (TX)
12
Presentation Objectives
 Basics
of refining
 Refinery Equipment
 Products
 Define energy efficiency
 Describe refinery energy sources
 Outline refinery energy uses
13
Refineries Separate Crude and Transform Hydrocarbons
More energy
required to transform
molecules than to
separate crude
Less energy to
transform heavier
crudes into heavy
products and lighter
crudes into lighter
products
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crude_Oil_Distillation.png
14
Refinery Configuration (Equipment):
“Topper” “Hydro-skimmer” refinery (few)

Light sweet crudes gasoline

Heavier crudes residual fuel
Cracking refinery

Separates and transforms molecules; heaviest product is
residual fuel
Cracking/coking refinery

Separates and transforms molecules; produces coke rather
than residual fuel
15
Refinery Products
Residual fuel
– Generally low value product, market usually small
Gasoline
– Generally most energy intensive product, many processes
– Predominant product in US
Diesel/Heating oil
– Also energy intensive but not as many processes to produce diesel
– Predominant product in Europe
Specialty Products like Lubes
– Need additional equipment
16
Crude Oil Characteristics: Yields
Distillation vs Refinery Output
Output from distillation
only . . .
Net average products out
of refinery for 2010
More gasoline
No gas oil
Less residual fuel
Volume % gain is 107%
(no weight % gain)
17
From Doe/EIA
What is energy efficiency?

Useful energy/total energy


A compact fluorescent light bulb is
more energy efficient than an
incandescent light bulb because it
turns a higher fraction of the
incoming energy into light rather
than heat
The energy to create an outcome

Passive solar heating is more
efficient than solar electric heating,
as the sun goes directly to heat,
rather than from sun to electricity to
heat
18
Refinery Energy Sources
Refinery fuel gas produced from inputs (all
refineries)
Purchased or generated electricity (all refineries)
Heat recovery (all refineries)
Purchased natural gas (most refineries)
Coke on catalyst produced in the plant (most
refineries)
19
Supplemental Utilities/Facilities
Hydrogen Plant
Steam
Electricity
Storage (for liquids or LPGs)
Loading and unloading
20
Where is Energy Used in a Refinery
Furnaces providing heat to processes
Boilers producing steam
Run lights, instruments, pumps, compressors, etc.
Natural gas as a feed to process unit, i.e.
hydrogen plant
21
THANK YOU FOR
ATTENDING
22
Combustion emissions from refining lower quality oil
Presented at the City of Richmond 4 April 2012
Greg Karras, CBE
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) builds grassroots power to achieve environmental health and justice in
and with communities of color and working class communities using organizing, legal advocacy and science.
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
23
Refinery emissions by region and year
Burning fuels for
process energy emits
CO2 & toxic pollutants
from refineries.
But some refineries
emit more than others.
CO2 emission intensity
ranges by 56% among
U.S. refining regions &
years, from 257 to 401
kg/m3 crude refined.1, 2
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
24
Why?
What causes differences in refinery combustion emissions?
Can it be verified by real-world data from operating refineries?
Can we predict how much it could increase or decrease emissions?
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
25
How CBE did this research
Factors affecting refinery combustion emissions were
identified using petroleum engineering knowledge.
Publicly reported data on these causal factors were gathered
from refineries in actual operation across the U.S. over 10
years and across California over 6 years (~ 5,000 annual data).
Analysis of the data quantified the contributions of the causal
factors and combinations of factors to refinery emissions.
This research was peer reviewed and published by the American
Chemical Society1 and the Union of Concerned Scientists.2
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
26
Crude feed quality data1, 2
Refinery feedstock
varies significantly.
Oil quality (OQ)
was defined as the
density (d) and
sulfur content (S)
of crude feeds.
Observed OQ ranged
by more than 7.8
kg/m3 crude for S and
42 kg/m3 crude for d
among regions & yrs.
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
27
Refining denser, higher sulfur crude requires putting
more of the barrel through aggressive processing that
burns more fuel for energy, increasing emissions
Refineries A and B refine the
same amounts (volumes) of oil.
Refinery B runs low quality oil.
More of the low quality oil goes
through aggressive processing
(vacuum distillation, cracking,
and aggressive hydroprocessing)
at Refinery B.
The extra energy for that added
processing makes Refinery B
burn more fuel/barrel refined.
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
28
Processing intensity data1, 2
Crude processing
intensity (PI) was
defined as the ratio
of vacuum distillation
capacity, conversion
capacity (catalytic,
thermal, and hydrocracking), and crude
stream (gas oil and
residua) hydrotreating capacity to atmospheric crude distillation capacity.
PI ranged by 79%.
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
29
Energy intensity data1, 2
Energy intensity (EI)
was defined as total
refinery process
energy consumed
per volume crude
feed, based on
reported fuels
consumed.
EI ranged by 71%,
from 3.30–5.63 gigajoule per cubic meter
crude (GJ/m3) refined, among these
regions and years.
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
30
Recap:
Petroleum engineering knowledge tells us refining lower quality oil requires
increased processing intensity; this increases refinery energy intensity; and
that increases refinery emissions by burning more fuel for energy.
Real-world data reveal substantial differences in each of these variables
among refining regions and years.
Question:
Can this causal factor be verified by analysis of these real-world data?
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
31
Process intensity (PI) vs oil quality (OQ) — U.S. data
Process intensity is
strongly & positively
associated with worsening oil quality;
OQ can explain 94%
of differences in PI
among regions and
years (US data1).
Chart adapted from
American Chemical
Society.1 For color
key see charts above
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
32
Energy intensity (EI) v process intensity (PI) – U.S. data
Energy intensity is
strongly & positively
associated with
process intensity;
PI can explain 92%
of differences in EI
among regions and
years (US data1).
Chart adapted from
American Chemical
Society.1
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
33
Energy intensity (EI) vs oil quality (OQ) — U.S. data
Energy intensity is
strongly & positively
associated with worsening oil quality;
OQ can explain 90%
of differences in EI
among regions and
years (US data1).
Chart adapted from
American Chemical
Society.1
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
34
EI explained by OQ — including California data
Including California
data & accounting
for nonlinear relationships among
causal factors:
Energy intensity
remains strongly &
positively associated
with worse oil quality;
OQ can explain 97%
of differences in EI
among refining
regions and years.2
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
35
CO2 emissions explained by OQ — including Calif. data
Including California
data & accounting
for nonlinear relationships among
causal factors:
Emissions remain
strongly & positively
associated with OQ;
Oil quality can
explain 96% of differences in emissions
among refining
regions and years.2
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
36
Emission rates cannot be explained by other factors
Fuel mix: CO2 emission impacts due to “dirtier-burning” fuel mixtures
are not significant in the strong relationship between refinery energy and
emission intensities.1 The same refining by-products dominate
emissions from fuels burned by refineries across regions and years.1, 2
Capacity utilization: Differences in the portion of refining capacity used
are not significant in the strong relationship between energy intensity
and oil quality.1 Refiners consistently used 81–95% of operable crude
capacity on average across regions and years.1, 2
Refined products: Differences in refinery product slates are not
significant in the strong relationships between refinery energy intensity,
process intensity, and oil quality.1 (continued…)
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
37
Refined products (continued)
As oil quality worsens and emissions increase across regions and years:
• Combined yield of the main refined products (gasoline,
distillate-diesel, and jet fuels) changes little or declines slightly;
• Incomplete conversion of denser oil tends to decrease
combined yield of gasoline and distillates slightly;
• Capacities of major processes that act on product streams change little
or decrease slightly;
• Instead of being driven by product hydrotreating, hydrogen production
increases to feed increased hydrocracking; and
• CO2 emissions calculated from differences in processing product slates
alone change relatively little and tend to decrease slightly.1, 2
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
38
Recap:
Oil quality is the major driver of differences in average refinery CO2
emission intensity.
This is verified by analysis of real-world operating data from the major U.S.
refining regions and California over multiple years.
Question:
How accurately can this analysis predict the increased CO2 emissions from
refining even worse quality oil?
For example: If we did not already know the extreme-high California
refinery emissions, could we predict them based on crude feed quality?
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
39
OQ predicts California refinery emissions
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
40
Predictions compared to observations — key points
Predictions are relatively accurate for average CO2 emissions from
large, multi-plant refinery groups with diverse, well-mixed crude feeds.1, 2
 Example: Crude feed density and sulfur content predict long-term
average 2004–2009 California refinery emissions within 1%.2
Analysis of individual refineries should consider other factors too (other
properties of oil; refinery equipment efficiency, products, and/or fuel).1, 2
 Example: The Richmond refinery reported higher GHG emissions than
the average from refining crude of similar density and sulfur content.2
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
41
95% confidence of prediction for average refinery CO2
emissions from a complete switch to low–quality oils
(a) US avg. 1999–20081 (b) California avg. 2004–20092
(c) Shell Martinez 20082 (d) Prediction for switch to average heavy oil1
(e) Prediction for switch to average tar sands bitumen1
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
42
Implication: Use cleaner not dirtier energy resources
For our climate: These findings support the high estimates by
others of emissions from extracting and refining low-quality oil.1–3
This raises the possibility that a switch to “dirtier” oil could impede
or foreclose total global efforts to avoid severe climate disruption.
And for health: This research1, 2 quantified emissions only for CO2,
but burning more fuel to refine lower quality oil emits toxic and
smog-forming pollutants along with CO2.1 That would exacerbate a
serious health problem. Refinery emissions of these combustion
products already cause disparately high and health-threatening
exposures in nearby communities of color.4, 5
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
43
Acknowledgments:
The American Chemical Society; Union of Concerned Scientists; Richard &
Rhoda Goldman Fund; Kresge Foundation; Ford Foundation; San
Francisco Foundation, and CBE’s members. Special thanks to the people
of Richmond, where much of this work started.
References cited:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Karras, 2010. Combustion emissions from refining lower quality oil: What is the global
warming potential? Env. Sci. Technol. 44(24): 9584. DOI: 10.1021/es1019965 (available
free of charge at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1019965).
Oil refinery CO2 performance measurement; Union of Concerned Scientists: Berkeley,
CA. September 2011. Technical analysis for UCS by CBE. Includes technical report and
appendix (available from Union of Concerned Scientists and CBE).
Brandt, 2011. Variability and uncertainty in life cycle assessment models for greenhouse
gas emissions from Canadian oil sands production. Env. Sci. Technol. 46: 1253-1261.
DOI: 10.1021/es202312p
Brody et al., 2009. Linking exposure assessment science with policy objectives for
environmental justice and breast cancer advocacy: The Northern California household
exposure study. Am. J. Pub. Health 99(S3): S600. DOI: 10.2105/APJH.2008.149088
Pastor et al., 2010. Minding the climate gap: What’s at stake if California’s climate law
isn’t done right and right away; USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity:
Los Angeles, CA. Available from USC (http://college.usc.edu/pere/publications).
WWW.CBECAL.ORG
44
Solomon Petroleum Refining
Efficiency Metrics
Creating a Level Playing Field
Benchmarking Energy & CO2 Performance
Today’s Speaker – Bill Trout
 Solomon Associates
VP Global Refining Studies
 MS Mechanical Engineering
University of Oklahoma – 1973
 38 years of worldwide petroleum refining experience
 Experienced in seeking solutions for assessing and driving
improvements in global energy and CO2 efficiency
Leads collaborative efforts between governmental
regulatory agencies and the refining industry
Successful in assisting Europe and California governments
in establishing efficiency metrics
46
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Objectives
• Overview of CA Air Resources Board (ARB) carbon dioxide
(CO2) efficiency metrics for refineries
• Examine concepts and discuss key factors to consider
when comparing refinery efficiency performance
• Describe how efficiency metrics are calculated
• Explain what factors drive good energy efficiency
• Address whether crude quality effects energy efficiency
• Provide reasons for ARB’s future shift from energy
efficiency to complexity-weighted tonne metric
47
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
ARB – Refinery CO2 Efficiency Metrics
• Refineries are covered entities subject to annual and triennial
compliance obligations under Cap & Trade per CA Global Warming
Solutions Act (AB 32)
• 1st Compliance Period: 2013 - 2014
 ARB adopted Solomon’s Energy Intensity Index™ (EII®) for those
CA refineries participating in Solomon’s biennial study of refinery
efficiency
 Refineries without an EII will use the “simple barrel” metric
• 2nd and 3rd Compliance Periods: 2015 - 2020
 ARB to pursue a complexity-weighted CO2 metric approach for all
CA refineries
48
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Different Types of Refineries – Likes to Like
Must take into account what’s inside a refinery
Topping
Refinery
Light crude, low complexity & low energy (& CO2)
Cracking
Refinery
Average crude, medium complexity & more energy (& CO2)
Coking
Refinery
Heavy crude, high complexity & most energy (& CO2)
49
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Refineries Produce Different Products
Simple refineries produce more fuel oil and asphalt
Volume Yield, %
100
80
60
40
20
0
Topping
Refinery
Coke
Cracking
Refinery
Fuel Oil
& Asphalt
Diesel
Coking
Refinery
Gasoline
Naphtha
I t takes m ore energy to generate higher yields of transportation fuels
(gasoline & diesel) to m eet consum er needs
50
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
How does ARB Assess Refinery Efficiency
Methods: EII and Simple Barrel Metric
• Metric:
EII = 100 x
Actual Energy Usage
Standard Energy Usage
Where: Actual Energy Consumption = uses of all energy types
(fuel, steam and electrical power)
Standard Energy Consumption = “expected” use of energy
by a average global refinery of similar configuration
Average Global Refinery = 100 EII
• Metric: Simple Barrel =
Total CO2 Emitted
Barrels of Product Produced
51
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Does EII Vary With Crude Quality
• Change in crude quality results in changes to individual
process unit feed rates and sometimes in processing
intensity (higher energy consumption per barrel of feed)
Lighter crudes typically have natural yields with more light
products (naphtha/distillates) and fewer heavy products
(gas oils/residuum) – requires less energy to upgrade
Heavy crudes typically have fewer light products and more
heavy products – requires more energy to upgrade
Refinery configuration is intrinsically linked to crude quality
as previously demonstrated – very limited crude flexibility
ARB EII standard energy is uniquely designed to normalize
for changes in crude/other raw materials quality
52
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Does EII Vary Much Across Refineries
• YES - considerable differences in EII across the world
• Typical range for global EII performance is about +/- 40%
CA Range of
Performance
Worse
EII
Global Industry
Average = 100
Better
0
100
Percent of Total Global Refineries
54
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
What Drives Differences in Energy
Efficiency?
• Energy practices – heat exchanger cleaning, furnace
tuning, steam leak control, minimizing process steam, etc.
• Reducing total steam usage – using more efficient forms
of steam production such as cogeneration facilities, etc.
• Economic incentives – cost of energy and CO2 credits
• Technology applications – additional heat exchangers,
new heat exchanger designs, furnace air preheaters, etc.
55
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Who Uses EII Other Than ARB
• US EPA - ENERGY STAR Program
• The Netherlands Government - “Dutch Covenant” goal of
achieving world’s top 10% in energy efficiency
• Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (METI) -
using streamlined EII in regulations – Energy Benchmark
(EBM)
• New Zealand Ministry for the Environment – using world-
class EII for the New Zealand Refining Company
56
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Why Is ARB Moving to a CWT CO2-Based
Efficiency Metric
• Need a CO2 efficiency metric that is more directly tied to
CO2 emission performance
EII is a good “proxy” for CO2 efficiency in the interim
• In addition to improving energy efficiency, ARB wants to
also manage the type of fuels burned
Cleaner burning fuels (lower CO2 per BTU) – hydrogen,
natural gas and refinery-produced fuel gas
Less clean fuels – heavy fuel oils and coke
• A CO2-based metric to be used in Europe’s Phase III of
Cap & Trade program
57
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com
Drive Improvements in CO2 Efficiency
Through Use of Credible Efficiency Metrics
CO2 Metrics
Reduce CO2
Emissions to 1990
Levels by 2020
CWT
Industry
Government
Community
“W ork ing
Together
To Achieve
Our Goals”
Current CO2
Emissions
58
2012 HSB Solomon Associates LLC
www.SolomonOnline.com