Pilot Plants in the Petroleum Refining Industry EO J. BLATZ 5bd-d
IN
oa D.*JO,X-I
CC..,
NO other mdustry do new processes involving chemical trans formahons have the ultimate opportunity for such tremendous instslled capacity as in the petroleum industry. For example, what other industry can point to a total installed capacity for a single process equivalent to tbe 2,500,ooObarrels per day of catalytic cracking capacity in the petroleum industry7 This posmbility of eventual broad application brings to the petroleum industry development gronp a responsibility and justi6cation for more inteneive Pilot plant EtUdies than in any other industzy. This is necessary to reduce the mar& of riak resulting from simultaneous wideapread and large scale construction of a new type processing unit. The patrolem industzy annually spends about $15O,lWO,ooO for research and development and, 88 a reasonable &,hate, probably one 6fth or W,i30,ooo,ooOof this is devoted to pilot plant studies. It is @us apparent that the petroleum industry pilot plants are in themelves big business, and an exchange of tecbnical information on all aspects of pilot plant work is justified to ensure maximum return on the money invested in pilot plant Studies. As a novel approach to exchange of this type information at b m c m Caaunclu. SOCIETYmeetings, the Division of Petroleum Chemistry sponsored a panel discuenion on petroleum industsy pilot plants at the 123rd national ACS meeting in Loe Angel@. The discussion was under the chairmsnship of C. L. Brown of the Standard Oil Development Co. Unfortunately, tima restrictions limited the extent of panel d i n d o n following the deliveryof formal presentations by the panel members, and an effortis being made to bring the panel togethex at a subsequent national meeting to continue the very interesting discussions wbich were initiated. What is a pilot plant? How big should it be7 How complete should it be7 Bow should it be designed and inStrumented7 These and similar questions were covered in the prepared CQmmenta of the members of the panel. Much diEerence in the philosophy of pilot plant studies was apparent from the diierent viewpoints presented by representatives of ten major research groups making up the panel. Condensations of mven of the ten presentations will be published here in this and two subsequent issues. These wen p a p m are concerned with the philosophy and technioal q m d a of pilot plant work; the remsining w e papers will not be puhliehed as they are primarily concerned with administrative activities sssociated with pilot plant work and are quite speojsc to the individual Orgsnisations from which they mp-ted. The seven papers to be mered me divided into the three following sections: PhilomphyGf Pilot Plant DRign Instrumentationof Pilot Planta Ddgn of Pilot Plant Reactom
”
wm, N. J. Aaaoonasfeaeibleafterthelastartideinthisseries, it isplanned to publish in this seetion a critical r0view of the papers along with a s u n w a r y of the more interesting points raised during the floor discussion at the meeting. To emwe the broadest scope in analyzing these papers, comments are solicited from all INDUBRLUL W D E N o m E r u N o Cm.msRLY readers who are associated with pilot plant operations. Comments from tboee outaide the petroleum industry such as pcople in the chemical and biochemical industries are especially desired to fur& contrast between the viewpoints of those conrerned with petroleum industry pilot plants, and tboso involving altogether diaerent types of operations. Adminirhatlve Activities Connechd with Pilot Plants W e n Also Dircurrd Turning now to tbe three papers which will not be published, a few comments are in order on the mbjor points brought out by each. In their paperon “Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Pilot Plants,” W. 0. Tau and R. L.Hardy of the Standard Oil Development Co.point out that theoperatingcosts of pilot plants are large compared to the initial cost of the units, and thus extreme care should be exerckd in the design and construction of pilot plants EO as to guarantee the fewest possible operatbq difficulties. Careful selection of personnel for the technical supervision of the design and construction of pilot plants can pay large dividends through anticipating and eliminating potential operating dfieulties. I n discussing “Pilot Plant Operations in a Research Labomtory,” E. 0. Saegebarth of the California Research C q . favored a high degree of bxibility and interchangeability in the design and construction of pilot plants. For example, the use of interchnnpble instrumentation, pumps. stills, refrigeration units, Dowtherm heaters, and filter presses was recommended. The advantage of setting up such equipment in a readily interchangeable form reducea investment by avoiding duplication and 10. d u m maintenance cost due to corroeion and leaking which often result from extended periods of idleness ofequipment. In their paper on “Pilot Plant Operation,“ W. C. OfIutt and W.A. Home of Gulf Research and Development Co. emphaeized the extent to which technical manpower can be conserved by s e e ting up pilot plant operatiom on a basis where maximum ntiliiation can be made of nontechnical clerical help to handle routine calculationsand coordinationof product work-up andinspeetiom. Under this topic, it WM sleo brought out that modern high speed eleetmoic computing machines were great aids in e l i i t i i g tedious computations concerned with the usual yield and material balance oalculations around pilot plant operations.
.. !
‘U
-..: . , : I
,: .
1
.
