Question 64: What are the impacts on coker operation (yields, capacity, energy, coke quality) of excess VGO (1000F-) in the feed?
Jeff Lewellen (HollyFrontier)
Our El Dorado facility has transitioned from a 950o F HVGO/VTB cut point coker feed to a +1075 F while maintaining a fairly constant feed rate to the delayed coker unit. Our experience has seen coke and off-gas yield increase while HCGO yield decreases.
Our Conclusions:
• Yields – VGO range material is a relatively small contributor to coke yield in the unit. Between meter error and coke yield estimates, we have been unsuccessful in quantifying the exact yield impact.
• Capacity - Depending upon unit constraints, additional VGO occupies feed volume in the unit that could be used as VTB/residuum feed.
• Energy – The major impact is increased heater firing due to energy required to vaporize the excess VGO. This may also increase required drum temperatures to achieve equivalent VCM% results.
• Coke quality - Additional VGO may act similar to adding internal recycle to the unit. Although generally not aromatic, it could shift coke from shot to sponge coke. However, this is much more crude composition, drum velocity/pressure dependent.
Rajkumar Ghosh (Indian Oil Corporation)
Excess VGO in Coker feed is obviously not a desirable situation as it amounts to down gradation of straight run product. In one of our old refineries, we run a small Coker with long residue (RCO) as feed. Based on the experience there, the Impact of excess VGO in feed on Coker operation is explained as below:
a. Yield: The VGO part in the feed will have a free ride to the fractionator, thereby numerically reflecting higher distillate on Coker feed and consequent reduction in coke make. However, increase in coke drum vapor velocity will force higher pressure operation to prevent foam-over, leading to higher coke make from the residue part of the feed to the unit. The extent of increase in pressure will be dictated by the amount of VGO in feed.
b. Capacity: In the VR only case operation, if the feed to Coker is limited by Coke drum Capacities, then we certainly have a case for processing higher throughput in the excess VGO case, due to lower overall coke make. However, in such a case, Coke drum vapor velocity will also have to be cross checked and be maintained within the safe limit of 0.5 ft/sec. With lighter feed to Coker, the extent of vaporization in the heater tubes will be higher, leading to higher pressure drop across the heater. Heater duty will increase and may impose capacity limitations. Further, HCGO section flooding in the fractionator, HCGO product and pumparound circuit limitations may also become reasons for capacity bottleneck.
c. Energy: Excess VGO in feed will require higher heater duty. This may impose heater limitation with consequent lower COT. Lowering recycle under such a situation may help. However, it may result in higher HCGO CCR due to inadequate internal reflux in the wash zone. If HCGO circuit is not limiting, some of the heat can be recovered back into feed due to higher HCGO make.
d. Coke Quality: With the reduced wt% of asphaltenes, resins and metals in the feed, the coke quality will tend to improve. All the green coke produced with RCO feed is expected to be sponge coke with moderate VCM. Depending on the feed Sulfur content, the coke can be graded into Anode grade.
Eberhard Lucke (Commonwealth E&C)
Delayed Cokers are built to process residue, not gasoil. Excess VGO in the coker feed will only replace residue in the feed and will cause downgrading of almost all VGO to HCGO. HCGO yields will increase accordingly. The charge heater may benefit slightly from increased vaporization and lower fouling rates in the tubes. The coke may see an increase in VCM and may get a little softer, but this can be compensated by correct steam stripping.
Question 101: What analytical methods can distinguish between organic and inorganic iron (Fe) compounds in the feed? What type of iron, organic or inorganic, affects catalyst performance? Considering the relatively long reaction residence time of most laboratory test units used to measure activity, will activity testing properly reflect the actual in-FCCU activity under conditions of Fe contamination? What is your best method to monitor the catalyst performance under Fe contamination? Is ther
Dwight Agnello-Dean (BP)
We have not routinely attempted to identify the organic and inorganic iron components in our feeds. An internal expert suggested two approaches. First to determine the organic iron using ICP-OES, then wash the same sample with DI water, or slightly acidified water, and utilizing atomic absorption, determine the inorganic iron. The second approach is to determine total iron utilizing X-Ray, ICP or Atomic Absorption. Following this step remove the solids and water soluble, which would contain the inorganic iron, and rerun the hydrocarbon sample to determine the organic iron. The difference between total iron and organic iron is the inorganic iron.
As far as which form of iron affects catalyst performance, we follow the general consensus that organic iron is the issue and of primary interest. Over the last decade we have experienced catalyst performance issues that were correlated with elevated iron on the catalyst. During these events, ecat testing did not indicate an appropriate drop-in catalyst activity, which supports the questioner’s point that ecat program test methods are not adequate for this purpose. The symptoms we do look for are loss in bottoms upgrading (higher DCO yields), a drop in catalyst bulk density (ABD), a change in fluidization properties, potential circulation issues, and of course elevated iron on ecat. Across our units we don’t have a single critical iron level where we would expect problems because we consider this to be impacted by both the catalyst and the feedstock. Therefore, our current practices are to monitor our normal iron on ecat level and begin looking for other symptoms if we see the iron increase 0.3 wt.% over normal. For the units I am most closely associated with I expect to stay below 0.8 wt% iron. These units process very clean VGO feeds.
Ray Fletcher (Intercat)
Testing methods for feed stock analyses may be found in ASTM D7691 - 11 which include standard test methods for multi-element analysis of crude oils using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). We believe that the high-performance liquid chromatography ICP-AES may be better at distinguishing organic and inorganic metal species.
It is widely accepted that organic iron in porphyries and naphthenates negatively affect the catalytic performance more than does inorganic iron.
The primary reason for the different performance effects between organic and inorganic iron is related to the size of these molecules. It is believed that small inorganic iron species are able to penetrate into the catalyst particle in most cases and disperse easily. On the other hand, large organic iron bearing molecules are typically sterically hindered and thus are unable to penetrate within the FCC catalyst particle. These molecules tend to deposit on the particle surface forming a barrier to diffusion. These iron rich layers are often several microns thick having a very rough nodular structure.
Our R&D team has found that the ECAT surface contaminated by organic iron contains a very dense amorphous iron rich layer which seals the macro, meso and micro-pores of catalyst. There is no penetration and reaction found at the interface between the iron layer and catalyst. The outer surface of an iron poisoned catalyst particle consists of a dense amorphous aluminosilicate phase with polycrystalline magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles on top.
Most laboratory deactivation and testing methodologies used today are unable to accurately predict the effect of iron poisoning in a commercial unit. FCC catalyst suppliers have been active in developing special deactivation conditions to enable more accurate prediction capability with iron poisoning. None of these deactivation procedures have yet been able to accurately model an iron contaminated unit. The one test unit which may be capable of distinguishing iron effects is the circulating pilot plant. However, due to the sample sizes involved and the time & cost commitments few refiners have been willing to carry out extensive testing with this equipment.
The best method for monitoring iron poisoning is systematic and detailed unit monitoring. The focus is on "add-on iron". Most FCC catalysts contain 0.2-0.4 wt% iron depending upon the kaolin content and source. The add-on iron is the equilibrium iron less the fresh iron. Most catalyst systems are capable of handling +0.3 wt% add-on iron before negative effects are observed. Catalysts with alumina-based binding systems are usually capable of absorbing higher levels of iron at approximately 0.4-0.5 wt%.
The actual amount of iron the equilibrium catalyst is capable of absorbing without negative impact is directly related to the concentration of all contaminant metals including: nickel, vanadium, sodium, calcium plus iron. Most catalyst systems begin to observe negative effects when the total metal levels exceed 13,000 to 15,000 ppm. There are a few FCC units which regularly defy this rule of thumb having iron levels exceeding one wt%. These units are believed to be exceptions rather than the rule.
Iron nodules have been observed on the surface of equilibrium catalysts which have undergone high levels of iron contamination. The net result of these nodules has been poor blockage with a corresponding loss in bottoms conversion plus an apparent drop in ABD due to altered packing efficiencies. Many times, in spite of a lower ABD the fluidization characteristics of the unit have deteriorated. Additionally, as stated in question #99, step change increases in iron have been observed to precipitate that changes in SOx emissions. These step change increases in emissions are easily controlled by SOx reducing additive.
It is recommended that the process engineer monitor closely the levels of add-on iron and total contaminant metals. Both of these variables may be plotted against bottoms conversion or conversion. The refiner may then draw their own conclusion regarding maximum allowable iron contamination. Three methodologies exist for combating iron excursions include: 1) flush catalyst, 2) higher fresh catalyst additions &/or 3) reformulation to a more iron tolerance catalyst system.
Finally, Intercat would like to propose an alternative explanation to the underlying mechanism leading to nodule formation in iron contaminated units. It has been observed that the composition of these nodules is not solely iron but is enriched with silica. Interestingly, one would expect that beneath the iron nodules there would be silica depleted regions within the catalyst particle. However, this is not the case. The composition of the catalyst directly beneath the iron nodule has equivalent silica concentrations as those regions not affected by these nodules. This leads us to hypothesize that iron acts as a nucleating site for silica/iron nodule formation. As stated earlier, these nodules have multiple negative impacts such as reduction in conversion, reduction in ABD, and occasionally, deterioration in fluidization characteristics. (Our thanks to Dr. Diddams for sharing this hypothesis with us.)
Ann Benoit (Grace Davison Refining Technologies)
Yaluris discussed that there are two types of iron. One type is particles of inorganic iron from hardware and is usually considered benign in FCC unit performance. The second type is organic based Fe potentially coming in with the feed and/or from hardware corrosion by naphthenic acids and other corrosive feed components. This type of iron can negatively impact unit performance. (1) ACE testing is a better technique to measure the conversion impact of organic based iron contaminated catalyst, compared to traditional fixed bed MAT testing. However, ACE testing should be used together with other tests to confirm iron poisoning.
Below are several methods that can be used to monitor catalyst performance under Fe contamination:
•Ecat analysis (Fe, Na, CaO, ABD, color)
•Scanning Electron Microscope imaging (SEM)
•Optical microscope
•Ecat diffusivity
A decline in unit performance such as, reduction in bottoms conversion, and/or poor catalyst circulation coupled with an increase in equilibrium catalyst Fe levels can indicate Fe poisoning. Yaluris discussed how pore closure and nodule formation can be potentially caused by iron contamination (1). Pore closure can negatively affect bottoms conversion in the unit. An excellent way to show the actual nodules is by Scanning Electron Microscope imaging (SEM). It is important to note that some nodules may not be a problem, but there is a problem when the nodules become obviously raised from the surface and all over the catalyst particle. A drop in ABD (apparent bulk density) on Ecat can indicate nodules formation due to iron poisoning as Ecat does not pack as densely. The ABD change, pore plugging and the potential for particles to stick together can negatively impact unit catalyst circulation.
Optical microscope is another method to indicate iron poisoning. Ecat samples with iron poisoning will show glassy reflections under an optical microscope with illumination. (1) The color of Ecat could potentially indicate high levels of Fe. Ecat samples can have a reddish brown tint when poisoned by iron.(1) In addition to Ecat Fe levels, Na and CaO should be monitored as well. Fe in the presence of Na and/or CaO can act as a fluxing agent which can aggravate the effects of Fe.(1)
Question 59: What challenges have you faced from processing crudes that contain elevated levels of wax crystal modifiers or flow improver chemicals?
DION (GE Water & Process Technologies)
This is a complex question. There are many different chemical families that can be employed as either wax crystal modifiers or flow improvers. Flow improvers can be dragging reducers or pour point depressants. I recommend empirically measuring its impact. For instance, if the concern is the additives’ impact on desalter operations, then the additive can be easily tested in a laboratory desalter simulator. The emulsification tendency of the crude can be measured with and without the additive. All specialty chemical suppliers should have desalter simulators, most of which are portable. The testing can be conducted in the refinery’s laboratory, if desired.
In general, the most common types of pour point depressants will be complementary or synergistic to demulsification. There are too many different chemical families that can be employed to make a general statement about whether wax crystal modifiers are synergistic or antagonistic to demulsification. It can be empirically determined. Drag reducers are very high molecular weight molecules. They are sensitive to shear and break into smaller molecules when they pass through pumps. The larger molecules that are not sheared should act similar to an asphaltene. In one refinery, we saw a situation where a drag reducer was overfed. The excess drag reducer precipitated in their raw crude tanks. When the tank was opened for corrosion inspection, they found a five- or six-inch thick deposit of an elastic, sticky material that had to be cut with shovels to get it out of the tank.
DION (GE Water & Process Technologies)
Wax crystal modifiers are typically amine oxides, amides or sulfonates. They are utilized to keep paraffins dispersed and reduce wax deposition. Flow improvers generally fall into two categories; pour point depressants and drag reducers. They are typically stearates, vinyl acetate copolymers, polyacrylates or polymeric alpha olefins. Pour point depressants typically promote the formation of compact, three dimensional crystals as the crude oil cools. The compact crystals decrease the pour point of the oil and improve low temperature flow properties. Flow improver chemicals are typically extremely large molecular weight materials. Like asphaltenes, they can precipitate to an oil/water interface and stabilize emulsions. There have been no noticeable desalter performance issues at dose rates of approximately 5 ppm. When dose rates are roughly 15 ppm to 25 ppm, desalter upsets may occur. In at least one refinery, a six inch layer of sticky elastic, caulk-like material has been observed on the bottom of the tanks and believed to be due to flow improver chemicals. In general, pour point depressants can improve emulsion resolution, while on the other hand paraffin inhibitors may have a deleterious effect. The exact effect would require either more specific information on the chemistry or empirical testing results.
BASHAM (Marathon Petroleum Corporation)
We have run crudes with flow improver at Marathon Petroleum Company’s Catlettsburg refinery for four to five years now with no known issues on our crude units.
DENNIS HAYNES (Nalco Energy Services)
In the past, there were some types of these chemistries in oil production that were reported to have problems on oil-water separation in desalting at the refinery; however, in recent history, improvements seem to have been made, and the products we have been asked to review for other companies have not shown adverse impacts regarding emulsification. If there is an indication that a new product is being used, evaluation on downstream impacts is recommended.
SAM LORDO (Nalco Energy Services) There have been a few reports of impacts on the amps/volts from crudes treated with pour point depressants. The impact was minor but noticeable in that additional power-draw was observable.
Question 41: Have the panel members considered 15% ethanol (E15) gasoline blending?
KOONTZ (HollyFrontier)
My first slide shows a little background. The EPA administers the Renewable Fuel Standard program that has volume requirements for renewable fuels. They established these volume requirements under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The EPA tracks compliance with the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) system, and they assigned a RIN to each gallon of renewable fuel.
HollyFrontier satisfies much of its requirement for conventional biofuel, which is essentially corn ethanol, by blending E10 gasoline at many of its terminals. Most of HollyFrontier’s gasoline is sold via pipeline to terminals owned by others; therefore, we are not able to supply our full mandated volume. HollyFrontier does purchase RINs from others. The decision to purchase ethanol to blend or the RINs is based on the economics of the cost of the RINs.
Ethanol blending for the refiner does have a significant impact on two critical gasoline properties: namely, octane and RVP. The hydrocarbon blend stock used for 90% of the E10product, which HollyFrontier calls sub-grade, has an octane rating of about 84. After blending with the 10% ethanol, the resulting octane is the regular 87. So being a refinery that adjusts total octane with its reformer severity, this allows us to run a lower severity, which is especially beneficial to those refineries with semi-regen reformers that operate at relatively high pressures and relatively low liquid volume product yield.
RVP is the other critical property affected by blending. When ethanol is blended with naphtha at a low concentration, the RVP of the gasoline is increased. Pure ethanol does have a low RVP; but when it is blended with hydrocarbon, it behaves more like a light hydrocarbon and actually raises the RVP. For example, with E10 for naphtha having an RVP of 9, the resultantE10 product has an RVP of about 10. So, to encourage ethanol blending, in 1990, the U.S. Congress passed a waiver known as the “One-Pound Waiver” which allows E10 gasoline to be sold at one psi (pound per square inch) higher than that normally required.
For the refinery, E15 would allow lower octane severity reformer operation, which would be beneficial. However, the EPA regulation implementing the “One-Pound Waiver” specifically references gasoline containing between 9% and 10% ethanol. The EPA has refused to extend this One Pounder Waiver to E15. Therefore, marketing E15 requires a sub-grade blendstock that has an RVP approximately 1 psi lower than normal gasoline sub-grade blendstock used for E10.
In addition, since January 2011, E15 has been permitted for use in light-duty motor vehicles manufactured after 2001. It was not approved to be used in small gasoline engines or other vehicles built before that due to concerns of material incompatibilities and corrosion. Furthermore, I have seen several places where current automobile manufacturers will not honor their warranties if the person used E15, even if the vehicle was manufactured after 2001. Also, the EPA requires that in order to sell E15 gasoline, a Misfuelling Mitigation Plan must be in place to prevent consumers from using the product in an unapproved engine. Today, there are very few retailers who have chosen to go through the additional trouble in order to sell the E15.
In conclusion, due to the absence of the “One-Pound Waiver” and the legal risk of corrosion or voiding the warranties of customers’ cars, HollyFrontier has chosen not to produce or blend E15.
SUBHASH SINGHAL (Kuwait National Petroleum Company)
Does the 15% have to do with the oxygen in the ethanol and other oxygenate like MTBE, or it is just because of the RVP limitations and other issues that you explained? From safety point of view, is there oxygen contained in the old oxygenate like ethanol? Is that one of the criteria for limiting the blending from 15% or 10%? Does this have to do with the oxygen
attached even though it is oxygenate?
KOONTZ (HollyFrontier)
My understanding, from reading, is that the E15 decision is not really based on logic. I think it was more of a U.S. Congress action. I do not really understand why they have not extended the “One-Pound Waiver” to E15. I do not think it is based on science.
KOONTZ (HollyFrontier Corporation)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program with volume requirements for several categories of renewable fuels. EPA establishes the volume requirements for each category based on EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) legislated volumes and fuel availability. EPA tracks compliance through the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) system, which assigns a RIN to each gallon of renewable fuel.
HollyFrontier satisfies much of its requirement for Conventional Biofuel (essentially corn ethanol) usage within RFS by selling E10 (10% ethanol) at many of its terminals. Most of HFs’ gasoline is sold via pipeline to terminals owned by others; therefore, to fully satisfy its mandated volume, HF purchases RINs from others. The decision to purchase ethanol from others and blend to E10 or to purchase RINs from others is based on economics.
Ethanol blending has a significant impact on two critical gasoline properties controlled by the refiner: octane and RVP. The hydrocarbon blendstock used for 90% of the E10 product (termed sub-grade by HF) has an octane rating of ~84. After blending with 10% ethanol (octane ~114) the resultant E10 octane is “regular” 87. For a refinery that normally adjusts reformer severity to satisfy the total gasoline pool octane, producing sub-grade allows for lower reformer severity and higher liquid yield. This improved yield is more pronounced for a semi-regeneration reformer that operates at relatively high pressure.
RVP is the other critical gasoline property affected by ethanol blending. When ethanol is blended with naphtha at low concentration, the RVP of the gasoline is increased. Even though pure ethanol has a low RVP [about 2 psia (pounds per square inch absolute)] due to O-H bonding, it behaves more like a hydrocarbon with a molecular weight of 46 when mixed with naphtha at low concentration. If ethanol is blended to 10% with 84 octane naphtha having an RVP of 9, the resultant E10 gasoline has an RVP of ~10. In order to encourage ethanol blending, the U.S. Congress passed the One-Pound Waiver in 1990 allowing E10 gasoline RVP to be 1 psi higher than that normally required by the EPA (One-Pound Waiver).
E15 would allow a refiner to produce an even lower octane sub-grade to blend with the ethanol and the RVP effect would be similar. However, the EPA regulation implementing the One-Pound Waiver specifically references gasoline containing between 9% and 10% ethanol. The EPA has refused to extend the one-pound waiver to E15. Therefore, to market E15 requires a sub-grade blendstock having an RVP over 1 psi lower than that required for E10.
Since January 2011, E15 has been permitted for use in light-duty motor vehicles manufactured after 2001. However, it is not approved for use in small engines and older vehicles due to concerns with material incompatibilities and corrosion. Furthermore, several automobile manufacturers will not honor their warranties if E15 gasoline was used in the vehicle (even for those manufactured after 2001). The EPA requires that in order to sell E15 gasoline, a Misfueling Mitigation Plan must be in place to prevent consumers from using the product in an unapproved engine. There are very few retailers who have chosen to get approval to sell E15.
Due to the absence of the One-Pound Waiver for RVP, the significant legal risk in selling a controversial product, and the minimal market demand HF has decided that it would be unwise to enter the E15 market at this time.
Question 2: We have a Selective Hydrogeneration Units (SHU) unit that removes butadiene from the olefin feed to the alkylation unit. What is the typical concentration of hydrogen and light ends in the olefin product leaving the SHU? How do hydrogen and light ends affect alky operations?
THOMAS PORRITT (Chevron U.S.A)
A selective hydrogenation unit or SHU converts diolefins to olefins in a stream before it feeds an alkylation unit.
Below is a basic flow scheme.
Figure Q2 - 1 Selective Hydrogenation Unit Flow Scheme
The typical composition of non-condensable gases and light hydrocarbons leaving the SHU is dependent upon both the feed and the hydrogen make up. The olefin feed may contain methane, ethane and ethylene in addition to the olefins and diolefins that pass through the reactor. The hydrogen composition can contain a mixture of light hydrocarbons as well as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide depending on the source. A component balance on these contaminants can show their concentrations in the SHU effluent for the user’s system.
Hydrogen sources vary by nature and quality. Hydrogen produced by a Steam Methane Reformer, SMR, with a pressure swing adsorption, PSA, unit will be the cleanest. PSA units can produce hydrogen that is greater than 99% pure. Not all SMR hydrogen is purified by a PSA. For SMR hydrogen that passes through methanation and chemical absorption, the hydrogen can contain methane and possibly carbon dioxide. At the other end of the spectrum is naphtha reformer hydrogen. This hydrogen can be as low as 70% hydrogen by volume. Reformer hydrogen can contain as much as 8% methane and 6% ethane by volume. The amount of carbon monoxide is dependent on the system pressure of the naphtha reformer. Low-pressure units can produce hydrogen with as much as 30 ppmv carbon monoxide. Excess hydrogen in the SHU leads to oversaturation of the olefins feeding the alkylation unit. In addition, it leads to increased reactor differential temperature and can potentially damage the palladium catalyst in the reactor beds.
The light hydrocarbons and non-condensable gases exiting the SHU pass to the alkylation unit. They then build up and lead to increased pressure in the refrigeration loop. Because they do not condense, they reduce the capacity of the refrigerant compressor and condenser. To manage pressure, the user is forced to vent the non-condensable gases at the refrigerant accumulator. Unfortunately, this venting also leads to loss of iso-butane.
To mitigate these issues the user can proactively clean up the light hydrocarbons in the FCC olefins and better purify the makeup hydrogen. In addition, the user can adjust the hydrogen to olefin ratio by improving control of hydrogen to the SHU. As a final step, the user can vent the gasses at the refrigerant accumulator.
McDermott-Lummus Technology and Dupont Clean Technologies both contributed to this answer.
BILL KOSTKA (Axens North America)
The unreacted hydrogen in the effluent of a Selective Hydrogenation Reactor is very low, typically within the range of 20-50 ppmw.
Methane in the effluent of a Selective Hydrogenation Reactor comes directly from the hydrogen make-up and thus depends on its quality. For PSA hydrogen, the typical amount of residual methane in the reactor effluent is less than 10 ppmw. For a hydrogen-rich stream containing 90 mole% hydrogen and 10 mole% methane, the methane content rises up to typically 500-1,000 ppmw in the reactor effluent.
In a Sulfuric Acid Alkylation unit, ethane and lighter may cause venting from the refrigeration receiver if levels are high. The vent would carry some isobutane, but no sulfuric acid, and would typically go to the flare. A small, packed scrubber may be needed to remove SO2 if venting is done on a continuous basis. Pentanes in the feed cause no operational problems since they will end up in the alkylate product. However, they could result in difficulty meeting RVP and octane targets if these are critical.
RICK DENNE (Norton Engineering Consultants, Inc.)
A typical design would include a downstream stripper or de-ethanizer column to remove excess hydrogen and light ends to the plant fuel gas system. The column would operate in such a manner that propylene/propane loss are minimized, so as to not downgrade their value. Ethane and lighter streams would be rejected. If fractionation is poor, the stream could be routed to the plant’s sat gas unit; however, care must be taken to avoid putting the liquid propane product off test for excessive propylene. If a stripper or de-ethanizer column is absent, the light ends will act as a diluent in the alkylation unit and the non-condensables will cause pressure issues in various parts of the unit. In this case, the owner/operator should weigh the option of minimizing hydrogen to the SHU, at the expense of more rapid catalyst deactivation, versus alkylation unit limits. Improved make-up hydrogen quality should also be considered.