Patent Grant
11905479
Embodiments herein generally relate to fuel oil compositions. More specifically, one or more embodiments relate to low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil compositions, and methods of blending such compositions.
The International Marine Organization (IMO) operates as an agency of the United Nations (originally formed in 1948 as the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization) and sets global standards for the safety and security of international shipping as well as the prevention of environmental pollution by such shipping. The promotion of sustainable shipping and maritime development has been a major goal of IMO in recent years. To that end, the Marine Environment Protection Committee, the working arm of IMO charged with addressing environmental issues, has adopted more stringent worldwide marine sulfur standards for all maritime transport. These increased standards took effect in 2020 and are set forth in ISO 8217 Petroleum Products—Fuels (Class F)—Specifications of Marine Fuels, published by the International Organization for Standardization (“IMO 2020”). The United States has been a member of IMO since 1950 and has since that time enforced the maritime compliance of all IMO regulations.
Maritime transportation operates as a critical part of the global economy, responsible for more than 80% of global trade by volume. At least 10% of such trade originates from U.S. ports. This global shipping volume comes with a large global oil demand, which has been estimated by the International Energy Agency to be approximately 4.3 million barrels per day, which is equivalent to about 4% of the global energy demand. The IMO 2020 standards implement a requirement to reduce sulfur in traditional marine fuel—high sulfur fuel oils—to be less than 0.5% by weight (less than 5000 wppm). Thus, the effect of the IMO 2020 standards significantly impacts scope and volume.
Compliance with the IMO 2020 regulations resides with vessel owners and operators, which employ marine fuels—otherwise known as bunker fuels—for powering maritime vessels globally. Generally, there exists three options for such vessel owners and operators to comply with the IMO 2020 regulations: First, they can use a marine bunker fuel oil having less than 0.5% sulfur by weight. Second, they can continue to use high sulfur marine fuel oils and install a scrubber on the maritime vessel to remove sulfur from the combustion gases or emissions. Or, thirdly, they can switch to alternative fuels, such as natural gas, with low sulfur content that alternatively meet the low sulfur requirement.
U.S. refineries account for approximately 20% of global refining capability. Therefore, the need to produce low sulfur fuel oils for maritime use with sulfur contents less than 0.5% by weight has been and will continue to be a challenge to U.S. refining operations. The dilution of high sulfur fuel oils with low sulfur distillates to meet the low sulfur, viscosity, and the other fuel specifications of IMO 2020, has been a strategy of many refiners. Asphaltene precipitation, however, continues to be problematic.
In an attempt to prevent asphaltene precipitation upon mixing high sulfur fuel oils with low sulfur distillates, refiners have increasingly turned to proprietary additives to facilitate maintaining asphaltenes in solution. Such stop gap measures are expensive and tenuous at best when solving the larger problem of fuel compatibility and/or stability. What is needed therefore is a fuel oil blend that meets the specifications of IMO 2020 (see ISO 8217), including its low sulfur requirement, while achieving initial compatibility and longer term stability.
In the wake of IMO 2020, the enhancement of a residual hydrocarbon fraction or residuum (resid) through the utilization of low sulfur, highly aromatic cracked stocks may be used to produce low sulfur fuel oil (LSFO). Enhancement of the residual base stock permits otherwise incompatible hydrocarbon streams to become viable blends for sale e.g., as a product in the LSFO market. Enhancement of resid base stocks with decant oil, cracked hydrocarbon fractions, or a combination thereof also facilitates the creation of marine and other fuels which are economically advantageous, because they use greater amounts of heavier resid in the final blend. However, the blending of heavy residuum with lighter distillates and other refined products can cause initial compatibility and/or longer term stability problems, such as asphaltene precipitation.
Asphaltenes, the high viscosity portion of asphalt that is insoluble in low molecular weight alkanes, are complex, non-specific, heavy molecular weight hydrocarbon structures typically found in crude oils and fractionations thereof. Asphaltenes are defined as the fraction of crude oils/asphalts that is insoluble in n-heptane, but that is soluble in toluene. Although generally soluble in heavier molecular weight hydrocarbons, asphaltenes precipitate out of solution upon changes in pressure, temperature, composition and even time, especially if the crude oil has been subjected to refinery cracking operations. Asphaltene precipitation causes asphaltene deposition which may lead to severe fouling and/or plugging of processing, handling, and other downstream equipment. Thus, the dilution of high sulfur fuel oils—many of which have significant asphaltenes—with low sulfur distillates often causes the change in concentration that leads to asphaltene precipitation and deposition.
Applicant has recognized and found that if the base stock asphaltenic resid does not itself have sufficient stability prior to adding more paraffinic low sulfur distillates, such as sweet gas oil and/or diesel fuel and/or other middle distillates, then the blend has an increased risk of asphaltene precipitation. Applicant has further discovered that adding a high aromatic and/or resin stock to a given resid stock provides the unexpected result of improving the initial compatibility and the longer term stability of the resid stock upon blending with cutter stocks such that more paraffinic, low sulfur cutter stocks may be blended with the resid stock. Applicant has, therefore, discovered a synergistic effect of adding an aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction, such as decant oil, to stabilize an asphaltenic resid prior to adding distillates as diluents to subsequently drive down the sulfur content to meet low sulfur specifications. In one or more embodiments disclosed herein, low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil compositions, and methods of blending such compositions, are presented to increase initial compatibility and enhance longer term stability while meeting the specifications prescribed by IMO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380).
In one or more embodiments, a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil composition includes a decant oil, a vacuum gas oil and a residuum, such as a vacuum and/or atmospheric tower bottoms. The residuum is between about 12% to about 50% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content of at least about 1.5% by weight. The decant oil is at least about 16% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content of less than about 1% by weight. The vacuum gas oil is about 25% to about 74% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content less than about 0.1% by weight. In one or more embodiments, the combined volume of the residuum and the decant oil is at least about 50% of the composition. The composition has a final sulfur content of less than about by weight and an aromatic content of greater than about 50% and less than about 90% by weight. In one or more embodiments, the residuum and the decant oil each have a total sediment aged of greater than 0.1% by weight while the blended composition has a total sediment aged of less than 0.1% by weight.
In one or more embodiments, a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil composition is disclosed that includes a vacuum tower resid, a decant oil and a vacuum gas oil. The vacuum tower resid is about 15% to about 25% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content of less than about 2% by weight. The decant oil is at least about 20% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content of less than about 1% by weight. The vacuum gas oil is about 30% to about 65% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content less than about 0.1% by weight. In one or more embodiments, the combined volume of the vacuum tower resid and the decant oil is greater than about 35%, the low sulfur marine fuel oil composition has a final sulfur content of less than about by weight, and the low sulfur marine fuel oil composition has an aromatic content of between about 50% and about 90% by weight. In at least one embodiment, the sulfur content of the vacuum tower resid is less than about 1.5% by weight. In one or more embodiments, the composition may also include between about 1% to about 15% by volume of a light cycle oil that has an aromatic content of greater than about 75% by weight. At least some amount of aluminum, silicon, or both may be removed from the decant oil prior to blending into the composition.
In one or more embodiments, a low sulfur marine bunker fuel composition is disclosed that includes a vacuum tower resid, a decant oil, and a vacuum gas oil. The vacuum tower resid constitutes about 15% to about 25% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content of less than about 1.5% by weight. The decant oil constitutes about 30% to about 45% by volume of composition and has a sulfur content of less than about 1% by weight. The vacuum gas oil constitutes about 30% to about 50% by volume of the composition and has a sulfur content of less than about 0.1% by weight. In one or more embodiments, a combined volume of the vacuum tower resid and the decant oil is greater than about 50%, the low sulfur marine fuel oil composition has a final sulfur content of less than about 0.5% by weight, and the low sulfur marine fuel oil composition has an aromatic content of between about 50% and about 90% by weight. In at least one embodiment, the composition may also include between about 2% to about 8% by volume of a light cycle oil that has an aromatic content greater than about 75% by weight. In one or more embodiments, cracked stock of the decant oil and cracked stock of any light cycle oil does not exceed about 60% of the composition.
In one or more embodiments, a method for making a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil composition that increases initial compatibility and longer term stability is disclosed. The method includes producing a resid, such as a vacuum tower bottoms or atmospheric tower bottoms, having a sulfur content of less than about 2% by weight. In one or more embodiments, such sulfur content may be less than about 1.5% by weight. The method also includes blending a decant oil having a sulfur content of less than about 1% by weight with the resid to form an intermediate blend. The method also includes blending a vacuum gas oil having a sulfur content of less than about 0.1% by weight with the intermediate blend to define the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil composition. In one or more embodiments, the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil composition has about 12% to about 50% by volume of the vacuum tower bottoms, at least about 16% by volume of the decant oil, and about 25% to about 74% by volume of the vacuum gas oil. The low sulfur marine fuel oil composition may also have a combined volume of the vacuum tower bottoms and the decant oil that is at least about 50%, a final sulfur content of less than about 0.5% by weight, and an aromatic content of greater than about 50% and less than about 85% by weight. In at least one embodiment, the method further includes at least partially removing at least one of aluminum or silicon from the decant oil prior to blending the decant oil with the resid. In one or more embodiments, the resid and the decant oil each have a total sediment aged of greater than 0.1% by weight, and the intermediate blend and blended composition each have a total sediment aged of less than 0.1% by weight.
In one or more embodiments, a method for blending a low sulfur fuel oil composition as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is disclosed. Such method includes producing a residuum having a sulfur content of at least about 1.5% by weight with the residuum being between about 12 percent and about 50 percent by weight of the low sulfur fuel oil composition, introducing a catalytic cracked aromatic process oil into a blend tank with the residuum to form an intermediate blend, and introducing a low sulfur cutter stock selected from the group consisting of a vacuum gas oil, a cycle oil, and a diesel fuel, into the intermediate blend to define the low sulfur fuel oil composition. In one or more embodiments, the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil is the heaviest cut from a fluid catalytic cracker, has a sulfur content of less than about 0.5 percent by weight, and is at least about 16 percent by volume of the low sulfur fuel oil composition. In one or more embodiment, the low sulfur cutter stock has a sulfur content of less than about 0.15 percent by weight and is between about 25 percent and about 74 percent by volume of the low sulfur fuel oil composition. In at least one embodiment, the low sulfur fuel oil composition defined by such method has a sulfur content of less than about 0.5 percent by weight, a total aromatics content of at least about 45% by weight, and a combined concentration of residuum and catalytic cracked aromatic process oil of at least about 35% by volume.
In one or more embodiments, a method of making a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is disclosed. The method includes producing a vacuum tower residuum in a vacuum distillation column with the vacuum residuum having a sulfur content of less than about 2 percent by weight, or even less than about 1.5% by weight, and a total sediment aged of greater than 0.1 percent by weight, introducing a catalytic cracked aromatic process oil into a blend tank along with the vacuum tower residuum to define an intermediate blend that has a total sediment aged of less than about 0.1 percent by weight, blending an added low sulfur cutter stock with the intermediate blend in the blend tank to define the low sulfur fuel oil composition, and providing the low sulfur fuel oil composition as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil. In one or more embodiments, the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil is at least one of a decant oil or a cycle oil that is produced from a hydrotreated gas oil feed to a fluid catalytic cracker. The catalytic cracked aromatic process oil may also have a sulfur content of less than about 0.5 percent by weight and a total sediment aged of greater than about 0.1 percent by weight. In one or more embodiments, the low sulfur cutter stock is one or more of a vacuum gas oil or a diesel fuel and has a sulfur content of less than about percent by weight. In at least one embodiment, the vacuum tower residuum may be between about 12 percent and about 50 percent by weight of the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil, the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil may be at least about 16 percent by volume of the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil, and the low sulfur cutter stock may be between about 25 percent and about 74 percent by volume of the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil. The low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil may have a sulfur content of less than about 0.5 percent by weight, a total aromatics content of at least about 45 percent by weight, and a combined concentration of vacuum tower residuum and catalytic cracked aromatic process oil of at least about 35 percent by volume. In one or more embodiments, the low sulfur fuel oil composition is provided as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil without hydrotreating the low sulfur fuel oil composition after blending the low sulfur cutter stock with the intermediate blend. In at least one embodiment, the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil contributes less than about 60 weight percent of cracked stock to the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil.
In one or more embodiments, a method of making a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is disclosed. The method includes obtaining a resid, such as a crude-derived atmospheric tower bottoms resid and/or crude-derived vacuum tower bottoms resid, that has an aromatics content greater than about 50 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about 2 weight percent, or even less than about 1.5%, and a total sediment aged greater than about 0.1 percent. The method also includes blending an amount of a catalytic cracked aromatic process oil with the resid to define an intermediate blend. The catalytic cracked aromatic process oil may be the bottoms cut from fractionation of a fluid catalytic cracker product. The catalytic cracked aromatic process oil may have an aromatics content greater than about 70 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about weight percent, and a total sediment aged greater than about 0.1 weight percent. An amount of the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil is selected to achieve a total sediment aged of the intermediate blend of less than about 0.1 weight percent. The method also includes blending an amount of a low sulfur cutter stock that includes one or more of vacuum gas oil, cycle oil, or diesel fuel or other middle distillate, with the intermediate blend to define a low sulfur fuel oil blend. The low sulfur cutter stock may have a sulfur content less than about 0.5 weight percent. In one or more embodiments, the amount of the low sulfur cutter stock is selected to adjust or lower sulfur content of the low sulfur fuel oil blend below about 0.5 weight percent and adjust or increase API gravity of the low sulfur fuel oil blend to a value greater than about 11.3. The method also includes providing the low sulfur fuel oil blend as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil that has a total sediment aged of less than 0.1 weight percent. In at least one embodiment, the method further includes separating an amount of aluminum or silicon from the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil prior to blending the catalytic cracked aromatic process oil with the resid to reduce aluminum and silicon in the low sulfur fuel oil blend below 60 ppm. In at least one embodiment, the amount of catalytic cracked aromatic process oil is greater than about 1.5 times the amount of resid.
In one or more embodiments, a method of making a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is disclosed. The method includes producing a crude-derived resid in a distillation column with the crude-derived resid having an aromatics content greater than about 50 weight percent and a sulfur content less than about 2 weight percent, or even less than about 1.5 weight percent. The crude-derived resid may be one or more of an atmospheric tower bottoms resid or a vacuum tower bottoms resid and may have a total sediment aged of greater than about 0.1 weight percent. The method also includes adding an aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction and the resid into a tank. The aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction, which may be one or more of a decant oil or a cycle oil, may have an aromatics content greater than about 70 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about weight percent, and a total sediment aged greater than about 0.1 weight percent. The method also includes blending the aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction and the resid in the tank to define an intermediate blend. The aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction is blended in an amount relative to an amount of the resid to achieve a total sediment aged of the intermediate blend of less than about weight percent. The method also includes adding a low sulfur cutter stock into the tank with the intermediate blend. The low sulfur cutter stock may have a sulfur content less than about 0.5 weight percent and be one or more of a vacuum gas oil, cycle oil, or diesel fuel or other middle distillate. The method also includes blending the low sulfur cutter stock and the intermediate blend in the tank to define a low sulfur oil blend that has a sulfur content below 0.5 weight percent and an API gravity greater than about 11.3 after blending the low sulfur cutter stock with the intermediate blend. The method also includes outputting the low sulfur fuel oil blend as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil having a total sediment aged of less than 0.1 weight percent. In at least one embodiment, the aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction and any cycle oil of the low sulfur cutter stock together contribute less than about 60 weight percent of cracked stock to the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil. In one or more embodiments, the low sulfur cutter stock is a combination of a light cycle oil and a vacuum gas oil.
In one or more embodiments, a method of making a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is disclosed. The method includes obtaining a crude-derived vacuum tower bottoms resid that has an aromatics content greater than about 40 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about 2 weight percent, or even less than 1.5 weight percent, and a total sediment aged of greater than about 0.1 weight percent. The method also includes introducing an amount of an aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction into a blend tank along with the vacuum tower bottoms resid. The aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction has an aromatic content greater than about 70 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about 0.5 weight percent, and a total sediment aged greater than about 0.1 weight percent and may be at least one of a decant oil or a cycle oil. The method also includes blending the aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction and the vacuum tower bottoms resid in the blend tank to define an intermediate blend. In one or more embodiments, the amount of aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction blended is sufficient to achieve a total sediment aged of the intermediate blend of less than about 0.1 weight percent. The method also includes introducing an amount of a low sulfur cutter stock into the blend tank with the intermediate blend. The low sulfur cutter stock may have a sulfur content of less than about 0.5 weight percent and be one or more of vacuum gas oil, cycle oil, or diesel fuel or other middle distillate. The method may also include blending the low sulfur cutter stock and the intermediate blend in the blend tank to define a low sulfur fuel oil blend. In one or more embodiments, the amount of the low sulfur cutter stock introduced into the blend tank is sufficient to adjust, e.g., by lowering, sulfur content of the low sulfur fuel oil blend below 0.5 weight percent and adjust, e.g., by increasing, the API gravity of the low sulfur fuel oil blend to a value greater than about 11.3. The method may also include providing the low sulfur fuel oil blend as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel that has a total sediment aged less than 0.1 weight percent. In one or more embodiments, the low sulfur fuel oil blend may have between about 12 volume percent and about 50 volume percent of vacuum tower bottoms resid, a greater amount by volume of the aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction than the vacuum tower bottoms resid, and/or between about 25 volume percent and about 74 volume percent of the low sulfur cutter stock. In at least one embodiment, the vacuum tower bottoms resid and the aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction may be greater than 50 volume percent of the low sulfur fuel oil blend.
In one or more embodiments, a method of making a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is disclosed. The method may include producing a crude-derived vacuum tower bottoms resid that has an aromatics content greater than about 50 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about 1.5 weight percent, and a total sediment aged greater than about 0.1 weight percent. The method may also include hydrotreating a gas oil in a hydrotreater, introducing the hydrotreated gas oil to a fluid catalytic cracker, and operating the fluid catalytic cracker to produce a fluid catalytic cracker product. The method may also include adding a decant oil into a blend tank with the vacuum tower bottoms resid. The decant oil has an aromatic content greater than about 70 weight percent, a sulfur content less than about 0.5 weight percent, and a total sediment aged greater than about 0.1 weight percent. In one or more embodiments, the decant oil is a bottoms fraction from fractionation of the fluid catalytic cracker product. The method may also include blending the decant oil and the vacuum tower bottoms resid in the blend tank to define an intermediate blend that has an amount of the decant oil relative to the amount of the resid to achieve a total sediment aged of the intermediate blend of less than about 0.1 weight percent. The method also includes adding a low sulfur cutter stock that has a sulfur content less than about 0.5 weight percent and is at least two of vacuum gas oil, light cycle oil, or diesel fuel or other middle distillates. The method includes blending the low sulfur cutter stock and the intermediate blend to define a low sulfur fuel oil blend that has a sulfur content less than about 0.5 weight percent and an API gravity greater than about 11.3. The low sulfur fuel oil blend is then outputted as a low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil that has a total sediment aged of less than 0.1 weight percent. In at least one embodiment, the decant oil and any cycle oil of the low sulfur cutter stock together contribute between about 30 weight percent and about 50 weight percent of cracked stock to the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil such that the CCAI of the low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil is maintained between about 840 and about 860.
These and other features, aspects, and advantages of the disclosure will become better understood with regard to the following descriptions, claims, and accompanying drawings. It is to be noted, however, that the drawings illustrate only several embodiments of the disclosure and, therefore, are not to be considered limiting of the scope of the disclosure.
So that the manner in which the features and advantages of the embodiments of the compositions and related methods disclosed herein, as well as others, which will become apparent, may be understood in more detail, a more particular description of embodiments of compositions and related methods briefly summarized above may be had by reference to the following detailed description of embodiments thereof, in which one or more are further illustrated in the appended drawings, which form a part of this specification. It is to be noted, however, that the drawings illustrate only various embodiments of the compositions and related methods disclosed herein and are therefore not to be considered limiting of the scope of the compositions and related methods disclosed herein as it may include other effective embodiments as well.
With the implementation of lower sulfur specifications for marine fuel oil under IMO 2020, refiners have turned to blending high sulfur refinery products, such as resid, with low sulfur distillates to meet the low sulfur and other fuel specifications. However, the blend must have initial compatibility in order to prevent asphaltenes suspended in the heavy blend fraction from precipitating out of solution upon blending. Moreover, the blend must also have longer term stability, such that the asphaltenes present in the heavy blend fraction remain in solution over time during sale, distribution, and other outputting, e.g., during storage and/or transport.
Applicant has recognized and found that if the base stock asphaltenic resid does not itself have sufficient stability prior to adding more paraffinic low sulfur distillates, such as sweet gas oil and/or diesel fuel, then the blend has an increased risk of asphaltene precipitation. This discovery, for example, is more than just the general perception that asphaltene precipitation increases as the density variation between asphaltenic resid and cutter stocks increases. Here, Applicant has recognized that the base stock asphaltenic resid, e.g., either the atmospheric tower bottoms or vacuum tower bottoms, must itself have a degree of stability prior to adding more paraffinic low sulfur distillates, such as sweet gas oil and/or diesel fuel or other middle distillates.
The colloidal instability index (CII) is one approach, and is often used, to ascertain the instability of a crude oil. CII is computed from a SARA analysis, which is a measure of the chemical composition of the aromatics, resins, saturates, and asphaltenes in a sampled hydrocarbon. CII is expressed as the ratio of the sum of asphaltenes and saturates to the sum of aromatics and resins. Although traditionally used with respect to crude oils, CII has been extrapolated and used to ascertain the stability of fractions of heavier oils, such as resids. Generally, if the CII is less than 0.7, then the hydrocarbon is stable, but if the CII is greater than 0.9, then the hydrocarbon is unstable and likely to precipitate asphaltenes. A CII between 0.7 and 0.9 represents a region of moderate stability or growing instability.
Applicant also has discovered that CII data, when computed for some severely cracked resids, is misleading with respect to compatibility and stability. For example, Table I below lists characteristics of several example resid base stock, including their SARA analysis and CII data:
The first resid, labeled as Ex.1, is a crude-derived vacuum tower bottoms resid that is further processed and may be characterized as being severely cracked. The high aromatic content at about 70 percent is indicative of a severely cracked resid. But, the CII for this fraction is 0.24, which is indicative of a very stable hydrocarbon—one that should not precipitate asphaltenes upon blending with low sulfur distillates. Applicant has further found, however, that this Ex.1 resid fraction, is problematic and readily precipitates asphaltenes upon blending with low sulfur distillates and cutter stock, such as sweet gas oil and/or diesel fuel or other middle distillates, e.g., jet fuel, kerosene, etc.
As illustrated in
Applicant has thus still further recognized that adding a high aromatic and/or resin stock, such as a decant oil, to a given resid stock provides the unexpected result of improving the initial compatibility and the longer term stability of the resid stock upon blending with cutter stocks such that more paraffinic, low-sulfur cutter stocks may be blended with the resid stock. A decant oil, otherwise known as DCO or slurry oil, is a catalytic cracked aromatic process oil that is the heaviest cut from a fluid catalytic cracker.
As shown in
Applicant has, therefore, discovered a synergistic effect of adding an aromatic rich hydrocarbon fraction, such as decant oil or cycle oil, to stabilize an asphaltenic resid prior to adding distillates as diluents to subsequently drive down the sulfur content. This synergetic effect, as shown in
Therefore,
Resid fractions having high concentrations of decant oils (slurry) may cause the final LSFO blends to be out of specification due to high metal concentrations. Under IMO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380), LSFO has a maximum limit of 60 ppm of combined aluminum plus silicon content. FCC catalysts typically have a silicon and/or aluminum support matrix that incorporates rare earth metals for catalytic activity. Decant oils (slurry), which are produced by the FCC unit, can contain high amounts of FCC catalyst fines, largely composed of aluminum and/or silicon. However, the presence of these fines in the decant oil (slurry) can be eliminated by filtering decant oil (slurry) off of the FCC unit before blending. In one or more embodiments, at least partial amounts of aluminum and/or silicon may be removed from the decant oil (slurry) prior to further blending, e.g., by filtering, decanting, electric field separation, centrifuge, etc. With respect to the electric field separation, a Gulftronic electrostatic separator manufactured by General Atomics of San Diego, California may be used to remove FCC catalyst fines from the decant/slurry oil.
As can be seen in
Indeed, the importance of this result is not in the stability itself, but rather the synergistic effect of the combination of the resid and decant oil to further permit blending of low-sulfur cutter stocks. Also shown in
In one or more embodiments, resids, such as vacuum tower bottoms or atmospheric tower bottoms, may be blended with low sulfur cutter stocks to create LSFO meeting the 0.5% maximum sulfur content required by IMO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380). However, the dilution of asphaltenic resids—those resids having asphaltenes—with cutter stocks high in saturate content may disrupt the supportive matrix, thought to be provided by resins, in the resid, which can lead to asphaltene precipitation and sediment formation. Highly aromatic stocks, such as slurry/decant oil, can be blended with the resid to stabilize the asphaltenes and improve both initial compatibility and long-term (aged) stability of the final LSFO blend. In some cases, synergistic effects are noted in which the aged sediment of the blend is lower than the starting residual and low sulfur blend components. Similarly, aromatic stocks can be used as a stabilizing binder for blending incompatible finished LSFOs as long as the final product specifications are not violated.
Disclosed herein, therefore, are low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil blends, and methods of making such blends, to improve initial compatibility and aged stability of asphaltenic resids. The blending of resid fractions with dense, aromatic decant (DCO)/slurry oils, created from hydrotreated FCC feed, prior to final dilution, or the blending of resid fractions with cracked hydrocarbon fractions solely, or a combination thereof, facilitates in lowering the overall sulfur content of the blend to meet the LSFO specification, e.g., IMO 2020, while minimizing density changes and providing added aromaticity to support asphaltene stability. It will be understood that the ratios for final LSFO blend components may be adjusted to meet the sulfur and other fuel specifications.
As is known to those skilled in the art, resid or residuum is any refinery fraction left behind after distillation. Resid may refer to atmospheric tower bottoms and/or vacuum tower bottoms.
Atmospheric tower bottoms (ATB), also called long resid, is the heaviest undistilled fraction (uncracked) in the atmospheric pressure distillation of a crude oil, as is known to those skilled in the art. ATB has crude oil components with boiling points above about 650° F. (343° C.), which is below the cracking temperature of the crude oil.
Vacuum tower bottoms (VTB), also called short resid, is the heaviest undistilled fraction (uncracked) in the vacuum distillation of a hydrocarbon feedstock, as is known to those skilled in the art. VTBs may have one or more of the following characteristics: a density at 15° C. of between about 0.8 and about 1.1 g/ml, a sulfur content of between about 1.0 and about 3.0 wt%, a pour point of between about −20 and about 75° C., a kinematic viscosity of between about 50 and about 12,000 cSt (50° C.), a flash point of between about 50 and about 200° C., and an API density of between about 3.0 and about 20. Moreover, VTBs generated from sweet run hydrocarbon feedstock (e.g., hydrotreated feedstock to the vacuum tower) may have sulfur content below about 1.0 wt%, below about 0.9 wt%, below about 0.8 wt%, below about 0.7 wt%, below about 0.6 wt%, below about 0.5 wt%, below about 0.4 wt%, below about 0.3 wt% or even below about 0.2 wt%.
Decant oil (DCO), also known as slurry oil, is a high-boiling catalytic cracked aromatic process oil and is the heaviest cut off of a fluid catalytic cracker unit, as is known to those skilled in the art. Decant oil may have one or more of the following characteristics: a density at 15° C. of between about 0.9 and about 1.2 g/ml, a sulfur content of between about 0.20 and about 0.50 wt%, a pour point of between about −5 to about 5° C., a kinematic viscosity of between about 100 and about 200 cSt (50° C.), a flash point between about 50 and about 150° C., and an API of between about −1.0 and about 1.0.
Vacuum gas oil (VGO) may be light and/or heavy gas oil cuts from the vacuum distillation column, as is known to those skilled in the art. VGO may have one or more of the following characteristics: a density at 15° C. of between about 0.85 and about 1.1 g/ml, a sulfur content of between about 0.02 and about 0.15 wt%, a pour point of between about to 15 about 35° C., a kinematic viscosity of between about 15 and about 35 cSt (50° C.), a flash point between about 100 and about 175° C., and an API of between about 15 and about 30.
Cycle oil is the diesel-range, cracked product from the fluid catalytic cracker unit, as is known to those skilled in the art. Cycle oil may be light, medium or heavy and may have one or more of the following characteristics: a density at 15° C. of between about 0.75 and about 1.0 g/ml, a sulfur content of between about 0.01 and about 0.25 wt%, a kinematic viscosity of between about 2 and about 50 cSt (50° C.), a flash point between about 50 and about 70° C., and an API of between about 25 and about 50.
In one or more of such blends, about 5 to about 80 percent by volume of an atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower bottoms, or a combination of both is utilized as a base stock. The resid base stock imparts viscosity and compatibility to the blend, but tends to be high in sulfur content, and may be between about 1.0 to about 2.0 or more by weight percent, which is well above the IMO 2020 sulfur specification of 0.5 weight percent. In one or more embodiments, the sulfur content of the resid base stock (i.e., atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower bottoms, or a combination of both) may be greater than 1.0 wt%, greater than 1.1 wt%, greater than 1.2 wt%, greater than 1.3 wt%, greater than 1.4 wt%, greater than 1.5 wt%, greater than 1.6 wt%, greater than 1.7 wt%, greater than 1.8 wt%, greater than 1.9 wt%, or even greater than 2.0 wt%. The sulfur content of the resid base stock may also be less than or equal to each of the several values described above. For example, the sulfur content of the resid base stock may be less than 2.0 wt%, less than 1.5 wt%, less than 0.5 wt%, less than 0.25% or even less. To improve finished LSFO stability, about 5 to about 50 percent by volume of a residual cracked stock, such as decant oil (DCO) or slurry oil, is blended into the resid base stock. The decant oil tends to have a lower sulfur content than the resid base stock, and such sulfur content may be less than about 1.0 percent by weight, less than about 0.9 percent by weight, less than about 0.8 percent by weight, less than about 0.7 percent by weight, less than about 0.6 percent by weight, less than about 0.5 percent by weight, less than about 0.4 percent by weight, less than about 0.3 percent by weight, less than about 0.2 percent by weight, or even less than about 0.1 percent by weight. As described above, the synergistic effect of the decant oil and resid blend with respect to initial compatibility and/or longer term stability permits additional blending of up to about 75 percent by volume with low sulfur cutter stocks, such as light cycle oil (LCO), medium cycle oil (MCO), heavy cycle oil (HCO), and vacuum gas oil (VGO) cracked hydrocarbons or combinations thereof. These cracked hydrocarbons tend to be the lowest of the three blend components with respect to sulfur, and such sulfur content may less than about 0.1 percent by weight, less than about 0.15 percent by weight, less than about 0.20 percent by weight, less than about 0.25 percent by weight, less than about 0.30 percent by weight, less than about 0.40 percent by weight, less than about 0.45 percent by weight, or even less than about 0.50 percent by weight.
In one or more other such blends, about 12 to about 50 percent by volume of an atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower bottoms, or a combination of both is utilized as a base stock. Again, to improve finished LSFO stability, about 16 to about 40 percent by volume of a residual cracked stock, such as decant oil or slurry oil, is blended into the resid base stock. The synergistic effect of the residual cracked stock (i.e., decant oil) and base stock resid blend permits additional blending of between about 25 to about 74 percent by volume of low sulfur cutter stocks, such as LCO, MCO, HCO, and VGO cracked hydrocarbons or combinations thereof, which may be paraffinic depending on the hydrocarbon fraction. In one or more embodiments of such blends, the blend characteristics may include one or more of the following: the kinematic viscosity is between about 50.1 and about 80.0 cSt, the API is between about 10.0 and about 18.9, the pour point is below 7 ° C. and the CCAI is greater than 810.
In one or more other such blends, about 15 percent to about 25 percent by volume of an atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower bottoms, or combination of both is utilized as a base stock. Again, to improve finished LSFO stability, about 30 percent to about 45 percent by volume of residual cracked stock, such as a decant oil or slurry oil, is blended into the resid base stock. Thus, the ratio of the residual cracked stock (i.e., FCC cracked hydrocarbon products) to base stock resid may be 1.5 to 1 or even greater. Thus, more than 1.5, more than 1.6, more than 1.7, more than 1.8, more than 1.9 or even more than 2 times as much residual cracked stock may be used as compared to base stock resid. The synergistic effect of the residual cracked stock and base stock resid blend permits additional blending of between about 30 percent and about 50 percent by volume of low sulfur cutter stocks, such as LCO, MCO, HCO, and VGO cracked hydrocarbons or combination thereof, which may be paraffinic depending on the hydrocarbon fraction.
The utilization of vacuum tower bottoms (VTB) resid stock is enhanced if it is blended with decant oil (slurry oil) in sufficient volumetric proportions to create a synergistic blend. Thus, in one or more blend embodiments, initial compatibility and/or longer term stability are improved when VTB and decant oil (slurry) oil have a combined concentration of at least about 25 percent by volume of the final blend, with the remaining portion being composed of a cutter stock, such as light cycle oil, medium cycle oil, heavy cycle oil, vacuum gas oil, or combinations thereof. In one or more other embodiments, the combined concentration of VTB and decant oil is at least about 10 percent by volume, at least about 15 percent by volume, at least about 20 by volume, at least about 30 percent by volume, at least about 35 percent by volume, at least about 40 percent by volume, at least about 45 percent by volume, at least about 50 percent by volume, at least about 55 percent by volume, at least about 60 percent by volume, at least about 65 percent by volume, at least about 70 percent by volume, at least about 75 percent by volume, at least about 80 percent by volume, at least about 85 percent by volume, at least about 90 by volume, at least about 95 percent by volume, with the remaining portion in each case being composed of a cutter stock, such as light cycle oil, medium cycle oil, heavy cycle oil, vacuum gas oil, or combinations thereof, or other hydrocarbon fractions or additives, as known by those skilling the art. In at least one embodiment, the final blend comprises mainly vacuum tower bottoms and decant oil.
The utilization of atmospheric tower bottoms (ATB) in combination with VTB, or the utilization of ATB resid stock alone, is enhanced if these resid stocks are blended with decant oil (slurry oil) in sufficient volumetric proportions to create a synergistic blend. Thus, in one or more blend embodiments, initial compatibility and/or longer term stability are improved when ATB, VTB, and decant oil (slurry oil), or ATB and decant oil, have a combined concentration of at least 50 percent by volume of the final blend, with the remaining portion being composed of a cutter stock, such as light cycle oil, medium cycle oil, heavy cycle oil, vacuum gas oil, or combinations thereof. In one or more other embodiments, the combined concentration of ATB, VTB, and decant oil, or ATB and decant oil, is at least about 10 percent by volume, at least about 15 percent by volume, at least about 20 percent by volume, at least about 25 percent by volume, at least about 30 percent by volume, at least about 35 percent by volume, at least about 40 percent by volume, at least about 45 percent by volume, at least about 55 percent by volume, at least about 60 percent by volume, at least about 65 percent by volume, at least about 70 percent by volume, at least about 75 percent by volume, at least about 80 percent by volume, at least about 85 percent by volume, at least about 90 by volume, at least about 95 percent by volume, with the remaining portion in each case being composed of a cutter stock, such as light cycle oil, medium cycle oil, heavy cycle oil, vacuum gas oil, or combinations thereof, or other hydrocarbon fractions or additives, as known by those skilled in the art. In at least one embodiment, the final blend comprises mainly atmospheric tower bottoms and decant oil.
In one or more embodiments, the stability of the blend is further enhanced by the addition of two or more cutter stocks in combination. In such embodiments, the blend includes between about 15 percent to about 25 percent by volume of a base stock that is an atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower bottoms, or a combination of both. To increase the stability of the resid base stock, between about 20 percent to about 40 percent by volume of a residual cracked stock, such as decant oil or slurry oil, is blended into the resid base stock. Thus, the ratio of the residual cracked stock (i.e., FCC cracked hydrocarbon products) to resid may be 1.5 to 1 or even greater. Thus, more than 1.5, more than 1.6, more than 1.7, more than 1.8, more than 1.9 or even more than 2 times as much residual cracked stock may be used as compared to resid. As previously mentioned, the synergistic effect of the decant/slurry oil and resid blend permits additional blending of between about 40 to about 65 percent by volume of more paraffinic, but lower sulfur cutter stocks, such as VGO, low sulfur VGO or combinations thereof. The blending of lower sulfur cutter stocks ensures that the final LSFO blend that includes the resid base stock and the decant/slurry oil will meet the required lower sulfur specification. However, in one or more embodiments, it has been found that adding LCO that is high in aromatic content in addition to VGO may enhance stability of the overall four component blend. Such added LCO may be in an amount of between about 0 percent by volume to about 15 percent by volume, which is equal to or less than the amount of VGO/LSVGO added to the blend. In one or more embodiments of such blends, the blend characteristics may include one or more of the following: the kinematic viscosity is between about 5 and about 20 cSt, the API is between about 10 and about 16, the flash point is below about 140° C. and the CCAI is greater than about 830.
TABLE III below gives the characteristics of several blend components, e.g., various VTB resids, decant/slurry oil, DGO, and LCO used in the several prophetic examples of final four-component blends (i.e., Blend A to Blend E) according to the disclosure herein. TABLE IV below gives the final blend compositions and the resulting characteristics for these several prophetic examples. In each of Blend A to Blend E, the four components blended as shown create a stable mixture in which the aged sediment is calculated below 0.1%.
The use of three or more component blends also provides some flexibility regarding other desired or required blend properties. For example, and to limit the scope in any way, the decant/slurry oil may be blended with a greater amount of a heavy resid such that the resulting decant/resid blend is too heavy and would not meet the density specification of the final blend without additional components. A VGO or other sweet hydrocarbon fraction may be blended with the decant/resid to bring the sulfur of the resulting blend into specification. Moreover, a lighter distillate, such as kerosene, diesel, etc., may then be added to three-component blend of resid/decant/VGO to bring the density of the resulting and final four-component blend into specification. Thus, as described herein, the use of four components permits the utilization of a greater amount of resid while still providing a final blend that meets sulfur and density specifications.
EXAMPLE 1
In a first non-limiting, prophetic example of the above-described blending to achieve LSFO that meets specification under ISO 2020, a vacuum tower resid (RESID), a decant oil (DECANT) and a vacuum gas oil (VGO) were blended such that the final blend had 22.6% by volume of RESID, 14.3% by volume of DECANT, and 63.1% by volume of VGO. TABLE V gives the characteristics of the RESID, DECANT, VGO and the final blend. The combination of VTB and Decant was 36.9% by volume. The data provided in TABLE V for each of the RESID, DECANT, and VGO is based upon a certified analysis of each respective blend component that was performed by a third party analyzer. The data for the final blend (BLEND) given in TABLE V is based on a certified analysis of a hand blend that was also performed by the third party analyzer. Based on the characteristics thereof given in the far right column of TABLE V, the BLEND meets the marine bunker fuel oil specifications under IMO 2020, including the total sulfur content, which is below 0.5% at about 0.41% by weight. The BLEND also has a total aged sediment of less than 0.10 weight percent, which is indicative of longer term stability. As given in TABLE V, the BLEND also has an aromatics content of about 46% as well as a combined aluminum and silicon concentration of about 30 ppm. The solubility index is typically used to assess crude oil blending compatibility/stability, however, the solubility index has also proven useful when assessing the compatibility/stability of blending refined product. As with crude oil, refined product blends are typically compatible/stable when the solubility coefficient SBN of the blend is greater than the highest insolubility coefficient IN of any blend coefficient. Here, the BLEND has a solubility coefficient SBN of 85.3, which is higher than the highest insolubility index of any blend component (i.e., 69 for the DECANT). Thus, the solubility index confirms that compatibility and stability of the instant LSFO blend.
In one or more methods of blending the marine bunker fuel oil compositions disclosed herein, lower economic value resid base stock is used to as great an extent as possible because of its economic advantage when used in LSFO. LSFO is generally sold on the basis of weight; therefore, LSFO having denser hydrocarbon components provide greater economic return on a volume basis. However, the resid base stocks tend to be high in sulfur content and in viscosity, both of which have lower limits under IMO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380). In one or more embodiments, the method optimizes the amount of resid stock, but uses a quantity of decant oil, e.g., from about 16% to about 40% by volume, to stabilize the resid base stock such that a low sulfur cutter stock, such as cycle oil or vacuum gas oil, may be used to reduce viscosity and sulfur to meet specification in the final blend. In effect, the cracked stocks, such as decant oil (slurry oil), are used as compatibility and/or stability enhancers for the residual hydrocarbon base. This creates robust blending opportunities to achieve final fuel blends having higher density but also having initial compatibility and longer term stability (e.g., reducing asphaltene precipitation). Here, the use of low sulfur decant oil from hydrotreated FCC feeds also works to reduce sulfur content of the blend thereby reducing the amount of economically more expensive low sulfur distillate or low sulfur hydrocarbon that will be required to meet the final blend specification.
In one or more methods of blending the LSFO, a resid feed stock, such as vacuum tower bottoms, is produced. This short resid has a sulfur content of at least about 1.5 percent by weight. Optionally, the bottoms from the fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC) unit, i.e., decant oil (slurry oil), is filtered or decanted to remove FCC catalyst fines concentration, (e.g., aluminum, silicon, etc.) thereby reducing the concentration of aluminum and/or silicon in the filtered or decanted oil. Such additional filtering and/or decanting facilitates the achievement of the maximum combined aluminum and silicon concentration in the final blend. The decant oil is produced in a fluid catalytic cracker using a hydrotreated feed that is fed to the fluid catalytic cracker. The resulting low sulfur decant oil, having a sulfur content of less than about 1.2 percent by weight, less than about 1.0 percent by weight, less than about 0.8 percent by weight, less than about 0.6 percent by weight, less than 0.4 percent by weight or even less than 0.2 percent by weight, is either blended with the resid feed stock or added into a tank holding the resid feed stock. The blended resid feed stock is held in a tank until further blending with the cutter stocks to create the final blend. The decant oil mitigates the paraffin nature of cutter stocks to enhance the compatibility of the cutter stocks in the final blend. A cutter stock, such as a LCO, MCO, HCO, and/or VGO, having a sulfur content of less than about 0.5 percent by weight, less than about 0.4 percent by weight, less than about 0.3 percent by weight, less than about 0.2 percent by weight, or even less than about 0.1 percent by weight, is then either blended with the resid base stock and decant oil or added into a tank holding the resid base stock and decant oil. The cutter stock reduces the final blend sulfur content to less than 0.5 percent by weight and facilitates meeting the other final fuel specifications, e.g., viscosity, etc., as will be understood by those skilled in the art.
TABLE VI below gives the characteristics of several blend components, e.g., various resids, decant oil, LCO, HCO and VGO, used in the several prophetic examples of final blends (i.e., Blend 1 to Blend 14) according to the disclosure herein. TABLE VII below gives the final blend compositions for the several prophetic examples of such final blends according to the disclosure herein. TABLES VIII and IX provide the characteristics for the several prophetic examples of such final blends having the corresponding final blend compositions given in TABLE VII and that use various blend components, whose characteristics are given in TABLE VI. Within TABLES VIII and IX, the values in bold italics represent characteristics of the respective final blend that do not meet the specifications required under IMO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380). However, with slight adjustments to the blend component concentrations, these blends could be brought to within specification under IMO 2020.
Example 2
In non-limiting, prophetic Example 2, Blend #1 is composed of Resid 4, a sweet run vacuum tower bottom blend, to which Decant Oil and Vacuum Gas Oil have been added. The final blend has about 24.8 percent by volume Resid 4, 30.7 percent by volume Decant Oil, and 55.5 percent by volume Vacuum Gas Oil. The characteristics of the Resid 4, Decant Oil, and Light Cycle Oil are given in TABLE VI. The final blend, Blend #1, has the characteristics given in TABLE VIII and is projected to meet the marine bunker fuel oil specifications under IMO 2020, including the total sulfur content, which is below 0.5% at about 0.46% by weight. Blend #1 is also calculated to meet the total aged sediment requirement of less than 0.10 weight percent, which is indicative of longer term stability. As given in TABLE VIII, Blend #1 has an aromatics content of about 61%. Blend #1 also has a combined volume of vacuum tower bottoms and decant oil that is higher than 50%—at about 55.5%.
Example 3
In non-limiting, prophetic Example 3, Blend #3 is composed of Resid 1, a severely cracked vacuum tower bottoms, to which Decant Oil and then Light Cycle Oil have been added. The final blend has about 12 percent by volume of Resid 1, about 54 percent by volume of Decant Oil and about 34 percent by volume of Light Cycle Oil. The characteristics of the Resid 1, Decant Oil, and Light Cycle Oil are given in TABLE VI. The final blend, Blend #3, has the characteristics given in TABLE VIII and is projected to meet the marine bunker fuel oil specifications under IMO 2020, including the total sulfur content, which is below 0.5% at about 0.41% by weight. Blend #3 is also calculated to meet the total aged sediment requirement of less than 0.10 weight percent, which is indicative of longer term stability. As given in TABLE VIII, Blend #3 has an aromatics content of about 88%. In one or more embodiments, the total aromatics content of the final blend is at most 90%, at most 85% at most 80%, at most 75%, at most 70%, at most 65%, at most 60%, or even at most 55%, in order to mitigate and/or control particulate emissions upon combustion of the LSFO. Blend #3 also has a combined volume of vacuum tower bottoms and decant oil that is higher than 50%—at about 66%.
Example 4
In non-limiting, prophetic Example 4, Blend #10 is composed of Resid 3, a mildly cracked sweet run vacuum tower bottom blend, to which Decant Oil and then Vacuum Gas Oil have been added. The final blend has about 25.5 percent by volume of Resid 3, about 36.9 percent by volume of Decant Oil and about 37.6 percent by volume of Vacuum Gas Oil. The characteristics of the Resid 3, Decant Oil, and Vacuum Gas Oil are given in TABLE VI. The final blend, Blend #10, has the characteristics given in TABLE IX and is projected to meet the marine bunker fuel oil specifications under IMO 2020, including the total sulfur content, which is below 0.5% at about by weight. Here, there is sulfur giveaway and possible room to increase the volume of the Resid 3, if the other IMO requirements of the final blend can be met. Blend #10 is also calculated to meet the total aged sediment requirement of less than 0.10 weight percent, which is indicative of longer term stability. As given in TABLE IX, Blend #3 has an aromatics content of about 64%. Blend #10 also has a combined volume of vacuum tower bottoms and decant oil that is higher than 50%—at about 62.4%.
Although only Blend #1, Blend #3 and Blend #10 are discussed above in the Examples 2 through 4, respectively, each of Blends #1 through #14 of TABLE VII is a non-limiting example of the blend compositions and associated methods disclosed herein.
As shown in the above Examples 1-4, the three component blends of a VTB (or ATB) blended with a decant oil (slurry oil) and a low sulfur cutter stock, such as VGO and/or cycle oil, in the appropriate blend ratios will meet the LSFO fuel specification IMO 2020 requirements (see ISO-8217, RMG-380). As described previously, these blend components are blended for their synergistic effect to stabilize the resid hydrocarbon fraction while permitting subsequent dilution with cutter stock to meet low sulfur and viscosity requirements, among others, of the finished blended product.
Example 5
In Example 5, an atmospheric tower bottoms, a decant/slurry oil, and a low sulfur vacuum gas oil were blended to achieve an LSFO marketed to meet the specification under ISO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380). TABLE X below gives the characteristics of each of the blend components used to create this blend.
To create the blend of Example 5, about 23.0 percent by volume of ATB, about 28.0 percent by volume of decant/slurry oil, and about 46.8 percent by volume of low sulfur vacuum gas oil were blended to achieve an LSFO achieving the IMO 2020 specification per ISO 8217. The characteristics of the final blend, which are based on a certified analysis, are given in TABLE XI below. It should be noted that the sulfur content of the final blend is about 0.299 percent by weight, which is less than the maximum allowable of 0.5 percent by weight. The potential total sediment (i.e., total sediment aged) of 0.01 weight percent is also well below the maximum allowable of 0.1 weight percent and its low value is indicative of a compatible and stable fuel oil blend. Here, the ATB and decant/slurry oil constitute about 51.0 percent by volume of the blend. The final blend has a solubility coefficient SBN of 148.9, which is much higher than 69, the highest insolubility index IN of any blend component. Thus, the solubility index confirms that compatibility and stability of the instant LSFO blend.
Example 6
In Example 6, a vacuum tower bottoms, a decant/slurry oil, a low sulfur vacuum gas oil and a heel portion were blended to achieve an LSFO marketed to meet the specification under ISO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380). TABLE XII below gives the characteristics of each of the blend components used to create this blend.
To create the blend of Example 6, about 23.6 percent by volume of VTB, about 19.7 percent by volume of decant/slurry oil, about 55.1 percent by volume of low sulfur vacuum gas oil and about 1.6% by volume of a heel portion were blended to achieve an LSFO achieving the IMO 2020 specification per ISO 8217. The characteristics of the final blend, which are based on a certified analysis, are given in TABLE XIII below. It should be noted that the sulfur content of the final blend is about 0.401 percent by weight, which is less than the maximum allowable of 0.5 percent by weight. The accelerated total sediment of 0.01 weight percent is also well below the maximum allowable of 0.1 weight percent and its low value is indicative of a compatible and stable fuel oil blend. Here, the VTB and decant/slurry oil constitute about 43.3 percent by volume of the blend.
Example 7
In Example 7, a vacuum tower bottoms, a decant/slurry oil, a low sulfur vacuum gas oil and a heel portion were blended to achieve an LSFO marketed to meet the specification under ISO 2020 (see ISO 8217, RMG 380). TABLE XIV below gives the characteristics of each of the blend components used to create this blend.
To create the blend of Example 7, about 16.7 percent by volume of VTB, about 34.4 percent by volume of decant/slurry oil, about 25.6 percent by volume of low sulfur vacuum gas oil and about 23.3% by volume of a heel portion were blended to achieve an LSFO achieving the IMO 2020 specification per ISO 8217. The characteristics of the final blend, which are based on a certified analysis, are given in TABLE XV below. It should be noted that the sulfur content of the final blend is about 0.49 percent by weight, which is just less than the maximum allowable of 0.5 percent by weight. The potential total sediment (i.e., total sediment aged) of <0.01 weight percent is also well below the maximum allowable of 0.1 weight percent and its low value is indicative of a compatible and stable fuel oil blend. Here, the VTB and decant/slurry oil constitute about 51.1 percent by volume of the blend.
The ISO 8217, Category ISO-F RMG 380 specifications for residual marine fuels are given below in TABLE XVI. As used in this disclosure, achieving or meeting the IMO 2020 specifications per ISO 8217 for a particular fuel oil blend is with respect to the values for the blend characteristics as listed in Table XVI below and as confirmed by the respective test methods and/or references provided in ISO 8217. As understood by those skilled in the art, the other specifications provided in ISO 8217, e.g., RMA, RMB, RMD, RME, and RMK, may sought to be achieved by adjusting the blend compositions.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/727,094, filed Apr. 22, 2022, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blends for Stability Enhancement and Associated Methods,” which is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/249,081, filed Feb. 19, 2021, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blends for Stability Enhancement and Associated Methods,” now U.S. Pat. No. 11,352,578, issued Jun. 7, 2022, which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/978,798, filed Feb. 19, 2020, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blending for Stability Enhancement and Associated Methods,” and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/199,188, filed Dec. 11, 2020, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blending for Paraffinic Resid Stability and Associated Methods,” the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
In the drawings and specification, several embodiments of low sulfur marine bunker fuel oil compositions, and methods of blending such compositions, to increase initial compatibility and enhance longer term stability have been disclosed, and although specific terms are employed, the terms are used in a descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation. Embodiments of compositions and related methods have been described in considerable detail with specific reference to the illustrated embodiments. However, it will be apparent that various modifications and changes to disclosed features can be made within the spirit and scope of the embodiments of compositions and related methods as may be described in the foregoing specification, and features interchanged between disclosed embodiments. Such modifications and changes are to be considered equivalents and part of this disclosure.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/727,094, filed Apr. 22, 2022, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blends for Stability Enhancement and Associated Methods,” which is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/249,081, filed Feb. 19, 2021, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blends for Stability Enhancement and Associated Methods,” now U.S. Pat. No. 11,352,578, issued Jun. 7, 2022, which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/978,798, filed Feb. 19, 2020, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blending for Stability Enhancement and Associated Methods,” and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/199,188, filed Dec. 11, 2020, titled “Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Blending for Paraffinic Resid Stability and Associated Methods,” the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 981434 | Lander | Jan 1911 | A |
| 1526301 | Stevens | Feb 1925 | A |
| 1572922 | Govers et al. | Feb 1926 | A |
| 1867143 | Fohl | Jul 1932 | A |
| 2401570 | Koehler | Jun 1946 | A |
| 2498442 | Morey | Feb 1950 | A |
| 2516097 | Woodham et al. | Jul 1950 | A |
| 2686728 | Wallace | Aug 1954 | A |
| 2691621 | Gagle | Oct 1954 | A |
| 2691773 | Lichtenberger | Oct 1954 | A |
| 2731282 | Mcmanus et al. | Jan 1956 | A |
| 2740616 | Walden | Apr 1956 | A |
| 2792908 | Glanzer | May 1957 | A |
| 2804165 | Blomgren | Aug 1957 | A |
| 2867913 | Faucher | Jan 1959 | A |
| 2888239 | Slemmons | May 1959 | A |
| 2909482 | Williams et al. | Oct 1959 | A |
| 2925144 | Kroll | Feb 1960 | A |
| 2963423 | Birchfield | Dec 1960 | A |
| 3063681 | Duguid | Nov 1962 | A |
| 3070990 | Stanley | Jan 1963 | A |
| 3109481 | Yahnke | Nov 1963 | A |
| 3167305 | Backx et al. | Jan 1965 | A |
| 3188184 | Rice et al. | Jun 1965 | A |
| 3199876 | Magos et al. | Aug 1965 | A |
| 3203460 | Kuhne | Aug 1965 | A |
| 3279441 | Lippert et al. | Oct 1966 | A |
| 3307574 | Anderson | Mar 1967 | A |
| 3364134 | Hamblin | Jan 1968 | A |
| 3400049 | Wolfe | Sep 1968 | A |
| 3545411 | Vollradt | Dec 1970 | A |
| 3660057 | Ilnyckyj | May 1972 | A |
| 3719027 | Salka | Mar 1973 | A |
| 3720601 | Coonradt | Mar 1973 | A |
| 3771638 | Schneider et al. | Nov 1973 | A |
| 3775294 | Peterson | Nov 1973 | A |
| 3795607 | Adams | Mar 1974 | A |
| 3838036 | Stine et al. | Sep 1974 | A |
| 3839484 | Zimmerman, Jr. | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3840209 | James | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3841144 | Baldwin | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3854843 | Penny | Dec 1974 | A |
| 3874399 | Ishihara | Apr 1975 | A |
| 3901951 | Nishizaki | Aug 1975 | A |
| 3906780 | Baldwin | Sep 1975 | A |
| 3912307 | Totman | Oct 1975 | A |
| 3928172 | Davis et al. | Dec 1975 | A |
| 3937660 | Yates et al. | Feb 1976 | A |
| 4006075 | Luckenbach | Feb 1977 | A |
| 4017214 | Smith | Apr 1977 | A |
| 4066425 | Nett | Jan 1978 | A |
| 4085078 | McDonald | Apr 1978 | A |
| 4144759 | Slowik | Mar 1979 | A |
| 4149756 | Tackett | Apr 1979 | A |
| 4151003 | Smith et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
| 4167492 | Varady | Sep 1979 | A |
| 4176052 | Bruce et al. | Nov 1979 | A |
| 4217116 | Seever | Aug 1980 | A |
| 4260068 | McCarthy et al. | Apr 1981 | A |
| 4299687 | Myers et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
| 4302324 | Chen et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
| 4308968 | Thiltgen et al. | Jan 1982 | A |
| 4328947 | Reimpell et al. | May 1982 | A |
| 4332671 | Boyer | Jun 1982 | A |
| 4340204 | Heard | Jul 1982 | A |
| 4353812 | Lomas et al. | Oct 1982 | A |
| 4357603 | Roach et al. | Nov 1982 | A |
| 4392870 | Chieffo et al. | Jul 1983 | A |
| 4404095 | Haddad et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
| 4422925 | Williams et al. | Dec 1983 | A |
| 4434044 | Busch et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
| 4439533 | Lomas et al. | Mar 1984 | A |
| 4468975 | Sayles et al. | Sep 1984 | A |
| 4482451 | Kemp | Nov 1984 | A |
| 4495063 | Walters et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
| 4539012 | Ohzeki et al. | Sep 1985 | A |
| 4554313 | Hagenbach et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
| 4554799 | Pallanch | Nov 1985 | A |
| 4570942 | Diehl et al. | Feb 1986 | A |
| 4601303 | Jensen | Jul 1986 | A |
| 4615792 | Greenwood | Oct 1986 | A |
| 4621062 | Stewart et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4622210 | Hirschberg et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4624771 | Lane et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4647313 | Clementoni | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4654748 | Rees | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4661241 | Dabkowski et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4673490 | Subramanian et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4674337 | Jonas | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4684759 | Lam | Aug 1987 | A |
| 4686027 | Bonilla et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
| 4728348 | Nelson et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
| 4733888 | Toelke | Mar 1988 | A |
| 4741819 | Robinson et al. | May 1988 | A |
| 4764347 | Milligan | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4765631 | Kohnen et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4771176 | Scheifer et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
| 4816137 | Swint et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
| 4820404 | Owen | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4824016 | Cody et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4844133 | von Meyerinck et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4844927 | Morris et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4849182 | Luetzelschwab | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4854855 | Rajewski | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4875994 | Haddad et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4877513 | Haire et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4798463 | Koshi | Nov 1989 | A |
| 4901751 | Story et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4914249 | Benedict | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4916938 | Aikin et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4917790 | Owen | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4923834 | Lomas | May 1990 | A |
| 4940900 | Lambert | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4957511 | Ljusberg-Wahren | Sep 1990 | A |
| 4960503 | Haun et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4963745 | Maggard | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4972867 | Ruesch | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5000841 | Owen | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5002459 | Swearingen et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5008653 | Kidd et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5009768 | Galiasso et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5013537 | Patarin et al. | May 1991 | A |
| 5022266 | Cody et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
| 5032154 | Wright | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5034115 | Avidan | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5045177 | Cooper et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5050603 | Stokes et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5053371 | Williamson | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5056758 | Bramblet | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5059305 | Sapre | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5061467 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5066049 | Staples | Nov 1991 | A |
| 5076910 | Rush | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5082985 | Crouzet et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
| 5096566 | Dawson et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5097677 | Holtzapple | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5111882 | Tang et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5112357 | Bjerklund | May 1992 | A |
| 5114562 | Haun et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5121337 | Brown | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5128109 | Owen | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5128292 | Lomas | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5129624 | Icenhower et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5138891 | Johnson | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5139649 | Owen et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5145785 | Maggard et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5149261 | Suwa et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5154558 | McCallion | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5160426 | Avidan | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5170911 | Della Riva | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5174250 | Lane | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5174345 | Kesterman et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5178363 | Icenhower et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
| 5196110 | Swart et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5201850 | Lenhardt et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5203370 | Block et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5211838 | Staubs et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5212129 | Lomas | May 1993 | A |
| 5221463 | Kamienski et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5223714 | Maggard | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5225679 | Clark et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5230498 | Wood et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5235999 | Lindquist et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5236765 | Cordia et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5243546 | Maggard | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5246860 | Hutchins et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5246868 | Busch et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5248408 | Owen | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5250807 | Sontvedt | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5257530 | Beattie et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5258115 | Heck et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5258117 | Kolstad et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5262645 | Lambert et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5263682 | Covert et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5301560 | Anderson et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5316448 | Ziegler et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5320671 | Schilling | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5326074 | Spock et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5328505 | Schilling | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5328591 | Raterman | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5332492 | Maurer et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5338439 | Owen et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5348645 | Maggard et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5349188 | Maggard | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5349189 | Maggard | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5354451 | Goldstein et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5354453 | Bhatia | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5361643 | Boyd et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5362965 | Maggard | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5370146 | King et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5370790 | Maggard et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5372270 | Rosenkrantz | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5372352 | Smith et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5381002 | Morrow et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5388805 | Bathrick et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5389232 | Adewuyi et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5404015 | Chimenti et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5416323 | Hoots et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5417843 | Swart et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5417846 | Renard | May 1995 | A |
| 5423446 | Johnson | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5431067 | Anderson et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5433120 | Boyd et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5435436 | Manley et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5443716 | Anderson et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5446681 | Gethner et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5452232 | Espinosa et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| RE35046 | Hettinger et al. | Oct 1995 | E |
| 5459677 | Kowalski et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5472875 | Monticello | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5474607 | Holleran | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5475612 | Espinosa et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5476117 | Pakula | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5490085 | Lambert et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5492617 | Trimble et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5494079 | Tiedemann | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5507326 | Cadman et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5510265 | Monticello | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5532487 | Brearley et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5540893 | English | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5549814 | Zinke | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5556222 | Chen | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5559295 | Sheryll | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5560509 | Laverman et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5569808 | Cansell et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5573032 | Lenz et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5584985 | Lomas | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5596196 | Cooper et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5600134 | Ashe et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5647961 | Lofland | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5652145 | Cody et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5675071 | Cody et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5684580 | Cooper et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5699269 | Ashe et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699270 | Ashe et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5712481 | Welch et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5712797 | Descales et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5713401 | Weeks | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5716055 | Wilkinson et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5717209 | Bigman et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5740073 | Bages et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5744024 | Sullivan, III et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5744702 | Roussis et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5746906 | McHenry et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5758514 | Genung et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5763883 | Descales et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5800697 | Lengemann | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5817517 | Perry et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822058 | Adler-Golden et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5834539 | Krivohlavek | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5837130 | Crossland | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5853455 | Gibson | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5856869 | Cooper et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5858207 | Lomas | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5858210 | Richardson | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5858212 | Darcy | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5861228 | Descales et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5862060 | Murray, Jr. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5865441 | Orlowski | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5883363 | Motoyoshi et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5885439 | Glover | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5892228 | Cooper et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5895506 | Cook et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5916433 | Tejada et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5919354 | Bartek | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5935415 | Haizmann et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940176 | Knapp | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5972171 | Ross et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5979491 | Gonsior | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5997723 | Wiehe et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6015440 | Noureddini | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6025305 | Aldrich et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026841 | Kozik | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6047602 | Lynnworth | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6056005 | Piotrowski et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6062274 | Pettesch | May 2000 | A |
| 6063263 | Palmas | May 2000 | A |
| 6063265 | Chiyoda et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6070128 | Descales et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6072576 | McDonald et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6076864 | Levivier et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6087662 | Wilt et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6093867 | Ladwig et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6099607 | Haslebacher | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6099616 | Jenne et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6102655 | Kreitmeier | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6105441 | Conner et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6107631 | He | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6117812 | Gao et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6130095 | Shearer | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6140647 | Welch et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6153091 | Sechrist et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6155294 | Cornford et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6162644 | Choi et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6165350 | Lokhandwala et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6169218 | Hearn | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6171052 | Aschenbruck et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6174501 | Noureddini | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6190535 | Kalnes et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6203585 | Majerczak | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6235104 | Chattopadhyay et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6258987 | Schmidt et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6271518 | Boehm et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6274785 | Gore | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6284128 | Glover et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6296812 | Gauthier et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6312586 | Kalnes et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6315815 | Spadaccini | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6324895 | Chitnis et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6328348 | Cornford et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6331436 | Richardson et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6348074 | Wenzel | Feb 2002 | B2 |
| 6350371 | Lokhandwala et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6368495 | Kocal et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6382633 | Hashiguchi et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6390673 | Camburn | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6395228 | Maggard et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6398518 | Ingistov | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6399800 | Haas et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6420181 | Novak | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6422035 | Phillippe | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6435279 | Howe et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6446446 | Cowans | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6446729 | Bixenman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6451197 | Kalnes | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6454935 | Lesieur et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6467303 | Ross | Oct 2002 | B2 |
| 6482762 | Ruffin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6503460 | Miller et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6528047 | Arif et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6540797 | Scott et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6558531 | Steffens et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6589323 | Korin | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6609888 | Ingistov et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6622490 | Ingistov | Sep 2003 | B2 |
| 6644935 | Ingistov | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6660895 | Brunet et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6672858 | Benson et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6733232 | Ingistov et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6733237 | Ingistov et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6736961 | Plummer et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6740226 | Mehra et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6772581 | Ojiro et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6772741 | Pittel et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6814941 | Naunheimer et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6824673 | Ellis et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6827841 | Kiser et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6835223 | Walker et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6841133 | Niewiedzial et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6842702 | Haaland et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6854346 | Nimberger | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6858128 | Hoehn et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6866771 | Lomas et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6869521 | Lomas | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6897071 | Sonbul | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6962484 | Brandl et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 7013718 | Ingistov et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7035767 | Archer et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7048254 | Laurent et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7074321 | Kalnes | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7078005 | Smith et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7087153 | Kalnes | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7156123 | Welker et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7172686 | Ji et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7174715 | Armitage et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7194369 | Lundstedt et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7213413 | Battiste et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7225840 | Craig et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7228250 | Naiman et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7244350 | Kar et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7252755 | Kiser et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7255531 | Ingistov | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7260499 | Watzke et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7291257 | Ackerson et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7332132 | Hedrick et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7404411 | Welch et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7419583 | Nieskens et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7445936 | O'Connor et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7459081 | Koenig | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7485801 | Pulter et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7487955 | Buercklin | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7501285 | Triche et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
| 7551420 | Cerqueira et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7571765 | Themig | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7637970 | Fox et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
| 7669653 | Craster et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7682501 | Soni et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7686280 | Lowery | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7857964 | Mashiko et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7866346 | Walters | Jan 2011 | B1 |
| 7895011 | Youssefi et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7914601 | Farr et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7931803 | Buchanan | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7932424 | Fujimoto et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7939335 | Triche et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
| 7981361 | Bacik | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7988753 | Fox et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 7993514 | Schlueter | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8007662 | Lomas et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8017910 | Sharpe | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8029662 | Varma et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8037938 | Jardim De Azevedo et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8038774 | Peng | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8064052 | Feitisch et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8066867 | Dziabala | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8080426 | Moore et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
| 8127845 | Assal | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8193401 | McGehee et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8236566 | Carpenter et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8286673 | Recker et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
| 8354065 | Sexton | Jan 2013 | B1 |
| 8360118 | Fleischer et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8370082 | De Peinder et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8388830 | Sohn et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8389285 | Carpenter et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8397803 | Crabb et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8397820 | Fehr et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8404103 | Dziabala | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8434800 | LeBlanc | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8481942 | Mertens | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8506656 | Turocy | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8518131 | Mattingly et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8524180 | Canari et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8569068 | Carpenter et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8579139 | Sablak | Nov 2013 | B1 |
| 8591814 | Hodges | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8609048 | Beadle | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8647415 | De Haan et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
| 8670945 | van Schie | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8685232 | Mandal et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8735820 | Mertens | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8753502 | Sexton et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
| 8764970 | Moore et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
| 8778823 | Oyekan et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
| 8781757 | Farquharson et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8829258 | Gong et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8916041 | Van Den Berg et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8932458 | Gianzon et al. | Jan 2015 | B1 |
| 8986402 | Kelly | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 8987537 | Droubi | Mar 2015 | B1 |
| 8999011 | Stern et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 8999012 | Kelly et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9011674 | Milam et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9057035 | Kraus et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
| 9097423 | Kraus et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9109176 | Stern et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9109177 | Freel et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9138738 | Glover et al. | Sep 2015 | B1 |
| 9216376 | Liu et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9272241 | Königsson | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9273867 | Buzinski et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9289715 | Hoy-Petersen et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9315403 | Laur et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
| 9371493 | Oyekan | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| 9371494 | Oyekan et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
| 9377340 | Hägg | Jun 2016 | B2 |
| 9393520 | Gomez | Jul 2016 | B2 |
| 9410102 | Eaton et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9428695 | Narayanaswamy et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9458396 | Weiss et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
| 9487718 | Kraus et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9499758 | Droubi et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9500300 | Daigle | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9506649 | Rennie et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9580662 | Moore | Feb 2017 | B1 |
| 9624448 | Joo et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9650580 | Merdrignac et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9657241 | Craig et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9663729 | Baird et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9665693 | Saeger et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9709545 | Mertens | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9757686 | Peng | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9789290 | Forsell | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9803152 | Kar et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9834731 | Weiss et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
| 9840674 | Weiss et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
| 9873080 | Richardson | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| 9878300 | Norling | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| 9890907 | Highfield et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
| 9891198 | Sutan | Feb 2018 | B2 |
| 9895649 | Brown et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
| 9896630 | Weiss et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
| 9914094 | Jenkins et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9920270 | Robinson et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9925486 | Botti | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9982788 | Maron | May 2018 | B1 |
| 10047299 | Rubin-Pitel et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
| 10087397 | Phillips et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10099175 | Takahashi et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10150078 | Komatsu et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10228708 | Lambert et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| 10239034 | Sexton | Mar 2019 | B1 |
| 10253269 | Cantley et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10266779 | Weiss et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10295521 | Mertens | May 2019 | B2 |
| 10308884 | Klussman | Jun 2019 | B2 |
| 10316263 | Rubin-Pitel et al. | Jun 2019 | B2 |
| 10384157 | Balcik | Aug 2019 | B2 |
| 10435339 | Larsen et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10435636 | Johnson et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10443000 | Lomas | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10443006 | Fruchey et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
| 10457881 | Droubi et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10479943 | Liu et al. | Nov 2019 | B1 |
| 10494579 | Wrigley et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10495570 | Owen et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10501699 | Robinson et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10526547 | Larsen et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 10533141 | Moore et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 10563130 | Narayanaswamy et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
| 10563132 | Moore et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
| 10563133 | Moore et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
| 10570078 | Larsen et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
| 10577551 | Kraus et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
| 10584287 | Klussman et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
| 10604709 | Moore et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
| 10640719 | Freel et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 10655074 | Moore et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 10696906 | Cantley et al. | Jun 2020 | B2 |
| 10808184 | Moore | Oct 2020 | B1 |
| 10836966 | Moore et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
| 10876053 | Klussman et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
| 10954456 | Moore et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
| 10961468 | Moore et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
| 10962259 | Shah et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
| 10968403 | Moore | Apr 2021 | B2 |
| 11021662 | Moore et al. | Jun 2021 | B2 |
| 11098255 | Larsen et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
| 11124714 | Eller et al. | Sep 2021 | B2 |
| 11136513 | Moore et al. | Oct 2021 | B2 |
| 11164406 | Meroux et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
| 11168270 | Moore | Nov 2021 | B1 |
| 11175039 | Lochschmied et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
| 11203719 | Cantley et al. | Dec 2021 | B2 |
| 11203722 | Moore et al. | Dec 2021 | B2 |
| 11214741 | Davdov et al. | Jan 2022 | B2 |
| 11306253 | Timken et al. | Apr 2022 | B2 |
| 11319262 | Wu et al. | May 2022 | B2 |
| 11352577 | Woodchick et al. | Jun 2022 | B2 |
| 11352578 | Eller et al. | Jun 2022 | B2 |
| 11384301 | Eller et al. | Jul 2022 | B2 |
| 11421162 | Pradeep et al. | Aug 2022 | B2 |
| 11460478 | Sugiyama et al. | Oct 2022 | B2 |
| 11467172 | Mitzel et al. | Oct 2022 | B1 |
| 11542441 | Larsen et al. | Jan 2023 | B2 |
| 11578638 | Thobe | Feb 2023 | B2 |
| 11634647 | Cantley et al. | Apr 2023 | B2 |
| 11667858 | Eller et al. | Jun 2023 | B2 |
| 11692141 | Larsen et al. | Jul 2023 | B2 |
| 11702600 | Sexton et al. | Jul 2023 | B2 |
| 11715950 | Miller et al. | Aug 2023 | B2 |
| 11720526 | Miller et al. | Aug 2023 | B2 |
| 11802257 | Short et al. | Oct 2023 | B2 |
| 11835450 | Bledsoe, Jr. et al. | Dec 2023 | B2 |
| 20020014068 | Mittricker et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020061633 | Marsh | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020170431 | Chang et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030041518 | Wallace et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030113598 | Chow et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030188536 | Mittricker | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030194322 | Brandl et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040010170 | Vickers | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040033617 | Sonbul | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040040201 | Roos et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040079431 | Kissell | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040121472 | Nemana et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040129605 | Goldstein et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040139858 | Entezarian | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040154610 | Hopp et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040232050 | Martin et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040251170 | Chiyoda et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050042151 | Alward et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050088653 | Coates et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050123466 | Sullivan | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050139516 | Nieskens et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050143609 | Wolf et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050150820 | Guo | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050229777 | Brown | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20060037237 | Copeland et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060042701 | Jansen | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060049082 | Niccum et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060162243 | Wolf | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060169305 | Jansen et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060210456 | Bruggendick | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060169064 | Anschutz et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060220383 | Erickson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20070003450 | Burdett et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070082407 | Little, III | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070112258 | Soyemi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070202027 | Walker et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070212271 | Kennedy et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070212790 | Welch et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070215521 | Havlik et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070243556 | Wachs | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070283812 | Liu et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080078693 | Sexton et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080078694 | Sexton et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080078695 | Sexton et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080081844 | Shires et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080087592 | Buchanan | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080092436 | Seames et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109107 | Stefani et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080149486 | Greaney et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080156696 | Niccum et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080207974 | McCoy et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080211505 | Trygstad et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080247942 | Kandziora et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080253936 | Abhari | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090151250 | Agrawal | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090152454 | Nelson et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158824 | Brown et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20100127217 | Lightowlers et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131247 | Carpenter et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100166602 | Bacik | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100243235 | Caldwell et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100301044 | Sprecher | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100318118 | Forsell | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110147267 | Kaul et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110155646 | Karas et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110175032 | Günther | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110186307 | Derby | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110237856 | Mak | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110247835 | Crabb | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110277377 | Novak et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110299076 | Feitisch et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110319698 | Sohn et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120012342 | Wilkin et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120125813 | Bridges et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120125814 | Sanchez et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120131853 | Thacker et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20130014431 | Jin et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130109895 | Novak et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130112313 | Donnelly et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130125619 | Wang | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130186739 | Trompiz | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130225897 | Candelon et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130288355 | DeWitte et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130334027 | Winter et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130342203 | Trygstad et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140019052 | Zaeper et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140024873 | De Haan et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140041150 | Sjoberg | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140121428 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140229010 | Farquharson et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140296057 | Ho et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140299515 | Weiss et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140311953 | Chimenti et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140316176 | Fjare et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140332444 | Weiss et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140353138 | Amale et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140374322 | Venkatesh | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150005547 | Freel et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150005548 | Freel et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150034599 | Hunger et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150057477 | Ellig et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150071028 | Glanville | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150122704 | Kumar et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150166426 | Wegerer et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150240167 | Kulprathipanja et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150240174 | Bru et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150337207 | Chen et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150337225 | Droubi et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150337226 | Tardif et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150353851 | Buchanan | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160090539 | Frey et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160122662 | Weiss et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160122666 | Weiss et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160160139 | Dawe et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160168481 | Ray et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160244677 | Froehle | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160298851 | Brickwood et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160312127 | Frey et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160312130 | Majcher et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20170009163 | Kraus et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170131728 | Lambert et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170151526 | Cole | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170183575 | Rubin-Pitel | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170198910 | Garg | Jul 2017 | A1 |
| 20170226434 | Zimmerman | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170233670 | Feustel et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20180017469 | English et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180037308 | Lee et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180080958 | Marchese et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180119039 | Tanaka et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180134974 | Weiss et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180163144 | Weiss et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180179457 | Mukherjee et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180202607 | McBride | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180230389 | Moore et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180246142 | Glover | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180355263 | Moore et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20180361312 | Dutra e Mello et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20180371325 | Streiff et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20190002772 | Moore et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190010405 | Moore | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190010408 | Moore et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190016980 | Kar et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190093026 | Wohaibi et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190099706 | Sampath | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190100702 | Cantley et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190127651 | Kar et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190128160 | Peng | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190136144 | Wohaibi et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190153340 | Weiss et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190153942 | Wohaibi et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190169509 | Cantley et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190185772 | Berkhous et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190201841 | McClelland | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190203130 | Mukherjee | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190218466 | Slade et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190233741 | Moore et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190292465 | McBride | Sep 2019 | A1 |
| 20190338205 | Ackerson et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20190382668 | Klussman et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190382672 | Sorensen | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20200049675 | Ramirez | Feb 2020 | A1 |
| 20200080881 | Langlois et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200095509 | Moore et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200123458 | Moore | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200181502 | Paasikallio et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
| 20200199462 | Klussman et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
| 20200208068 | Hossain et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
| 20200291316 | Robbins et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
| 20200312470 | Craig et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
| 20200316513 | Zhao | Oct 2020 | A1 |
| 20200332198 | Yang et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
| 20200353456 | Zalewski et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
| 20200378600 | Craig et al. | Dec 2020 | A1 |
| 20200385644 | Rogel et al. | Dec 2020 | A1 |
| 20210002559 | Larsen et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| 20210003502 | Kirchmann et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| 20210033631 | Field et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
| 20210103304 | Fogarty et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
| 20210115344 | Perkins et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
| 20210213382 | Cole | Jul 2021 | A1 |
| 20210238487 | Moore et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
| 20210253964 | Eller et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
| 20210253965 | Woodchick et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
| 20210261874 | Eller et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
| 20210284919 | Moore et al. | Sep 2021 | A1 |
| 20210292661 | Klussman et al. | Sep 2021 | A1 |
| 20210301210 | Timken et al. | Sep 2021 | A1 |
| 20210396660 | Zarrabian | Dec 2021 | A1 |
| 20210403819 | Moore et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
| 20220040629 | Edmoundson et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
| 20220041940 | Pradeep et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
| 20220048019 | Zalewski et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
| 20220268694 | Bledsoe et al. | Aug 2022 | A1 |
| 20220298440 | Woodchick et al. | Sep 2022 | A1 |
| 20220343229 | Gruber et al. | Oct 2022 | A1 |
| 20230015077 | Kim | Jan 2023 | A1 |
| 20230078852 | Campbell et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230080192 | Bledsoe et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230082189 | Bledsoe et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230084329 | Bledsoe et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230087063 | Mitzel et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230089935 | Bledsoe et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230093452 | Sexton et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
| 20230111609 | Sexton et al. | Apr 2023 | A1 |
| 20230113140 | Larsen et al. | Apr 2023 | A1 |
| 20230118319 | Sexton et al. | Apr 2023 | A1 |
| 20230220286 | Cantley et al. | Jul 2023 | A1 |
| 20230241548 | Holland et al. | Aug 2023 | A1 |
| 20230242837 | Short et al. | Aug 2023 | A1 |
| 20230259080 | Whikehart et al. | Aug 2023 | A1 |
| 20230259088 | Borup et al. | Aug 2023 | A1 |
| 20230272290 | Larsen et al. | Aug 2023 | A1 |
| 20230332056 | Larsen et al. | Oct 2023 | A1 |
| 20230332058 | Larsen et al. | Oct 2023 | A1 |
| 20230357649 | Sexton et al. | Nov 2023 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 11772 | Apr 2011 | AT |
| PI0701518 | Nov 2008 | BR |
| 2949201 | Nov 2015 | CA |
| 2822742 | Dec 2016 | CA |
| 3009808 | Jul 2017 | CA |
| 2904903 | Aug 2020 | CA |
| 3077045 | Sep 2020 | CA |
| 2947431 | Mar 2021 | CA |
| 3004712 | Jun 2021 | CA |
| 2980055 | Dec 2021 | CA |
| 2879783 | Jan 2022 | CA |
| 2991614 | Jan 2022 | CA |
| 2980069 | Nov 2022 | CA |
| 3109606 | Dec 2022 | CA |
| 432129 | Mar 1967 | CH |
| 2128346 | Mar 1993 | CN |
| 201306736 | Sep 2009 | CN |
| 201940168 | Aug 2011 | CN |
| 102120138 | Dec 2012 | CN |
| 203453713 | Feb 2014 | CN |
| 203629938 | Jun 2014 | CN |
| 203816490 | Sep 2014 | CN |
| 104353357 | Feb 2015 | CN |
| 204170623 | Feb 2015 | CN |
| 103331093 | Apr 2015 | CN |
| 204253221 | Apr 2015 | CN |
| 204265565 | Apr 2015 | CN |
| 105148728 | Dec 2015 | CN |
| 204824775 | Dec 2015 | CN |
| 103933845 | Jan 2016 | CN |
| 105289241 | Feb 2016 | CN |
| 105536486 | May 2016 | CN |
| 105804900 | Jul 2016 | CN |
| 103573430 | Aug 2016 | CN |
| 205655095 | Oct 2016 | CN |
| 104326604 | Nov 2016 | CN |
| 104358627 | Nov 2016 | CN |
| 106237802 | Dec 2016 | CN |
| 205779365 | Dec 2016 | CN |
| 106407648 | Feb 2017 | CN |
| 105778987 | Aug 2017 | CN |
| 207179722 | Apr 2018 | CN |
| 207395575 | May 2018 | CN |
| 108179022 | Jun 2018 | CN |
| 108704478 | Oct 2018 | CN |
| 14T109126458 | Jan 2019 | CN |
| 109423345 | Mar 2019 | CN |
| 109499365 | Mar 2019 | CN |
| 109705939 | May 2019 | CN |
| 109722303 | May 2019 | CN |
| 110129103 | Aug 2019 | CN |
| 110229686 | Sep 2019 | CN |
| 209451617 | Oct 2019 | CN |
| 110987862 | Apr 2020 | CN |
| 215288592 | Dec 2021 | CN |
| 113963818 | Jan 2022 | CN |
| 114001278 | Feb 2022 | CN |
| 217431673 | Sep 2022 | CN |
| 218565442 | Mar 2023 | CN |
| 10179 | Jun 1912 | DE |
| 3721725 | Jan 1989 | DE |
| 19619722 | Nov 1997 | DE |
| 102010017563 | Dec 2011 | DE |
| 102014009231 | Jan 2016 | DE |
| 0142352 | May 1985 | EP |
| 0527000 | Feb 1993 | EP |
| 0783910 | Jul 1997 | EP |
| 0949318 | Oct 1999 | EP |
| 0783910 | Dec 2000 | EP |
| 0801299 | Mar 2004 | EP |
| 1413712 | Apr 2004 | EP |
| 1600491 | Nov 2005 | EP |
| 1870153 | Dec 2007 | EP |
| 2047905 | Apr 2009 | EP |
| 2955345 | Dec 2015 | EP |
| 3130773 | Feb 2017 | EP |
| 3139009 | Mar 2017 | EP |
| 3239483 | Nov 2017 | EP |
| 3085910 | Aug 2018 | EP |
| 3355056 | Aug 2018 | EP |
| 2998529 | Feb 2019 | EP |
| 3441442 | Feb 2019 | EP |
| 3569988 | Nov 2019 | EP |
| 3878926 | Sep 2021 | EP |
| 2357630 | Feb 1978 | FR |
| 3004722 | Mar 2016 | FR |
| 3027909 | May 2016 | FR |
| 3067036 | Dec 2018 | FR |
| 3067037 | Dec 2018 | FR |
| 3072684 | Apr 2019 | FR |
| 3075808 | Jun 2019 | FR |
| 775273 | May 1957 | GB |
| 933618 | Aug 1963 | GB |
| 1207719 | Oct 1970 | GB |
| 2144526 | Mar 1985 | GB |
| 202111016535 | Jul 2021 | IN |
| 59220609 | Dec 1984 | JP |
| 2003129067 | May 2003 | JP |
| 3160405 | Jun 2010 | JP |
| 2015059220 | Mar 2015 | JP |
| 2019014275 | Jan 2019 | JP |
| 101751923 | Jul 2017 | KR |
| 101823897 | Mar 2018 | KR |
| 20180095303 | Aug 2018 | KR |
| 20190004474 | Jan 2019 | KR |
| 20190004475 | Jan 2019 | KR |
| 2673558 | Nov 2018 | RU |
| 2700705 | Sep 2019 | RU |
| 2760879 | Dec 2021 | RU |
| 320682 | Nov 1997 | TW |
| 9408225 | Apr 1994 | WO |
| 199640436 | Dec 1996 | WO |
| 1997033678 | Sep 1997 | WO |
| 199803249 | Jan 1998 | WO |
| 1999041591 | Aug 1999 | WO |
| 2001051588 | Jul 2001 | WO |
| 2006126978 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| 2008088294 | Jul 2008 | WO |
| 2010144191 | Dec 2010 | WO |
| 2012026302 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| 2012062924 | May 2012 | WO |
| 2012089776 | Jul 2012 | WO |
| 2012108584 | Aug 2012 | WO |
| 2014053431 | Apr 2014 | WO |
| 2014096703 | Jun 2014 | WO |
| 2014096704 | Jun 2014 | WO |
| 422014096704 | Jun 2014 | WO |
| 2014191004 | Jul 2014 | WO |
| 2014177424 | Nov 2014 | WO |
| 2014202815 | Dec 2014 | WO |
| 2018073018 | Apr 2016 | WO |
| 2016167708 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| 2017067088 | Apr 2017 | WO |
| 2017207976 | Dec 2017 | WO |
| 2018017664 | Jan 2018 | WO |
| 2018122274 | Jul 2018 | WO |
| 20180148675 | Aug 2018 | WO |
| 20180148681 | Aug 2018 | WO |
| 2018231105 | Dec 2018 | WO |
| 2019053323 | Mar 2019 | WO |
| 2019104243 | May 2019 | WO |
| 2019155183 | Aug 2019 | WO |
| 2019178701 | Sep 2019 | WO |
| 2020160004 | Aug 2020 | WO |
| 2021058289 | Apr 2021 | WO |
| 2022133359 | Jun 2022 | WO |
| 2022144495 | Jul 2022 | WO |
| 2022149501 | Jul 2022 | WO |
| 2022219234 | Oct 2022 | WO |
| 2022220991 | Oct 2022 | WO |
| 2023038579 | Mar 2023 | WO |
| 2023137304 | Jul 2023 | WO |
| 2023164683 | Aug 2023 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Vivek Rathor et al., Assessment of crude oil blends, refiner's assessment of the compatibility of opportunity crudes in plends aims to avoid the processing problems introduced by lower-quality feedstocks, www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000381, 2011. |
| International Standard, ISO 8217, Petroleum products—Fuels (class F)—Specifications of marine fuels, Sixth Edition, 2017. |
| International Standard, ISO 10307-1, Petroleum products—Total sediment in residual fuel oils—, Part 1: Determination by hot filtration, Second Edition, 2009. |
| International Standard, ISO 10307-2, Petroleum products—Total sediment in residual fuel oils—Part 2: Determination using standard procedures for ageing, Second Edition, 2009. |
| Lerh, Jeslyn et al., Feature: IMO 2020 draws more participants into Singapore's bunkering pool, OIL | SHIPPING, Sep. 3, 2019, Singapore. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/090319-feature-imo-2020-draws-more-participants-into-singapores-bunkering-pool. |
| Platvoet et al., Process Burners 101, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Aug. 2013. |
| Luyben, W. L., Process Modeling, Simulation, and Control for Chemical Engineers, Feedforward Control, pp. 431-433. |
| Cooper et al., Calibration transfer of near-IR partial least squares property models of fuels using standards, Wiley Online Library, Jul. 19, 2011. |
| ABB Measurement & Analytics, Using FT-NIR as a Multi-Stream Method for CDU Optimization, Nov. 8, 2018. |
| Modcon Systems LTD., On-Line NIR Analysis of Crude Distillation Unit, Jun. 2008. |
| ABB Measurement & Analytics, Crude distillation unit (CDU) optimization, 2017. |
| Guided Wave Inc., The Role of NIR Process Analyzers in Refineries to Process Crude Oil into Useable Petrochemical Products, 2021. |
| ABB Measurement & Analytics, Optimizing Refinery Catalytic Reforming Units with the use of Simple Robust On-Line Analyzer Technology, Nov. 27, 2017, https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=14840. |
| Bueno, Alexis et al., Characterization of Catalytic Reforming Streams by NIR Spectroscopy, Energy & Fuels 2009, 23, 3172-3177, Apr. 29, 2009. |
| Caricato, Enrico et al., Catalytic Naphtha Reforming—a Novel Control System for the Bench-Scale Evaluation of Commerical Continuous Catalytic Regeneration Catalysts, Industrial of Engineering Chemistry Research, ACS Publications, May 18, 2017. |
| Alves, J. C. L., et al., Diesel Oil Quality Parameter Determinations Using Support Vector Regression and Near Infrared Spectroscopy for Hydrotreationg Feedstock Monitoring, Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, 20, 419-425 (2012), Jul. 23, 2012. |
| Rodriguez, Elena et al., Coke deposition and product distribution in the co-cracking of waste polyolefin derived streams and vacuum gas oil under FCC unit conditions, Fuel Processing Technology 192 (2019), 130-139. |
| Passamonti, Francisco J et al., Recycling of waste plastics into fuels, PDPE conversion in FCC, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 125 (2012), 499-506. |
| De Rezende Pinho, Andrea et al., Fast pyrolysis oil from pinewood chips co-processing with vacuum gas oil in an FCC unit for second generation fuel production, Fuel 188 (2017), 462-473. |
| Niaei et al., Computational Study of Pyrolysis Reactions and Coke Deposition in Industrial Naphtha Cracking, P.M.A. Sloot et al., Eds.: ICCS 2002, LNCS 2329, pp. 723-732, 2002. |
| Hanson et al., An atmospheric crude tower revamp, Digital Refining, Article, Jul. 2005. |
| Lopiccolo, Philip, Coke trap reduces FCC slurry exchanger fouling for Texas refiner, Oil & Gas Journal, Sep. 8, 2003. |
| Martino, Germain, Catalytic Reforming, Petroleum Refining Conversion Processes, vol. 3, Chapter 4, pp. 101-168, 2001. |
| Baukal et al., Natural-Draft Burners, Industrial Burners Handbook, CRC Press 2003. |
| Spekuljak et al., Fluid Distributors for Structured Packing Colums, AICHE, Nov. 1998. |
| Hemler et al., UOP Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process, Handbook of Petroleum Refining Processes, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, 2004. |
| United States Department of Agriculture, NIR helps Turn Vegetable Oil into High-Quality Biofuel, Agricultural Research Service, Jun. 15, 1999. |
| NPRA, 2006 Cat Cracker Seminar Transcript, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Aug. 1-2, 2006. |
| Niccum, Phillip K et al. KBR, CatCracking.com, More Production—Less Risk!, Twenty Questions: Identify Probably Cuase of High FCC Catalyst Loss, May 3-6, 2011. |
| NPRA, Cat-10-105 Troubleshooting FCC Catalyst Losses, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Aug. 24-25, 2010. |
| Fraser, Stuart, Distillation in Refining, Distillation Operation and Applications (2014), pp. 155-190 (Year: 2014). |
| Yasin et al., Quality and chemistry of crude oils, Journal of Petroleum Technology and Alternative Fuels, vol. 4(3), pp. 53-63, Mar. 2013. |
| Penn State, Cut Points, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/fsc432/content/cut-points, 2018. |
| The American Petroleum Institute, Petroleum HPV Testing Group, Heavy Fuel Oils Category Analysis and Hazard Characterization, Dec. 7, 2012. |
| Increase Gasoline Octane and Light Olefin Yeilds with ZSM-5, vol. 5, Issue 5, http://www.refiningonline.com/engelhardkb/crep/TCR4_35.htm. |
| Fluid Catalytic Cracking and Light Olefins Production, Hydrocarbon Publishing Company, 2011, http://www.hydrocarbonpublishing.com/store10/product.php?productid+b21104. |
| Zhang et al., Multifunctional two-stage riser fluid catalytic cracking process, Springer Applied Petrocchemical Research, Sep. 3, 2014. |
| Reid, William, Recent trends in fluid catalytic cracking patents, part V: reactor section, Dilworth IP, Sep. 3, 2014. |
| Akah et al., Maximizing propylene production via FCC technology, SpringerLink, Mar. 22, 2015. |
| Vogt et al., Fluid Catalytic Cracking: Recent Developments on the Grand Old Lady of Zeolite Catalysis, Royal Society of Chemistry, Sep. 18, 2015. |
| Zhou et al., Study on the Integration of Flue Gas Waste He Desulfuization and Dust Removal in Civilian Coalfired Heating Furnance, 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 603 012018. |
| Okonkwo et al., Role of Amine Structure on Hydrogen Sulfide Capture from Dilute Gas Streams Using Solid Adsorbents, Energy Fuels, 32, pp. 6926-6933, 2018. |
| Okonkwo et al., Selective removal of hydrogen sulfide from simulated biogas streams using sterically hindered amine adsorbents, Chemical Engineering Journal 379, pp. 122-349, 2020. |
| Seo et al., Methanol absorption characteristics for the removal of H2S (hydrogen sulfide), COS (carbonyl sulfide) and CO2 (carbon dioxide) in a pilot-scale biomass-to-liquid process, Energy 66, pp. 56-62, 2014. |
| Zulkefi et al., Overview of H2S Removal Technologies from Biogas Production, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562, vol. 11, No. 20, pp. 10060-10066, © Research India Publications, 2016. |
| Ebner et al., Deactivatin and durability of the catalyst for Hotspot™ natural gas processing, OSTI, 2000, https://www.osti/gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20064378, (Year: 2000). |
| Morozov et al., Best Practices When Operating a Unit for Removing Hydrogen Sulfide from Residual Fuel Oil, Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, vol. 57, No. 4, Sep. 2001. |
| Calbry-Muzyka et al., Deep removal of sulfur and trace organic compounds from biogas to protect a catalytic methananation reactor, Chemical Engineering Joural 360, pp. 577-590, 2019. |
| Cheah et al., Review of Mid- to High-Tempearture Sulfur Sorbents for Desulfurization of Biomass- and Coal-derived Syngas, Energy Fuels 2009, 23, pp. 5291-5307, Oct. 16, 2019. |
| Mandal et al., Simultaneous absorption of carbon dioxide of hydrogen sulfide into aqueous blends of 2-amino-2-methyl-1 propanol and diethanolamine, Chemical Engineering Science 60, pp. 6438-6451, 2005. |
| Meng et al., In bed and downstream hot gas desulphurization during solid fuel gasification: A review, Fuel Processing Technology 91, pp. 964-981, 2010. |
| La Rivista dei Combustibili, The Fuel Magazine, vol. 66, File 2, 2012. |
| Cremer et al., Model Based Assessment of the Novel Use of Sour Water Stripper Vapor for NOx Control in CO Boilers, Industrial Combustion Symposium, American Flame Research Committee 2021, Nov. 19, 2021. |
| Frederick et al., Alternative Technology for Sour Water Stripping, University of Pennsylvania, Penn Libraries, Scholarly Commons, Apr. 20, 2018. |
| Da Vinci Laboratory Solutions B. V., DVLS Liquefied Gas Injector, Sampling and analysis of liquefied gases, https://www.davinci-ls.com/en/products/dvls-products/dvls-liquefied-gas-injector. |
| Wasson ECE Instrumentation, LPG Pressurization Station, https://wasson-ece.com/products/small-devices/lpg-pressurization-station. |
| Mechatest B. V., Gas & Liquefied Gas Sampling Systems, https://www.mechatest.com/products/gas-sampling-system/. |
| Bollas et al., “Modeling Small-Diameter FCC Riser Reactors. A Hydrodynamic and Kinetic Approach”, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 41(22), 5410-5419, 2002. |
| Voutetakis et al., “Computer Application and Software Development for the Automation of a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Pilot Plant—Experimental Results”, Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 20 Suppl., S1601-S1606, 1996. |
| “Development of Model Equations for Predicting Gasoline Blending Properties”, Odula et al., American Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 3, No. 2-1, 2015, pp. 9-17. |
| Lloyd's Register, Using technology to trace the carbon intensity of sustainable marine fuels, Feb. 15, 2023. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20230295528 A1 | Sep 2023 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63199188 | Dec 2020 | US | |
| 62978798 | Feb 2020 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 17727094 | Apr 2022 | US |
| Child | 18135840 | US | |
| Parent | 17249081 | Feb 2021 | US |
| Child | 17727094 | US |
