WO2014099565A1 - Variation of ammonia ratio in andrussow process - Google Patents

Abstract

Methane and ammonia raw materials are typically the major costs for HCN production. The methods described herein can be used to vary the molar ratio of methane to ammonia during HCN production to reduce costs.

Description

VARIATION OF AMMONIA RATIO IN ANDRUSSOW PROCESS

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

[0001] This application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent

Application Serial No. 61/738,727 entitled "VARIATION OF AMMONIA RATIO IN

ANDRUSSOW PROCESS," filed December 18, 2012, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0002] The present disclosure is directed to varying the feed composition for the

Andrussow process for the production of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) from methane, ammonia, and oxygen.

BACKGROUND

[0003] The Andrussow process converts ammonia and methane gas in the presence of oxygen and a platinum catalyst into hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The reaction is as follows:

2NH₃ + 2CH₄ + 30₂→ 2HCN + 6H₂0

Ammonia (NH₃), methane (CH₄) and an oxygen source (e.g., air) are generally fed into a reactor and heated in the presence of a platinum or platinum alloy catalyst to temperatures up to about 2,500 °C.

[0004] The availability and prices of reactant gases such as methane and ammonia significantly influence profits from making the HCN product. For example, raw material costs for Andrussow methane and ammonia reactants can be more than 90% of the total HCN variable cost.

[0005] While many factors can influence the price of ammonia, historically, ammonia prices have been dependent predominantly on demand. Ammonia is used for a variety of purposes but the majority (about 80%) is consumed for fertilizer in agricultural production. A strong demand for agricultural products can keep ammonia prices high.

[0006] Methane prices also vary for a number of reasons but most volatility relates to the availability of the supply of natural gas. In recent years, the shale gas revolution has cut the price of natural gas significantly. For example, the price of natural gas has fallen about 45% since 201 1. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), national inventories have also risen 56% over the past year. However, such a glut of natural gas may not continue as other energy sources become less available or environmental concerns curtail the use of coal and oil. The energy market may increasingly turn to natural gas.

[0007] Thus, manufacturers have an ongoing problem with sustaining profitable hydrogen cyanide production in the face of variability and unpredictability in the prices for key reactants.

[0008] Various aspects of HCN production are described in the following articles: Eric.

L. Crump, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Economic Impact Analysis For the Proposed Cyanide Manufacturing NESHAP (May 2000), available online at http://nepis. epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF. cgi?Dockey=P 100AHG1.PDF, is directed toward the manufacture, end uses, and economic impacts of HCN; N.V. Trusov, Effect of Sulfur Compounds and Higher Homologues of Methane on Hydrogen Cyanide Production by the Andrussow Method, Rus. J. of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 74, No. 10, pp. 1693-97 (2001), is directed toward the effects of unavoidable components of natural gas, such as sulfur and higher homologues of methane, on the production of HCN by the Andrussow process; Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Clean Development Mechanism Project Design Document Form (CDMPDD), Ver. 3, (Jul. 28, 2006), available online at

http://cdm.unfccc. int/Reference/PDDs_Forms/PDDs/PDD Jbrm04_v03_2.pdf is directed toward the production of HCN by the Andrussow process; and Gary R. Maxwell et al., Assuring process safety in the transfer of hydrogen cyanide manufacturing technology, J. of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 142, pp. 677-84 (2007), is directed toward the safe production of HCN.

SUMMARY

[0009] The problem of higher and variable costs for HCN production is solved or improved by operating the HCN reaction at an adjusted (e.g., atypical) ammonia : methane ratio based on natural gas (e.g., methane) and ammonia prices. Active and ongoing evaluation of natural gas and ammonia prices coupled with ammonia : methane ratio adjustment during HCN manufacture can significantly reduce costs. [0010] In general, manufacturers strive to control costs by utilizing resources in the most efficient manner. During an Andrussow process, efficient conversion of methane and ammonia to hydrogen cyanide typically involves setting an ammonia : methane ratio in the reaction mixture to optimally convert these reactants to yield maximum HCN. For example,

manufacturers may choose to adjust an ammonia : methane ratio during an Andrussow process so that consumption of the methane feedstream in the reactor approaches or is equal to 100%. Such Andrussow processes are generally operating efficiently. However, Andrussow reactions can tolerate some variation in ammonia : methane ratios and still operate efficiently. Ammonia and methane can be the major operating costs of an Andrussow process. As described herein, active monitoring of ammonia costs relative to methane costs (and vice versa) can be employed to reduce HCN production costs, especially when coupled with modulation of the ammonia : methane ratio in view of those cost evaluations. Evaluation of market costs for ammonia and methane can be used to establish an appropriate ammonia : methane ratio while still achieving surprisingly effective conversion of Andrussow reactants into product.

[0011] Methods are described herein for increasing value in a hydrogen cyanide production facility that involve:

(a) evaluating costs of obtaining methane and ammonia;

(b) adjusting a molar ratio of methane to ammonia that is fed into a reactor for production of hydrogen cyanide, to thereby use an adjusted molar ratio of methane to ammonia, and to thereby increase value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[0012] Increasing value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility can, for example, include decreasing per unit costs of hydrogen cyanide production in the facility, decreasing per unit costs of methane, or decreasing per unit costs of ammonia. The costs of methane and ammonia can be evaluated every day, or every week to increase value in the hydrogen cyanide facility.

[0013] The adjusted methane to ammonia molar ratio can, for example, vary from about

0.6 to about 1.1. The adjusted ratio can be re-adjusted repeatedly, after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia over time.

[0014] Methane to ammonia molar ratios can be adjusted when ammonia costs increase or decrease relative to mean ammonia costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility. For example, the methane to ammonia molar ratio A fed into the reactor can range from about 0.6 to about 0.9 when ammonia costs decrease relative to mean ammonia costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility. However, the methane to ammonia molar ratio B fed into the reactor can also range from about 0.75 to about 1.0 when ammonia costs increase relative to mean ammoma costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio A can be lower than the methane to ammonia molar ratio B.

[0015] An adjusted methane to ammonia ratio can be employed that has increased molar amounts of ammonia compared to the molar amount of methane, for example, when ammonia is comparably inexpensive. Such an 'ammonia-rich' ratio can be employed, for example, so long as ammonia price savings are greater than: added ammonia recovery costs + ammonia loss costs + costs of excess ammonia-related suboptimal HCN production.

[0016] The methane to ammonia molar ratio can also be adjusted when methane costs increase or decrease relative to mean methane costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility. For example, the adjusted ratio in the reactor can range from 0.75 to about 1.0 when methane costs decrease relative to mean methane costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility. Such an adjusted ratio can range, for example, from about 0.6 to about 0.9 when methane costs increase relative to mean methane costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[0017] When the HCN reaction is run with a comparatively rich molar amount of methane, such an adjusted ratio can be employed, for example, so long as methane price savings are greater than impurity costs + methane loss costs + costs of excess methane-related suboptimal HCN production.

[0018] The ammonia fed into the reactor can be held constant at an approximate set value and the methane fed into the reactor can be varied after evaluating costs of methane and ammonia. Alternatively, the methane fed into the reactor can be held constant at an approximate set value and the ammoma fed into the reactor can be varied after evaluating costs of methane and ammonia.

[0019] Several parameters can be used to evaluate the efficiency of HCN production and can be used as indicators that adjustment of the methane to ammonia ratio can increase value during HCN production. For example, reaction temperature is one measure of reaction efficiency, and higher temperatures can indicate that the reaction is proceeding inefficiently. An adjusted methane to ammonia molar ratio can, for example, be employed so long as the reactor has a temperature within about 1,000 °C to about 1,300 °C, or within about 1,050 °C to about 1,200 °C. The adjusted methane to ammonia ratio can also be employed so long as the reactor has a temperature within about 140 °C of a reaction temperature minimum for the selected methane to ammonia molar ratio.

[0020] Reduced HCN production can also be an indicator of inefficient conversion of methane and ammonia to HCN. For example, an adjusted methane to ammonia ratio can be employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has at least about 14.5% vol/vol HCN.

[0021] Loss of unconverted methane in the product stream can also be an indicator of inefficient conversion of methane and ammonia to HCN. For example, an adjusted methane to ammonia ratio can be employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has less than about 2.5% vol/vol methane.

[0022] Similarly, loss of unconverted ammonia in the product stream can also be an indicator of inefficient conversion of methane and ammonia to HCN. For example, an adjusted methane to ammonia ratio can be employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has less than about 8% vol/vol ammonia.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0023] FIG. 1 graphically illustrates that the percent ammonia yield (amount HCN produced per amount ammonia consumed in the reaction; dashed line (yellow triangles in the original)) decreases as the ratio of ammonia to oxygen (e.g., air) is increased. However, as also shown in FIG. 1 , the percent yield of methane (or natural gas, NG; diamond symbols) increases as the ratio of ammonia to oxygen (e.g., air) is increased, indicating that more methane is converted into HCN when higher levels of ammonia are present in the reaction mixture.

[0024] FIG. 2 graphically illustrates the effect of varying the methane to oxygen ratio on bed temperature at different fixed ammonia to oxygen ratios.

[0025] FIG. 3 graphically illustrates the effect of methane to oxygen ratios on the percent ammonia conversion at different fixed ammonia to oxygen ratios. [0026] FIG. 4 graphically illustrates that the amount of the acetonitrile (CH₃CN) impurity formed during such an Andrussow reaction increases with the amount of methane leakage (unreacted methane).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

100271 Costs for ammonia relative to methane have generally been increasing since about

2007. In addition, the ratio of those costs has become more volatile. For example, between about January 2001 and July 2007, the wholesale anhydrous ammonia price divided by the industrial natural gas price varied between about 40 to 60. See, website at agprofessional.com/resource- centers/crop-fertility/nitrogen/news/132067938. html. Thus, ammonia was about 50 times more expensive than methane. However, between about July 2008 and July 2011, the wholesale anhydrous ammonia price divided by the industrial natural gas price varied from about 60 to 150. Id. Thus, ammonia not only became more expensive by about 60-150 times, but the relative price of ammonia compared to methane became significantly more volatile.

[0028] As described herein, problems of increased costs and increased variability in the costs for HCN production during an Andrussow reaction can be solved or improved by varying methane and ammonia molar ratios when costs for methane and ammonia change. Thus, a method is described to increase value in a hydrogen cyanide production facility that involves evaluating methane and ammonia costs, and adjusting an operating molar ratio of methane to ammonia used for production of hydrogen cyanide to reduce those costs. In general, an

Andrussow reactor is run with lean molar ratios of methane to ammonia, meaning that the molar amount of methane fed into the reactor is typically less than the molar amount of ammonia. The costs of HCN production can therefore be more vulnerable to ammonia prices, and can swing significantly when ammonia prices become volatile.

Andrussow Reaction

[0029] As indicated above, the Andrussow process typically converts ammonia and methane in the presence of oxygen and a platinum catalyst into hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The reaction is as follows:

2NH₃ + 2CH₄ + 30₂→ 2HCN + 6H2O Filtered ammonia, natural gas and oxygen-containing feedstreams (e.g., air, oxygen-enriched air, or substantially pure oxygen) are fed into a reactor and heated in the presence of a platinum- containing catalyst at temperatures up to 1,500 °C. In general, the temperature of an Andrussow reaction is maintained at about 800 °C to about 2500 °C, 800 °C to about 1,500 °C, or about 850 °C to about 1,400 °C, or at about 900 °C to about 1,300 °C, or at about 1,050 °C to about 1,250 °C.

[0030] The methane can be supplied from natural gas, or from purer sources of methane where the higher hydrocarbons have been removed. While air can be used as a source of oxygen, the reaction can also be carried out with oxygen-enriched air, or undiluted oxygen (i.e., an oxygen Andrussow process). The reactor off-gas containing HCN and unreacted ammonia is typically quenched in a waste heat boiler at approximately 100-400 °C. The cooled reactor off- gas is generally sent through an ammonia absorption process to remove unreacted ammonia. This can be accomplished by the addition of ammonium phosphate solution, phosphoric acid or sulfuric acid to remove the ammonia. From the ammonia absorber, the product off-gas is sent through the HCN absorber where water is added to entrain the HCN. The HCN-water mixture is then sent to a cyanide stripper where excess waste is removed from the liquid. In addition, the HCN-water mixture may also be sent through a fractionator to concentrate the HCN before the product is stored in tanks or directly used as a feedstock. Waste generated from impure reactants or generated by suboptimal reaction conditions can lead to carbon build-up and sediment formation in the equipment employed during the process. Waste can also lead to polymerization of HCN and can generate sediments or sludge in HCN product storage tanks.

[0031] As indicated above, an Andrussow reaction can employ oxygen-containing feedstreams with varying oxygen content. Oxygen-containing feedstreams that are commonly used include air, air enriched with oxygen, and substantially pure oxygen. However, other sources can include air enriched with oxygen, and/or oxygen mixed with an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon. As used herein, an air Andrussow process uses air as the oxygen-containing feedstream, where the air has approximately 20.95 mol% oxygen. An oxygen-enriched

Andrussow process uses an oxygen-containing feed stream formed having about 21 mol% oxygen to about 26%, 27%, 28%, 29%», or to about 30 mol% oxygen, such as about 22 mol% oxygen, 23%, 24%>, or about 25 mol%> oxygen. An oxygen Andrussow process uses an oxygen- containing feedstream that has about 26 mol% oxygen, 27%>, 28%, 29%, or about 30 mol% oxygen to about 100 mol% oxygen. In some embodiments, an oxygen Andrussow process can use an oxygen-containing feed stream having about 35 mol% oxygen, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or about 100 mol% oxygen.

[0032] In various examples, the oxygen-containing feed stream in an oxygen-enriched

Andrussow process, or in an oxygen Andrussow process with an oxygen-containing feed stream having less than 100 mol% oxygen, can be generated by at least one of mixing air with oxygen, by mixing oxygen with any suitable gas or combination of gases, or by removing one or more gases from an oxygen-containing gas composition such as air.

[0033] The synthesis of hydrogen cyanide by the Andrussow method (see, for example,

Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Volume 8, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft,

Weinheim, 1987, pp. 161-162) can be carried out in the vapor phase over a catalyst that comprises platinum or platinum alloys, or other metals. Catalysts suitable for carrying out the Andrussow process were discovered and have been described in the original Andrussow patent, published as U.S. Pat. No. 1,934,838, and elsewhere. In Andrussow's original work, he disclosed that catalysts can be chosen from oxidation catalysts that are infusible (solid) at the working temperature of around 1000°C. For example, Andrussow describes catalysts that can include platinum, iridium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, gold or silver as catalytically active metals either in pure form or as alloys. He also noted that certain base metals, such as rare earth metals, thorium, uranium, and others, could also be used, such as in the form of infusible oxides or phosphates, and that catalysts could either be formed into nets (screens), or deposited on thermally-resistant solid supports such as silica or alumina.

[0034] In subsequent development work, platinum-containing catalysts have been selected due to their efficacy and to the heat resistance of the metal even in gauze or net form. For example, a platinum-rhodium alloy can be used as the catalyst, which can be in the form of a metal gauze or screen such as a woven or knitted gauze sheet, or can be disposed on a support structure. In an example, the woven or knitted gauze sheet can form a mesh-like structure having a size from 20-80 mesh, e.g., having openings with a size from about 0.18 mm to about 0.85 mm. A catalyst can comprise from about 85 wt% to about 95 wt% Pt and from about 5 wt% to about 15 wt% Rh, such as 85/15 Pt/Rh, 90/10, 95/5 Pt/Rh. A platinum-rhodium catalyst can also comprise small amounts of metal impurities, such as iron (Fe), palladium (Pd), iridium (Ir), ruthenium (Ru), and other metals. The impuiity metals can be present in trace amounts, such as about 10 ppm or less.

[0035] Further information on the Andrussow method is described in German Patent

549,055. In one example, a catalyst comprising a plurality of fine-mesh gauzes of Pt with 10% rhodium disposed in series is used at temperatures of about 800 to 2,500° C, 1,000 to 1,500° C, or about 980 to 1050° C. For example, the catalyst can be a commercially-available catalyst, such as a Pt-Rh catalyst gauze available from Johnson Matthey Pic, London, UK, or a Pt-Rh catalyst gauze available from Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co., Hanau, Germany.

Varying Reactant Molar Ratios as Reactant Costs Vary

[0036] Methane and ammonia reactants are typically the major costs for HCN

production. For example, more than 90% of the total HCN variable costs are generally consumed by methane and ammonia. Other costs such as steam and electricity are typically less than about 10% of the total cost. Methods are described herein that involve consideration of relative cost of ammonia compared to methane (and vice versa) to vary the ratio of these costly reactants and thereby reduce overall HCN production costs.

[0037] Optimal reaction conditions for an Andrussow process can vary. Variables that affect the efficiency of HCN output not only include the ratio of methane to ammonia but also the purity of the reactants, the catalyst type, the catalyst activity, the catalyst age, the reaction temperature, the feed rate, the presence of by-products, uniformity of the reaction mixture, and other factors. The methane and ammonia ratios can be varied or optimized to accommodate these factors. However, pursuant to the methods described herein, the costs of methane and ammonia can be evaluated to initiate further variation in the molar ratio of methane to ammonia and thereby reduce costs while still maintaining good HCN output.

[0038] The feed to an Andrussow process is typically run 'methane lean,' meaning that the feed into the reactor generally contains fewer moles of methane than ammonia. For example, an approximate molar ratio of methane to ammonia in an ongoing Andrussow reaction under fairly normal operating conditions can be about 0.8 to about 0.9, but may be lower during startup or when the reaction is operating under unusual conditions. The methods described herein involve evaluation of the costs of the methane and ammonia reactants, and then adjusting the molar ratio of methane to ammonia in view of such cost evaluation. Hence, the molar ratio of methane to ammonia can then vary beyond the normal operating conditions of about 0.8 to about 0.9.

[0039] For example, depending on the comparative costs of methane and ammonia, the molar ratio of methane to ammonia can range from about 0.6 to about 1.1. In other words, the molar ratio of methane to ammonia can vary beyond ratios that may normally be employed in an ongoing Andrussow process. The molar ratio of methane to ammonia can also range from about 0.62 to about 1.05, or from about 0.65 to about 1.0, or from about 0.67 to about 0.98, or from about 0.7 to about 0.95, or from about 0.75 to about 0.95, or from about 0.65 to about 0.95, or from about 0.7 to about 0.93, or from about 0.75 to about 0.93, or from about 0.75 to about 0.95, or from about 0.77 to about 0.90, or from about 0.77 to about 0.88. The molar ratio of methane to ammonia can be any numerical value between about 0.6 to about 1.1.

[0040] In some situations, the methane feed rate can be a set value while the ammonia feed is varied in view of cost evaluations. Alternatively, the ammonia feed rate can be a set value while the methane feed is varied in view of cost evaluations. In addition, both methane and ammonia feed rates are varied.

[0041] Adjustment of the composition of reactants fed into an Andrussow reactor can be limited by suboptimal operation conditions. Beyond certain ranges of oxygen, methane and ammonia, there can be a steep decline in HCN yield, and significant waste of valuable reactants. For example, the reaction mixture can be constrained by the need for sufficient oxygen, but not so much oxygen that flashback and explosions become likely. For example, a normal volume : volume percentage of oxygen in an oxygen Andrussow reaction vessel is about 27% vol/vol to about 31% vol/vol; or a range of about 28% vol/vol to about 30% vol/vol. The probability of a flashback occurring in the reaction vessel becomes more likely when oxygen is present in amounts greater than 31% vol/vol. At concentrations greater than about 40% vol/vol oxygen, the reaction mixture can detonate under conditions used for Andrussow reactions. Therefore, the cost-saving methods described herein do not involve varying the percentage of oxygen in an Andrussow reaction beyond about 31% vol/vol. For an oxygen-enriched or air Androssow process, the combined feeds to the reaction vessel can be about 15-40 vol% CH₄, about 15-45 vol% NH₄, and about 15-70 vol% air or oxygen-enriched air.

[0042] When the amount of ammonia as a reactant becomes high relative to the amount of methane in an Andrussow process, larger amounts of ammonia can fail to react. Some unreacted ammonia is typically present in the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reactor even during normal operation of an Andrussow process. For example, unreacted ammonia can be in the range of 0.25-0.45 mole ammonia per mole of HCN produced during normal operation. Modest quantities of ammonia can act mainly as a diluent and pass through the reaction system unconverted.

[0043] Moreover, ammonia present in the product stream emerging from the reactor can be recovered and be recycled back into the Andrussow reaction. But there are limits to the ability of the equipment to recover ammonia. If too much ammonia is present in the product stream emerging from the reactor, the ammonia recycling system can be overwhelmed with ammonia. In addition, the Andrussow reaction may proceed inefficiently when excessive quantities of ammonia are present, so that suboptimal amounts of HCN are produced.

[0044] There are therefore several cost factors to consider when using increased molar amounts of ammonia relative to methane.

[0045] First, there are costs associated with ammonia recovery, including energy costs, and costs for replenishing and recycling ammonia absorbent and ammonia stripper materials. During standard operating conditions there are typical costs of recovering unreacted ammonia from the reaction product stream in an ammonia recycling system. These costs are referred to herein as standard ammonia recovery costs. However, when the product stream from the Andrussow reaction vessel has increased amounts of ammonia, there can be additional energy, processing, and material replenishment costs associated with the ammonia recovery system. These additional costs are referred to herein as "added ammonia recovery costs."

[0046] Second, there are costs of ammonia loss if and when the ammonia recycling system is overwhelmed with ammonia, and the ammonia is lost as waste. These costs are referred to as "ammonia loss costs."

[0047] Third, there are costs associated with reduced HCN production when the amount of methane becomes significantly limited relative to the amount of ammonia and less than optimal amounts of HCN are made. These costs are referred to as "costs of excess ammonia- related suboptimal HCN production."

[0048] In general, the molar amount of ammonia can be increased (relative to methane) so long as the savings associated with use of higher amounts of ammonia are greater than the costs of at least these three factors. For example, the molar ratio of methane to ammonia can decrease (so there is more ammonia than methane) so long as: ammonia price savings > added ammonia recovery costs + ammonia loss costs + costs of excess ammonia-related suboptimal HCN production.

[0049] The level of unreacted methane in off-gas from the Andrussow reactor is estimated to be less than about 2% during normal operation. While a common goal for an Andrussow process is 100% methane conversion to product, when ammonia prices are high (i.e., methane prices per unit are significantly lower than ammonia prices per unit), the Andrussow reaction can have more methane than ammonia. Hence, an Andrussow process can be performed so that not all methane is converted to HCN product. For example, the molar ratio of methane to ammonia can be any numerical value between about 0.8 to about 1.1, for example, when ammonia prices are high and methane prices (per unit) are significantly lower than ammonia prices (per unit).

[0050] However, when the amount of methane becomes high relative to the amount of ammonia in an Andrussow process, side products and impurities can form. High levels of methane give rise to impurities and side products such as organonitriles (e.g., acetonitrile, acrylonitrile and/or propionitrile). High levels of methane can also lead to carbon build up in the Andrussow reactor and associated equipment. For example, carbon formation (coking) can destroy the platinum gauze catalyst. Nitriles are a yield loss and cause operating problems in the ammonia and HCN recovery trains. Hence, increasing methane levels in the reaction vessel significantly beyond the level where most methane is converted to HCN can increase costs relating to impurity formation and recovery of ammonia and HCN. The presence of such side products and impurities can give rise to added costs associated with build-up of carbon within the Andrussow system, HCN polymerization, reduced HCN recovery, and the like. Such costs are referred to as "impurity costs." In addition, significant amounts of methane can fail to react and can be lost as waste. While excess methane can be recovered from a waste stream, many Andrussow reaction systems do not have methane recovery systems. Excess methane is often sent to flare. Costs associated with lost methane are referred to herein as "methane loss costs." An imbalance of methane relative to ammonia can also affect HCN production so that suboptimal amounts of HCN are produced over time. These costs are referred to as "costs of excess methane-related suboptimal HCN production." [0051] In general, the molar amount of methane can be increased (relative to ammonia) so long as the savings associated with use of higher amounts of methane are greater than the costs associated with impurities and lost methane. For example, the molar ratio of methane to ammonia can increase (so there is more methane than ammonia) so long as: methane price savings > impurity costs + methane loss costs + costs of excess methane-related suboptimal HCN production.

Monitoring the Andrussow Reaction

[0052] The efficiency of the Andrussow process can vary with the molar ratio of reactant gases fed into the reactor. While some variation in reactant ratios is tolerated, when the efficiency of the process drops significantly, the reactant molar ratios become unacceptable. Adjustment towards more optimal ranges can improve the efficiency of the reaction and increase HCN output. This section describes ways to detect when an Andrussow reaction is proceeding in an acceptable manner, and also how to detect what is an acceptable scope of Andrussow reactant molar ratios.

[0053] The temperature of an Andrussow reaction is one measure of its efficiency. For example, as illustrated in the Examples, when ammonia levels are held constant, the temperature can be used an indicator of an optimal level of methane for that ammonia level in the Andrussow reaction. The temperature of the Andrussow reaction is lower for optimal methane to ammonia ratios but increases when the reaction proceeds less efficiently because the ratio is not optimal. Different methane to ammonia molar ratios operate most efficiently at different temperatures (see FIG. 2).

[0054] Thus, one procedure for optimizing HCN production and improving value involves adjusting either the amount of methane or ammonia in the reaction and then varying the amount of the other reactant until the temperature of the Andrussow reaction is near the minimum temperature for those levels of ammonia and methane. Such a minimum temperature generally means that the reaction is burning sufficient methane to efficiently convert ammonia and methane to product. However, when the temperature varies away from the optimal minimum temperature, reactants can also be burned rather than converted into HCN product.

[0055] For example, value can be optimized after adjustment of the ammonia feed into the reactor ratio by adding or adjusting the methane feed until the Andrussow reaction within the reactor is within about 150 °C, or within about 125 °C, or within about 120 °C, or within about 100 °C, or within about 90 °C, or within about 80 °C, or within about 70 °C, or within about 60 °C of the reaction temperature minimum for the adjusted methane to ammonia molar ratio.

However, an Andrussow reactor operating at less than about 850 °C or more than about 1,500 °C can be operating suboptimally. In some cases, an Andrussow reaction operates more efficiently within a temperature range of about 1000 °C to about 1,300 °C, or about 1050 °C to about 1,250 °C.

[0056] Another procedure for detecting whether an Andrussow process is running at optimal efficiency, even though methane to ammonia molar ratios have been adjusted away from ratios typically used in an Andrussow reaction, is to monitor the output of HCN, ammonia loss (also called ammonia leakage), methane loss (also called methane leakage), and/or the production of impurities and side products such as organonitriles.

[0057] Gas chromatograph analysis of the product stream emerging from an oxygen

Andrussow reaction vessel under normal operating conditions has about 0.01% to 20% or 15% to 20% vol/vol HCN, about 0.1 to about 2 or about 0.4 to 0.8% vol/vol methane, and about 0% to 6% or about 2% to about 6% vol/vol ammonia. When an air Andrussow process is employed, the product stream may about one-third or less of these components compared to an oxygen

Andrussow process. Thus, the product stream emerging from an air Andrussow reaction vessel under normal operating conditions has about 0.01% to 7% or about 3% to 7% vol/vol HCN, about 0.01 to about 0.25% or about 0.075 to 0.25% vol/vol methane, and about 0 to about 2% or about 0.4%) to about 2% vol/vol ammonia.

[0058] For example, an oxygen Andrussow reaction may be operating suboptimally when the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reaction vessel has less than about 16% vol/vol HCN, or less than about 15% vol/vol HCN, or less than about 14%) vol/vol HCN, or less than about 13% vol/vol HCN. An air Andrussow reaction may be operating suboptimally when the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reaction vessel has less than about 4% vol/vol HCN, or less than about 3% vol/vol HCN, or less than about 2% vol/vol HCN.

[0059] In another example, the Andrussow reaction may be operating suboptimally when the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reaction vessel has more than about double the percent normally observed. For example, an oxygen Andrussow reaction may be operating suboptimally when the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reaction vessel has the more than about 0.8% vol/vol methane, or more than about 1.0% vol/vol methane, or more than about 1.5% vol/vol methane, or more than about 2.0% vol/vol methane, or more than about 2.5% vol/vol methane. For an air Andrussow reaction, suboptimal operation may be observed when the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reaction vessel has more than about 0.25% vol/vol methane, or more than about 0.3% vol/vol methane, or more than about 0.35% vol/vol methane, or more than about 0.4% methane.

[0060] In a further example, the Andrussow reaction may be operating suboptimally when the product stream emerging from an Andrussow reaction vessel has more than about ±10- 20% of the normally observed ammonia content. For example, for an oxygen Andrussow process suboptimal operation can be detected when the product stream has more than about 7% vol/vol ammonia, or more than about 8% vol/vol ammonia, or more than about 9% vol/vol ammonia, or more than about 10% vol/vol ammonia. When an air Andrussow process is employed, suboptimal operation can be detected when the product stream has more than about 2% vol/vol ammonia, or more than about 3% vol/vol ammonia, or more than about 4% vol/vol ammonia, or more than about 5% vol/vol ammonia.

[0061] One of the more significant indicators of suboptimal operation is the HCN production. Hence, if HCN production falls about 5%-20% below normal values observed in the product stream, the feed ratios of ammonia and methane can be adjusted to improve HCN product output.

Enriched Oxygen versus Air Andrussow Processes

[0062] There are some advantages to the use of an oxygen-enriched or oxygen

Andrussow process instead of an air Andrussow process. Advantageously, by using an oxygen- enriched or oxygen Andrussow process, a greater proportion of hydrogen can be generated in the effluent stream than in an air Andrussow process. Also, in an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process, less non-reactive or impurity materials are present in the oxygen-containing feed stream, which reduces heating costs of the desired reagents prior to entry into a reactor, resulting in less wasted energy. The equipment for production of an equivalent amount of HCN can also be more compact (smaller) for an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process than for an air Andrussow process. [0063] However, an oxygen-enriched Andrussow process or an oxygen Andrussow process can have a number of issues that are not of concern in an air Andrussow process. And, as the oxygen concentration of the feed gas increases, problems tend to be amplified. For example, the reagents in an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process are less diluted by other gases, such as inert gases. Therefore, an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process tends to proceed in a more concentrated fashion than an air Andrussow process. As such, an oxygen- enriched or oxygen Andrussow process tends to generate a higher concentration of all products, including byproducts. Hence, the reactor and associated equipment for an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process is more susceptible to the build-up of impurities in the system that can more easily be flushed out of the equipment employed in an air Andrussow process. The greater rate of byproduct build-up can lead to increased rates of corrosion as well as more frequent shut down and maintenance for various parts of the process. Equipment that can be significantly affected by byproduct build-up, corrosion and related problems include, for example, the reactor(s), the ammonia recovery system(s), and the HCN recovery system(s). Because the reagents in an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process are more

concentrated, the reaction can be more sensitive to variations in concentration of reagents than in an air Andrussow process. Local variations in the concentration of reagents as the reagents travel past the catalyst can cause temperature variations in the catalyst bed, such as hot spots, which can reduce the life of the catalyst as compared to an air Andrussow process. Additional safety controls can be needed for an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process to manage gas mixtures with high oxygen content and avoid ignition or detonation. Also, heat transfer from the effluent of an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process can be more difficult than in an air Andrussow process, in part because the effluent is more concentrated than observed for an air Andrussow process and cooling such a concentrated effluent to the point of condensation can increase the likelihood of side product formation that might not be observed if the effluent was more dilute. In addition, variations in the concentration or flow rate of reagents in an oxygen- enriched or oxygen Andrussow process can cause larger differences in the overall efficiency of the process as compared to an air Andrussow process. In an oxygen-enriched or oxygen

Andrussow process, safety controls that may not be needed for an air Andrussow process are used to avoid combustion or detonation of the gas mixture. Thus, additional safety protocols in equipment design and operation that are not generally used or needed in an air Andrussow process are often used in an oxygen-enriched or oxygen Andrussow process. An oxygen- enriched or oxygen Andrussow process is more sensitive to changes in heat value of the feed gas; therefore, small variations in the composition of the feed stream can cause greater temperature fluctuations in the reactor than would be observed for similar feed stream compositions in an air Andrussow process.

[0064] The following Examples illustrate some of the effects of varying methane to ammonia ratios.

Example 1: Varying methane : ammonia molar ratios

[0065] Filtered ammonia, natural gas and air or oxygen are fed into an Andrussow reactor and heated in the presence of a platinum-containing catalyst at temperatures ranging from about 1,050 °C to about 1,200 °C. A 4 inch internal diameter stainless steel reactor with ceramic insulation lining inside is used for pilot scale test. Forty sheets of 90wt% Pt/10 wt% Rxi 40 mesh gauze from Johnson Matthey (USA) are loaded as catalyst bed. Perforated alumina tile is used for catalyst sheet support. The total flow rate is set at 2532 SCFH (standard cubic foot per hour). Some reactors are designed to use air as an oxygen source. Other Andrussow reactors are designed to use air enriched with oxygen and still others are designed to use oxygen as an oxygen-containing feedstream. However, the ratios of ammonia to methane can be varied in any of these processes to reduce costs. Natural gas can also be used instead of pure methane, especially when the natural gas has few impurities and consists substantially of methane.

[0066] The reactor off-gas containing HCN and unreacted ammonia is quenched in a waste heat boiler to approximately 350 °C. The cooled reactor off-gas is sent through an ammonia absorption unit containing ammonium phosphate solution to remove unreacted ammonia. From the ammonia absorber, the product off-gas is sent through the HCN absorber where cold water is added to entrain the HCN. The HCN-water mixture is then sent to a cyanide stripper where excess waste is removed from the liquid. The HCN-water mixture is optionally sent through a fractionator to concentrate the HCN before the product is stored in tanks or directly used as a feedstock. [0067] Several factors and relationships are defined below and used to assess reactor operation and yield effects. Ammonia Yield (Yn) is the chemical yield of HCN from ammonia expressed as a percentage of HCN produced per the ammonia consumed in the reactor:

Yn = 100 * (HCN produced / (NH₃ fed - NH₃ recycled))

[0068] The ammonia recycled (NH₃ recycled) is the amount not consumed in generating

HCN, and instead absorbed and recaptured in the ammonia absorption unit. Thus, Ammonia Yield (Yn) is a measure of how ammonia is actually converted into HCN. The unreacted ammonia that passes from the system as off-gas and into downstream processing operations is factored into the Ammonia Yield (Yn).

[0069] The Ammonia Conversion (Cn) variable does not consider such unreacted ammonia and instead is defined simply as the percentage of HCN produced relative to the NH₃ fed into the reactor.

Cn = 100 * (HCN produced / NH₃ fed)

[0070] Similarly Methane Conversion (Cc) is defined as the percentage of CH₄ converted to HCN. Because CH₄ in the waste gases is not detected in the process employed for these studies, yield and conversion for methane are synonymous.

Cc = 100 * (HCN produced / C¾ fed)

In some experiments, natural gas (NG) is used instead of methane, especially when the natural gas is substantially pure methane.

[0071] FIG. 1 illustrates conversion of ammonia into HCN for an Andrussow process that employs natural gas (NG). As shown in FIG. 1, the percent ammonia yield (amount HCN produced per amount ammonia consumed in the reaction) decreases as the ratio of ammonia to air is increased. At certain ammonia to natural gas ratios, conversion of reactants into HCN is efficient. However, overloading the Andrussow reactor with ammonia can be inefficient. Also as shown, the percent yield of methane (or natural gas, NG) increases as the ratio of ammonia to air is increased, indicating that more methane is converted into HCN when higher levels of ammonia are present in the reaction mixture.

[0072] Further experiments show that HCN reaction temperature, yield, conversion, and unreacted ammonia (also referred to as ammonia leakage) are functions of the ratios of ammonia and methane to oxygen. Gas chromatograph analysis of the feedstream emerging from an oxygen Andrussow reaction vessel under normal operating conditions indicates that this product stream emerging from the reaction vessel has about 17% HCN, 0.5% methane, and 4% ammonia.

[0073] The bed temperature of an oxygen Andrussow reactor is generally in the range of

1100-1200°C. However, the bed temperature varies depending upon the amount of ammonia relative to methane. As shown in FIG. 2, when the ammonia to oxygen ratio is fixed, adjusting the methane to oxygen ratio affects the reaction temperature. In particular, when the methane to oxygen ratio is adjusted to increase ammonia conversion, the temperature decreases and a minimum temperature occurs at the point of maximum ammonia conversion. This point is the result of the competing exothermic combustion reactions and the endothermic cracking and synthesis reactions. When the ammonia to oxygen ratio is increased and the methane to oxygen ratio is readjusted to maintain maximal ammonia conversion, HCN production increases and the bed temperature decreases further. Thus, these results indicate that temperature is a measure of the efficiency of the Andrussow reaction as well as an indicator of how much methane can be added to a fixed amount of ammonia (and vice versa) to optimize HCN production.

[0074] FIG. 3 illustrates that the percent conversion of ammonia into HCN varies as the ratio of methane to oxygen is varied and the input ratio of ammonia to oxygen is held constant.

Example 2: Impurities form when unused methane is present

[0075] The Andrussow process is performed as described in Example 1 except that the amount of methane in the reaction vessel is varied. When the amount of methane in the reaction vessel has increased beyond the level where the methane is substantially consumed, some methane remains unreacted and passes out of the reaction vessel. Such unreacted methane is detected in the product stream and is referred to as "methane leakage" or "methane loss."

[0076] As shown in FIG. 4, the amount of the acetonitrile (C¾CN) impurity formed during such an Andrussow reaction increases with the amount of methane leakage (unreacted methane). In particular, FIG. 4 graphically illustrates that when the unreacted methane is greater than about 0.5 mole % of the methane per mole HCN produced, significant amounts of acetonitrile begin to form, and increasing amounts of acetonitrile continue to form as the amount of unreacted methane increases.

[0077] The level of unreacted methane in the reaction off-gas from an oxygen

Andrussow reactor is estimated to be less than 1% during normal operation. However, methane leakage increases with increasing methane to oxygen ratios and with increasing ammonia to oxygen ratios. Unreacted methane is a concern because the presence of significant unconverted methane causes side reactions that result in carbon formation on the catalyst gauze or in the production of nitriles, such as acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, and propionitrile.

Example 3: Using Costs to Vary the Molar Ratio of Methane to Ammonia

[0078] This Example illustrates realization of cost savings for HCN production after evaluation of ammonia and methane costs and using such evaluation to modulate methane : ammonia ratios in an Andrussow process.

[0079] An oxygen Andrussow process is performed as described in Example 1, but where the methane : ammonia ratio is about 0.8.

[0080] The average total percent costs of methane over one week are X, while the average total percent costs of ammonia over the same week are Y. The costs for ammonia and methane are 90% of the total operating cost for producing HCN (X + Y = 90% total costs).

[0081] Because the methane : ammonia ratio is about 0.8, about 20% less methane is employed in the reaction than ammonia. Thus, if the cost per mole of methane is about 0.01 the cost per mole of ammonia, the total methane costs (X) are 0.008 of than the total ammonia costs (Y), and X = 0.008(Y) or Y = X/0.008.

[0082] Methane costs per mole decrease by about 5% over the next week, so that the average total percent costs of methane costs are now about 0.95(X). Ammonia costs per mole also increase by about 10% over that same week, so that the average total percent costs of ammonia costs are about 1.1(Y). Thus, the total costs for ammonia and methane can therefore be greater than 90% of the total operating cost for producing HCN and can relate more significantly to ammonia costs than methane costs.

[0083] The methane : ammonia ratio in the reactor is adjusted to 0.9, so that more methane and less ammonia is employed than before. This reduces the total costs for the more expensive ammonia that is typically used in excess, and thereby reduces the costs for HCN production.

[0084] All patents and publications referenced or mentioned herein are indicative of the levels of skill of those skilled in the art to which the invention pertains, and each such referenced patent or publication is hereby specifically incorporated by reference to the same extent as if it had been incorporated by reference in its entirety individually or set forth herein in its entirety. Applicants reserve the right to physically incorporate into this specification any and all materials and information from any such cited patents or publications.

[0085] The specific methods, devices and compositions described herein are

representative of preferred embodiments and are exemplary and not intended as limitations on the scope of the invention. Other objects, aspects, and embodiments will occur to those skilled in the art upon consideration of this specification, and are encompassed within the spirit of the invention as defined by the scope of the claims. It will be readily apparent to one skilled in the art that varying substitutions and modifications may be made to the invention disclosed herein without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention.

[0086] The invention illustratively described herein suitably may be practiced in the absence of any element or elements, or limitation or limitations, which is not specifically disclosed herein as essential. The methods and processes illustratively described herein suitably may be practiced in differing orders of steps, and the methods and processes are not necessarily restricted to the orders of steps indicated herein or in the claims.

[0087] As used herein and in the appended claims, the singular forms "a," "an," and

"the" include plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, a reference to "a reactor" or "a feedstream" includes a plurality of such reactors or feedstreams (for example, a series of reactors, or several feedstreams), and so forth. In this document, the term "or" is used to refer to a nonexclusive or, such that "A or B" includes "A but not B," "B but not A," and "A and B," unless otherwise indicated.

[0088] Under no circumstances may the patent be interpreted to be limited to the specific examples or embodiments or methods specifically disclosed herein. Under no circumstances may the patent be interpreted to be limited by any statement made by any Examiner or any other official or employee of the Patent and Trademark Office unless such statement is specifically and without qualification or reservation expressly adopted in a responsive writing by Applicants.

[0089] The terms and expressions that have been employed are used as terms of description and not of limitation, and there is no intent in the use of such terms and expressions to exclude any equivalent of the features shown and described or portions thereof, but it is recognized that various modifications are possible within the scope of the invention as claimed. Thus, it will be understood that although the present invention has been specifically disclosed by preferred embodiments and optional features, modification and variation of the concepts herein disclosed may be resorted to by those skilled in the art, and that such modifications and variations are considered to be within the scope of this invention as defined by the appended claims and statements of the invention.

[0090] The invention has been described broadly and generically herein. Each of the narrower species and subgeneric groupings falling within the generic disclosure also form part of the invention. This includes the generic description of the invention with a proviso or negative limitation removing any subject matter from the genus, regardless of whether or not the excised material is specifically recited herein. In addition, where features or aspects of the invention are described in terms of Markush groups, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention is also thereby described in terms of any individual member or subgroup of members of the Markush group.

[0091] The following statements describe some of the elements or features of the invention. Because this application is a provisional application, these statements may become changed upon preparation and filing of a nonpro visional application. Such changes are not intended to affect the scope of equivalents according to the claims issuing from the

nonprovisional application, if such changes occur. According to 35 U.S.C. § 1 11(b), claims are not required for a provisional application. Consequently, the statements of the invention cannot be interpreted to be claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112.

Statements:

[0092] 1. A method of increasing value in a hydrogen cyanide production facility comprising:

(a) evaluating costs of methane and ammonia;

(b) adjusting a molar ratio of methane to ammonia that is fed into a reactor for production of hydrogen cyanide, to thereby use an adjusted molar ratio of methane to ammonia, and to thereby increase value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[0093] 2. The method of statement 1, wherein the adjusted methane to ammonia molar ratio varies from about 0.6 to about 1.1.

[0094] 3. The method of statement 1 or 2, wherein the reactor is fed a reaction mixture comprising methane, ammonia and oxygen. [0095] 4. The method of any of statements 1 -3, wherein the reactor is fed a reaction mixture comprising methane, ammonia and oxygen; and wherein the oxygen is a feedstream consisting essentially of air, air enriched with oxygen, substantially pure oxygen, or a mixture of air and an inert gas.

[0096] 5. The method of any of statements 1-4, wherein the reactor comprises a catalyst comprising platinum.

[0097] 6. The method of any of statements 1-5, wherein increasing value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility comprises decreasing per unit costs of hydrogen cyanide production in the facility.

[0098] 7. The method of statement 6, wherein per unit costs of hydrogen cyanide production in the facility are decreased by up to about 10%, or up to about 8%, or up to about 5%, or up to about 4%, or up to about 3%, or up to about 2%, or up to about 1%.

[0099] 8. The method of any of statements 1-7, wherein increasing value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility comprises decreasing per unit costs of methane.

[00100] 9. The method of any of statements 1-8, wherein increasing value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility comprises decreasing per unit costs of ammonia.

[00101] 10. The method of any of statements 1-7, wherein the market costs of methane and ammonia are costs per unit or costs per mole.

[00102] 11. The method of any of statements 1-10, wherein the market costs of methane and ammonia are evaluated every day, every 2 days, every 3 days, every week, every 2 weeks, every 3 weeks, every month, every 2 months, or any interval between 1 day to 60 days.

[00103] 12. The method of any of statements 1-11, wherein the adjusted ratio is maintained until methane costs per unit, or ammonia costs per unit change.

[00104] 13. The method of any of statements 1-12, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio is adjusted when ammonia costs increase relative to mean ammonia costs during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[00105] 14. The method of any of statements 1-13, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio in the reactor ranges from about 0.6 to about 0.95, or from about 0.6 to about 0.9, or from about 0.6 to about 0.85, or from about 0.6 to about 0.8, or from about 0.65 to about 0.95, or from about 0.65 to about 0.9, or from about 0.7 to about 0.95, or from about 0.7 to about 0.9, or from about 0.7 to about 0.85 when ammonia costs decrease relative to mean ammonia costs during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[00106] 15. The method of any of statements 1-14, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio ranges from about 0.75 to about 1.1, or from about 0.77 to about 1.1, or from about 0.79 to about 1.1, or from about 0.8 to about 1.1, or from about 0.75 to about 1.05, or from about 0.75 to about 1.0, or from about 0.75 to about 0.98, or from about 0.75 to about 0.96, or from about 0.75 to about 0.95, or from about 0.78 to about 0.94, or from about 0.78 to about 0.93 when ammonia costs increase relative to mean ammonia costs during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[00107] 16. The method of any of statements 1-15, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as ammonia price savings are greater than: added ammonia recovery costs + ammonia loss costs + costs of excess ammonia-related suboptimal HCN production.

[00108] 17. The method of any of statements 1-16, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio is adjusted when methane costs increase relative to mean methane costs during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[00109] 18. The method of any of statements 1-17, wherein the adjusted ratio in the reactor ranges from about 0.75 to about 1.1, or from about 0.77 to about 1.1, or from about 0.79 to about 1.1, or from about 0.8 to about 1.1, or from about 0.75 to about 1.05, or from about 0.75 to about 1.0, or from about 0.75 to about 0.98, or from about 0.75 to about 0.96, or from about 0.75 to about 0.95, or from about 0.78 to about 0.94, or from about 0.78 to about 0.93 when methane costs decrease relative to mean methane costs during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[00110] 19. The method of any of statements 1-18, wherein the adjusted ratio ranges from about 0.6 to about 0.95, or from about 0.6 to about 0.9, or from about 0.6 to about 0.85, or from about 0.6 to about 0.8, or from about 0.65 to about 0.95, or from about 0.65 to about 0.9, or from about 0.7 to about 0.95, or from about 0.7 to about 0.9, or from about 0.7 to about 0.85 when methane costs increase relative to mean methane costs during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

[00111] 20. The method of any of statements 1-19, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as methane price savings are greater than impurity costs + methane loss costs + costs of excess methane-related suboptimal HCN production. [00112] 21. The method of any of statements 1-20, wherein ammonia fed into the reactor is held constant at an approximate set value and methane fed into the reactor is varied after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia.

[00113] 22. The method of any of statements 1-21, wherein methane fed into the reactor is held constant at an approximate set value and ammonia fed into the reactor is varied after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia.

[00114] 23. The method of any of statements 1-22, wherein the adjusted molar ratio is employed so long as the reactor has a temperature within about 1,000 °C to about 1,300 °C, or within about 1,050 °C to about 1,200 °C.

[00115] 24. The method of any of statements 1-23, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as the reactor has a temperature within about 150 °C, or within about 130 °C, or within about 120 °C, or within about 100 °C, or within about 90 °C, or within about 80 °C, or within about 70 °C, or within about 60 °C, or within about 50 °C, or within about 40 °C, or within about 30 °C, or within about 20 °C, of a reaction temperature minimum for the selected methane to ammonia molar ratio.

[00116] 25. The method of any of statements 1-24, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has at least than about 13.5% vol/vol HCN, or at least about 14% vol/vol HCN, or at least about 14.3% vol/vol HCN, or at least about 14.5% vol/vol HCN, or at least about 14.8% vol/vol HCN, or at least about 15% vol/vol HCN.

[00117] 26. The method of any of statements 1-25, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has less than about 3.5% vol/vol methane, or less than about 3.0% vol/vol methane, or less than about 2.5% vol/vol methane, or less than about 2.0% vol/vol methane, or less than about 1.8% vol/vol methane, or less than about 1.5% vol/vol methane.

[00118] 27. The method of any of statements 1-26, wherein the selected methane to ammonia molar ratio is employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has less than about 10% vol/vol ammonia, or less than about 9% vol/vol ammonia, or less than about 8% vol/vol ammonia, or less than about 7% vol/vol ammonia.

[00119] 28. The method of any of statements 1-27, wherein the adjusted ratio is readjusted after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia. [00120] 29. The method of any of statements 1-28, wherein the reactor comprises a catalyst comprising a platinum-rhodium alloy.

[00121] 30. The method of any of statements 1-29, wherein the reactor comprises a catalyst comprising about 85 wt% to about 90 wt% Pt and from about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% Rh.

[00122] 31. The method of any of statements 1 -30, wherein the reactor comprises a catalyst in the form of a metal gauze, screen or knitted gauze sheet.

[00123] 32. The method of any of statements 1-31, wherein costs of methane comprise market prices of methane and acquisition costs for obtaining methane.

|00124] 33. The method of any of statements 1-31, wherein costs of ammonia comprise market prices of ammonia and acquisition costs for obtaining ammonia.

Claims

WHAT IS CLAIMED:

1. A method of increasing value in a hydrogen cyanide production facility comprising:

(a) evaluating costs of methane and ammonia;

(b) adjusting a molar ratio of methane to ammonia that is fed into a reactor for production of hydrogen cyanide, to thereby use an adjusted molar ratio of methane to ammonia, and to thereby increase value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted methane to ammonia molar ratio varies from about 0.6 to about 1.1.

3. The method of claims 1 or 2, wherein increasing value in the hydrogen cyanide production facility comprises decreasing per unit costs of hydrogen cyanide production in the facility; decreasing per unit costs of methane; or decreasing per unit costs of ammonia.

4. The method of any of claims 1-3, wherein the costs of methane and ammonia are evaluated every day, or every week.

5. The method of any of claims 1-4, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio is adjusted when ammonia costs increase or decrease relative to mean ammonia costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

6. The method of any of claims 1-5, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio A fed into the reactor ranges from about 0.6 to about 0.9 when ammonia costs decrease relative to mean ammonia costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

7. The method of any of claims 1-6, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio B fed into the reactor ranges from about 0.75 to about 1.0 when ammonia costs increase relative to mean ammonia costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

8. The method of any of claims 1-7, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as ammonia price savings are greater than: added ammonia recovery costs + ammonia loss costs + costs of excess ammonia-related suboptimal HCN production.

9. The method of any of claims 1-8, wherein the methane to ammonia molar ratio is adjusted when methane costs increase or decrease relative to mean methane costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

10. The method of any of claims 1 -9, wherein the adjusted ratio in the reactor ranges from 0.75 to about 1.0 when methane costs decrease relative to mean methane costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

11. The method of any of claims 1-10, wherein the adjusted ratio ranges from about 0.6 to about 0.9 when methane costs increase relative to mean methane costs noted during a selected period of operation of the hydrogen cyanide production facility.

12. The method of any of claims 1-1 1, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as methane price savings are greater than impurity costs + methane loss costs + costs of excess methane-related suboptimal HCN production.

13. The method of any of claims 1-12, wherein ammonia fed into the reactor is held constant at an approximate set value and methane fed into the reactor is varied after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia; or wherein methane fed into the reactor is held constant at an approximate set value and ammonia fed into the reactor is varied after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia.

14. The method of any of claims 1-13, wherein the adjusted molar ratio is employed so long as the reactor has a temperature within about 1,000 °C to about 1,300 °C, or within about 1,050 °C to about 1,200 °C.

15. The method of any of claims 1-14, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as the reactor has a temperature within about 140 °C of a reaction temperature minimum for the selected methane to ammonia molar ratio.

16. The method of any of claims 1-15, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has at least about 14.5% vol/vol HCN.

17. The method of any of claims 1-17, wherein the adjusted ratio is employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has less than about 2.5% vol/vol methane.

18. The method of any of claims 1-17, wherein the selected methane to ammonia molar ratio is employed so long as a product stream emerging from the reactor has less than about 8% vol/vol ammonia.

19. The method of any of claims 1-18, wherein the adjusted ratio is re-adjusted after evaluating market costs of methane and ammonia.

20. The method of any of claims 1-19, wherein the reactor comprises a catalyst comprising a platinum-rhodium alloy.

21. The method of any of claims 1-20, wherein the reactor comprises a catalyst comprising about 85 wt% to about 90 wt% Pt and from about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% Rh.