SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: scion who wrote (36)3/23/2010 8:30:41 PM
From: scionRespond to of 53574
 
The Indictment charges that they would meet with Kyung J. Kim, a Senior Research and Development Associate at Lubrizol to gather information on trade secrets regarding Thermoplastic Polyurethane and other confidential Lubrizol technology; this included Non-Halogen Flame Retardant Technology (NHFR) sold under the Estane® trade name and static control technology sold under the Stat-Rite® trade name.

News Release
November 12, 2008

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Northern District of Ohio

William J. Edwards
United States Attorney

Justin J. Roberts
Assistant U.S. Attorney
216-622-3958

cleveland.fbi.gov

William J. Edwards, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, today announced that an Indictment was filed charging Sang Ho Shin, Dong Sik Kim, and Yeon Hee Lee with one count of trade secrets conspiracy, and two counts each of theft of trade secrets.

Sang Ho Shin, Dong Sik Kim and Yeon Hee Lee are residents and nationals of South Korea and were employed as executives of SK Chemicals, a multinational chemical company located in Seoul, South Korea.

The Indictment charges that from in or about late 2001 through in or about January 2008, Shin, Kim and Lee, conspired with Kyung J. Kim to steal and receive trade secrets belonging to the Lubrizol Corporation, a competitor based in Wickliffe, Ohio. The Indictment charges that they would meet with Kyung J. Kim, a Senior Research and Development Associate at Lubrizol to gather information on trade secrets regarding Thermoplastic Polyurethane and other confidential Lubrizol technology; this included Non-Halogen Flame Retardant Technology (NHFR) sold under the Estane® trade name and static control technology sold under the Stat-Rite® trade name. The Indictment alleges that Kyung J. Kim downloaded trade secrets onto an external storage device in preparation for meetings with Kim and Lee and further alleges that Kyung J. Kim communicated trade secrets and other confidential Lubrizol technology by way of handwritten facsimiles sent from his home to Sang Ho Shin.

The Indictment states that the defendants met with Kyung J. Kim at hotels and condominiums at various sites including Tucson, Arizona, Niagara Falls, Canada, and Suwon, South Korea. These meetings occurred on at least 17 occasions and would last for several days. At these meetings, Kyung J. Kim explained the trade secrets and other confidential Lubrizol technology to Sang Ho Shin, Dong Sik Kim and Yeon Hee Lee.

The Indictment alleges that the defendants provided Kim with envelopes of $10,000 in cash (usually in denominations of $100 bills) at each meeting in exchange for the trade secrets and other confidential Lubrizol technology. They also reimbursed all of Kim’s travel expenses (usually $1100).

Kyung J. Kim pleaded guilty to an Information charging one count of theft of trade secrets conspiracy and two counts of theft of trade secrets on April 8, 2008, in Case No. 1:08CR139 before the Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr.

If convicted, the defendants’ sentences will be determined by the Court after review of factors unique to this case, including the defendants’ prior criminal record, if any, the defendants’ role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases it will be less than the maximum.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin J. Roberts, following investigation by the Painesville office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

An Indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A
defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

cleveland.fbi.gov



To: scion who wrote (36)3/23/2010 8:34:36 PM
From: scionRead Replies (3) | Respond to of 53574
 
Lubrizol - SulfrZol 54® Catalyst Sulfiding Agent

Sulfiding is a key operation in catalyst activation, but it doesn’t have to be as unpleasant, potentially dangerous, difficult, or as environmentally unfriendly as you’ve probably experienced. SulfrZol® 54 is a premium alternative to traditional sulfiding agents. With a higher flash point, low odor, and emissions-improving technology, it offers safer, cleaner, and effective catalyst activation that is preferred by refinery managers, operators, and the surrounding community.

lubrizol.com

Brenntag Oil & Gas offers a safe alternative for catalyst pre-sulphiding
Brenntag Oil & Gas Europe, one of the largest worldwide chemical distributors, offers through their partner, Lubrizol Corporation, the next generation catalyst sulphiding agent: SulfrZol® 54. With a flash point of 100 ºC, this product is much safer than traditional sulphiding agents, such as DMDS (di-methyl di-sulphide). Looking at current developments within the industry, which are forcing refineries to increase their levels of safety, Brenntag sees this as the best available product in the market. Th. M. Verleun, Business Manager at Brenntag Oil & Gas Europe, has assessed the various options in catalyst activation.

Catalyst change outs are a necessary evil in the oil refining industry. Next to the fact it is expensive and time consuming, it requires an extensive amount of high tech expertise and specialist safety measures onsite. According to Mr Verleun, catalyst sulphiding of new catalysts can be done much more safely.

Catalyst activation
Traditionally produced catalysts come in inactive / inert form, mostly a metal-oxide composition. To activate these catalysts, a defined quantity of sulphur is required on the catalyst surface. To keep the time and costs of the shutdown and change-out of catalysts as low as possible, this process needs to be carried out in a minimal amount of time, applying the highest degree of safety.

There are several ways to add sulphur to the catalyst surface. One of them is by starting the unit up with a sulphur rich feed stream. The highest risk will be that on start-up of a new catalyst with sulphur rich feed, the possible poisoning contaminants reach the catalyst surface more rapidly than the sulphur, and the efficiency is already reduced before the catalyst is taken in use. An alternative for many years has been the use of DMDS (di-methyl di-sulphide). There are several dangers associated with DMDS, which make it difficult to produce, transport, store and apply. Due to its extremely low flash point of 16 ºC, this product requires many precautions in the potentially high-risk environment of a refinery, especially at re-start time after a shutdown. Special containers and transport are required to transfer this material from the DMDS production location to the customer. Transportation needs to be at times of the day when there is low traffic pressure on the roads. Temporary storage of this product on the customer’s site requires special attention. People applying the product as well as people in the immediate surroundings of the application site require space suit like fire-protective clothing. Last but not least, this product has an extremely unpleasant odour, which can be a nuisance for the surrounding community as well as workers. DMDS producers are now incorporating additives to the product to mask the unpleasant odour, thus creating a so-called next generation DMDS. However, these additives are products, which are often, considered a serious hazard, some are even listed as such, so the problems associated with DMDS remain

SulfrZol® 54
The Lubrizol Corporation, a major producer of process additives, has carefully looked at the catalyst sulfiding hazards and obstacles that occur when applying DMDS. As a result they have developed a sulphur-rich product, which contains practically none of the above-mentioned hazardous properties, or negative aspects associated with DMDS. The product, branded SulfrZol® 54, is a polysulphide chemical, trapped in a bridge of t-butyl groups, designed specifically for in situ catalyst pre-sulphiding.

Thanks to its significantly higher flash point of 100ºC, SulfrZol® 54 is much safer to work with than DMDS. Consequently, no special measures are required for production, packaging, transportation and storage and no special clothing is necessary. SulfrZol® 54 also has no unpleasant odour. The normal diesel-like smell originates from the chemistry itself. No environmentally unfriendly odour masking agents are applied. A minor inconvenience one could mention is the lower sulphur content when compared to DMDS (~54% vs. ~65%), which results in a small extra dosage of SulfrZol® 54 being required to obtain the same amount of sulphur available for the catalyst.

Acceptance in the industry
Lubrizol and catalyst manufacturers worldwide have cooperated in the development and testing of SulfrZol® 54 as a catalyst sulfiding agent, and as a possible alternative to DMDS. Based on those tests, all catalyst producers have concluded that SulfrZol® 54 is an acceptable and efficient alternative. Although for some exceptional applications the product has not yet been tested and approved by all catalyst manufacturers, theoretically there is no limitation to the use of SulfrZol® 54 for much safer and user-friendly catalyst sulfiding processes. The product has already been successfully applied for catalyst sulfiding by many major European refineries such as Exxon, Tamoil, Shell (in several countries), Czech Refinery, Nynas, Repsol and several more. (A reference list is available on request). Catalyst producers / developers as well as operators / managers of a (sulphur activated) catalyst bed who have used SulfrZol® 54 have reported positive feedback on its ease of use.

Brenntag services
Brenntag Oil & Gas is the official distributor on behalf of the Lubrizol Corporation for SulfrZol® 54, virtually worldwide. Brenntag can also offer catalyst sulphiding injection services onsite on a turnkey basis, if requested by the client. In fact, since the level of risks accompanied with the use of SulfrZol® 54 is so low, the refinery staff or catalyst manufacturers staff can inject the SulfrZol® 54 with a regular high-pressure pump themselves. This, in contradiction to DMDS, which requires DMDS producers to always provide the ‘’safety-service’’, as described above, with the product.

Other applications or special packaging
SulfrZol® 54 can also be applied as an anti-coking agent in (Ethylene) crackers, by continuous injection to avoid deposit formation. Unlike DMDS, which needs to be placed under nitrogen pressure in closed IBC containers to reduce its smell and to reduce the low flashpoint dangers, SulfrZol® 54 can be stored onsite in regular containers and does not need to be in a closed system, which is again a safety advantage.

Conclusion
In today’s environment, safety is becoming more and more important. With the new development of SulfrZol® 54 from The Lubrizol Corporation for catalyst activation processes, DMDS is no longer the sulfiding agent of choice to refineries. Safety managers and operators at refineries, who take safety as a key element of their
daily job, need to consider the alternatives for catalyst sulphiding processes. SulfrZol® 54, which can be used for the same applications and has an equal performance level as DMDS, is a preferred alternative as it will lead to increased safety at refinery plants.

pressreleasefinder.com



To: scion who wrote (36)3/24/2010 12:51:03 PM
From: scionRespond to of 53574
 
Lubrizol boosts plastics-related profits

By Frank Esposito | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF
Posted February 4, 2010
plasticsnews.com

WICKLIFFE, OHIO (Feb. 4, 3:40 p.m. ET) -- Plastics-related operating profit almost doubled in 2009 for Lubrizol Corp.

Wickliffe, Ohio-based Lubrizol recorded operating profit of almost $169 million for its Advanced Materials unit in 2009 — an increase of about 90 percent over the prior year. Results improved even as the unit’s sales fell 12 percent to $1.3 billion.

The unit’s fourth-quarter sales were up 17 percent to almost $350 million when compared to the year-ago period. It also moved from an operating loss of almost $2 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 to an operating profit of $46 million in the same quarter in 2009.

“Advanced Materials benefited from strong volume increases and success in delivering valuable technology” during the quarter, CEO James Hambrick said in a Feb. 4 news release.

Advanced Materials was the smaller of Lubrizol’s two operating segments in 2009, with about 28 percent of sales. The unit’s products include thermoplastic polyurethane, chlorinated PVC and other specialty chemicals. Lubrizol bought the business in 2004 from private equity firm AEA Investors Inc.

In the last 18 months, Lubrizol — whose primary business is in lubricant and fuel additives — has expanded the Advanced Materials unit by purchasing TPU businesses from Dow Chemical Co. and SK Chemicals. The firm also has commercialized new grades of Estane-brand TPU that offer increased chemical resistance when exposed to ethanol or mineral spirits, and additional breathable grades of TPU for use in jacket linings and other film applications.

On Wall Street, Lubrizol’s per-share stock price bottomed out near $24 in early March before boomeranging all the way above $80 in January. The price was near $74 in late trading Feb. 4.

plasticsnews.com