Chapter 2 Discrepancies in FCC catalyst evaluation of atmospheric residues

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 13

Fluid Catalytic Cracking VII: Materials, Methods and Process Innovations M.L. Occelli (Ed.) © 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Chapter 2

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues Sven-Ingvar Andersson1 and Trond Myrstad2 1Department

of Chemistry and Biotechnology/Applied Surface Chemistry, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden 2Statoil R&D Centre, Oil and Gas Refining, Postuttak, N-7005 Trondheim, Norway

Contents Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Experimental 2.1. MAT analysis 2.2. ARCO Pilot Unit analysis 2.3. Feed characterization 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Feed effects 3.2. Metal effects 3.3. Evaluation of catalysts in MAT and Pilot Unit 3.3.1. Normal behavior 3.3.2. Effect of large matrix surface areas 3.3.3. Effect of small matrix surface areas 4. Conclusions References

13 13 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 20 20 23 28 28 28

Abstract Processing of atmospheric residues in fluid catalytic crackers (FCC) is a field of considerable interest today. When this application was new, around 1984, Statoil initiated a test program related to fluid catalytic cracking of North Sea atmospheric residues. Within this program catalysts and feeds are tested in a Micro Activity Test (MAT) reactor at Statoil and in a circulating Arco Pilot Unit at Chalmers. The catalysts are tested with the same atmospheric residue feed that is used in the commercial FCC unit at the Statoil Mongstad refinery in Norway. This is essential because erroneous ranking of the catalysts might otherwise occur. The equilibrium catalyst in a commercial residue FCC unit has normally high metals content. This is simulated by testing the catalysts impregnated by nickel and vanadium and deactivated by the cyclic propene steaming (CPS) method. New catalysts are tested together with a reference catalyst in both the MAT and Pilot Unit reactors. Usually the catalysts show the same ranking in both reactors but there are exceptions. If the matrix properties for two catalysts are different, the ranking of the two catalysts might be different in the MAT and Pilot Unit reactors.

1. INTRODUCTION North Sea atmospheric residues are ideally suited as feedstocks for residue fluid catalytic cracker units (RFCCU) [1] because of their low content of metals and asphaltenes. For this reason Statoil initiated a research program related to catalytic

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

14

3:39 PM

Page 14

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

cracking of North Sea atmospheric residues. Within this program the MAT reactor at Statoil and the circulating Arco Pilot Unit at Chalmers are used for evaluation of feeds and catalysts. The program started in 1984 and is still going on. The objective to identify catalysts being capable of giving improved process economy at the refinery has always had high priority in the research program, an aim also shared by other refiners [2,3]. Various methods for testing and evaluation of feeds and catalysts were reported in the literature at the start of this program [4–7]. These methods, however, were applicable to vacuum gas oils (VGO) and not to atmospheric residues. The intention in our research program has all the time been to test and evaluate the catalysts with the same feed as used in the commercial cracker at the Statoil Mongstad refinery in Norway. This meant that both the MAT reactor and the Arco Pilot Unit reactor had to be modified so that they could be used with North Sea atmospheric residues [8,9]. Another problem that had to be solved was how the residue catalysts should be prepared before testing. The metals content of the equilibrium catalyst might be a guideline to how this problem should be solved. The equilibrium catalyst in a residue cracker has usually a high content of nickel and vanadium. The origin of these metals is the atmospheric residue feed that contains small amounts of both nickel and vanadium. These metals will accumulate on the catalyst during the cracking process and influence its cracking behavior. It was obvious that these conditions had to be simulated during the testing proceedings. The simplest way to do so is to impregnate and deactivate the catalyst with nickel and vanadium according to the Mitchell method [10]. A serious drawback of this method, however, is that the metals are not aged during the deactivation procedure. Thus, the metals will have a larger activity on the impregnated catalyst than on the equilibrium catalyst. This might lead to erroneous ranking of the catalysts during the catalyst evaluation, though this has never been observed in our own catalyst evaluation. The Mitchell method was used for many years, until more accurate impregnation and deactivation methods were developed. The cyclic propene steaming (CPS) method [11] and the cyclic deactivation method (CDU) [12] are two of these new methods. To make the impregnation and deactivation procedure still better, both methods have been improved after their introduction [13,14]. But they still do not show the same metal activity as the metals on an equilibrium catalyst. A more accurate CDU method has been developed by Shell. However, this unit is much larger than the other one used [15]. The necessity to use a proper impregnation and deactivation method is often described as the key to a successful catalyst evaluation [14]. However, other elements of the testing procedure are just as important and this will be discussed in this paper. After impregnation and deactivation the catalysts are tested and evaluated in the MAT unit and after that in the Arco Pilot Unit [8]. We use the MAT unit for screening and first evaluation of the catalysts but it is our experience that potential residue catalysts finally should be evaluated in a more realistic reactor, like the circulating Arco Pilot Unit. Usually the ranking of the catalysts is the same in both MAT and Arco unit, but there are exceptions. This is not astonishing because the MAT unit and the Arco Pilot Unit represent two quite different types

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 15

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

15

of reactors. The MAT reactor is a small fixed bed reactor far from the commercial fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) reactor. Nevertheless, the MAT reactor is commonly used for testing and evaluation of FCC catalysts. The feed is injected on top of the catalyst bed for a fixed period of time. The products formed have to pass through the remaining part of the catalyst bed exposed to secondary reactions before they leave the reactor and are collected. The catalyst activity will diminish during the whole feed injection time and the products formed will therefore change by time. This is much more pronounced when atmospheric residue is used as feed instead of VGO, because a much larger deactivation of the catalyst then takes place during the test. Moreover the catalyst to oil ratio (C/O) reported usually is the one calculated over the whole injection time of the feed and for this reason the MAT C/O is commonly much lower than the C/O used in the commercial unit. In spite of these disadvantages the MAT reactor is commonly used by most laboratories all over the world. But for the final evaluation of the catalysts it is our recommendation, as well as others [16], to use a more realistic reactor. In our project the small circulating Arco FCC Pilot Unit at Chalmers is used [9]. This small Pilot Unit is more like a commercial FCC unit than the MAT reactor. The feed injected in the Pilot Unit meets a regenerated catalyst in the same way as in the commercial unit. However, the Pilot Unit is working at atmospheric pressure and is not slightly pressurized as the commercial unit. This means that the hydrogen transfer reactions are suppressed in the Pilot Unit and that the detailed product picture will be somewhat different from a commercial one. But it is possible to tune the Pilot Unit such that the yields of naphtha, light cycle oil (LCO), heavy cycle oil (HCO) and gases will be realistic and it is possible to use
-values to calculate the increased addition of value for a new catalyst. Other refiners are also using the same strategy for evaluation of FCC catalysts [3]. The Pilot Unit is more sensitive to changes of catalyst parameters than the MAT unit. For this reason the Pilot Unit has been used for optimization studies of residue catalysts [17,18].

2. EXPERIMENTAL The experimental works in this paper were performed at two laboratories. The Arco Pilot Unit tests and the metal impregnations and deactivations of catalysts for this unit were performed at Chalmers. The MAT analysis and the metal impregnations and deactivations of catalysts for this purpose were performed at Statoil R&D Centre.

2.1. MAT analysis The MAT evaluation was performed as described by Myrstad and Engan [19]. With some modifications the operating conditions generally conformed to ASTM D3907-86. The feed used was a 375⬚C⫹ North Sea atmospheric residue. The reactor temperature was 524⬚C. The catalyst-to-oil ratio was varied by changing

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 16

16

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

the injected amount of feed. The reaction products were collected and analyzed in the same way as described in the section concerning the Pilot Unit. The product yields were normalized and the conversion calculated as: Conversion (wt%)⫽100⫺(LCO (wt%) ⫹HCO (wt%)) 2.2. ARCO Pilot Unit analysis The tests in the circulating Arco Pilot Unit were performed with the same North Sea atmospheric residue that was used in the MAT analysis. The reactor was operated at 500⬚C and the regenerator at 700⬚C. The catalyst inventory was 1.5 kg during the tests. For each test the catalyst circulation rate was constant and in the order of 56 ⫾2 g/min in Figures 2(a–c)–3 and 42 ⫾2 g/min in Figures 1(a–c), 5(a–d), 7(a–c) and 9(a–d). The catalyst-to-oil ratio was varied by changing the feed rate. The reaction products were collected and analyzed. The flue gases and the product gases were analyzed by a refinery gas analyzer and the liquid products were analyzed by simulated distillation. Mass balance, conversion and product yields were calculated. The tests were performed and the data analyzed in the same way as presented earlier [20]. The cut points between naphtha, LCO and HCO were as follows: for naphtha C5 to 216⬚C; for LCO 216–344⬚C; and for HCO 344⬚C⫹. 2.3. Feed characterization Two oils were used in this investigation, a North Sea atmospheric residue representative to the feedstock at the Mongstad refinery and heavy vacuum gas oil (HVGO) from a North Sea crude.

Origin Density (g/cm3) Conradson carbon residue (wt%) Sulfur (wt%) Nickel (ppm) Vanadium (ppm) Nitrogen (wt%) Simulated distillation (oC) IBP 10 wt% 30 wt% 50 wt% 70 wt% 90 wt% FBP

HVGO

Atmospheric Residue

North Sea 0.906 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

North Sea 0.922 2.8 0.7 1.7 2.7 0.2

256 361 412 445 478 523 600

256 373 438 481 544

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 17

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

17

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION To test catalysts with North Sea atmospheric residues have shown to be a much more difficult task than to test them with HVGO. Since Statoil started this test program a number of discrepancies have been observed by us, and we will exemplify some of them. The examples are selected so that the results show clear effects. 3.1. Feed effects Two different catalysts, A and B, were tested in the Arco Pilot Unit with both North Sea HVGO and North Sea atmospheric residue [9]. Catalyst A was a fully RE exchanged equilibrium catalyst with low metal content designed for maximum liquid yields of naphtha and distillate. The other catalyst, B, was a half RE exchanged steam deactivated catalyst (775⬚C, 40 h, 100% steam). Both catalysts utilized an open pore structure and were well suited to handle molecules up to and including asphaltenes. This was also confirmed by measurement of their pore size distributions. In this investigation different catalyst to oil ratios were used for the VGO and for the atmospheric residue, C/O 4 and 8, respectively. It is necessary to use a higher C/O [21] and more steam in the reactor when atmospheric residue feeds are cracked compared with VGO. More steam will also reduce the hydrocarbon partial pressure in the reactor which is favorable for residue cracking. Moreover, additional steam reduces the possibility to vary the conversion when atmospheric residue is used as feed compared with VGO [22]. In addition steam injected together with the residue will facilitate the dispersion of the feed into small droplets. As can be seen in Figures 1(a–c) and 2(a–c) the ranking of the two catalysts was dependant on the feed used. When HVGO was used as feed, the naphtha yield was almost 4 wt% higher at maximum for catalyst B than for catalyst A. In addition the total gas yield (C4-) as well as the coke yield was lower for catalyst B than for catalyst A indicating that catalyst B was a better HVGO catalyst than catalyst A (see Figure 1(a–c)). But when North Sea atmospheric residue was used as feed instead of VGO the ranking was changed. Now catalyst A had a higher naphtha yield than catalyst B (see Figure 2(a–c)). Even the yields for total gas and coke were reversed for the two catalysts, A and B, when the feed was changed. This result indicated that for atmospheric residue catalyst A was the catalyst of choice. This test showed that the ranking of the two catalysts was dependant on the feed used. It is therefore recommended that the same feed used in the commercial unit should also be used for testing and evaluation of catalysts in MAT and Pilot Units. The test also indicated that it is preferable to use a catalyst with higher RE content for cracking of an atmospheric residue than for VGO. 3.2. Metal effects The equilibrium catalyst contains a lot of metals in a residue application. The following example shows that it is necessary to simulate these metal levels by impregnating the catalyst with metals before evaluation.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 18

18

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

55

50

45 A B

40 60

65

(a)

70 Conversion (wt%)

75

80

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

25

20

15 A B

10 60

65

(b)

70 Conversion (wt%)

75

80

3

Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

2

1 A B

0 60 (c)

65

70 Conversion (wt%)

75

80

Fig. 1. Yield of (a) naphtha, (b) gas (C4-) and (c) coke as a function of conversion, HVGO.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 19

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

19

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

60

55

50 A B

45 70

72

(a)

74 76 Conversion (wt%)

78

80

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

25

20

15 A B

10 70

72

(b)

74 76 Conversion (wt%)

78

80

8

Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

6

4

2 A B

0 70 (c)

72

74 76 Conversion (wt%)

78

80

Fig. 2. Yield of (a) naphtha, (b) gas (C4-) and (c) coke as a function of conversion, residue.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 20

20

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad 60

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

55

50

45 Co Cm Do Dm

40

35 50

55

60

65 70 Conversion (wt%)

75

80

Fig. 3. Yield of naphtha as a function of conversion for steam deactivated catalysts, Co and Do, and metal impregnated and deactivated catalysts, Cm and Dm.

Two catalysts were tested both with and without impregnated metals. The results showed that there was a large difference in the naphtha yields between catalysts without metals, Co and Do, and catalysts with metals, Cm and Dm. Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 3, there was a large difference in the metal resistance for the two catalysts. The activity of catalyst C decreased much more than that of catalyst D when the catalysts were impregnated with metals. The difference in metals resistance between the two catalysts was so great that the ranking of the two catalysts changed when they were tested with and without metals. So it is obvious that residue catalysts had to be tested impregnated with both nickel and vanadium metals. But to what metals level should the catalysts be impregnated? This is a difficult question to answer, because neither the CPS method nor the CDU method gives metals aged to the same degree as metals on the equilibrium catalyst. The suitable level had to be found experimentally. 3.3. Evaluation of catalysts in MAT and Pilot Unit When catalysts are evaluated in both MAT and Pilot Unit they normally show the same ranking with both test methods. Exceptions are however observed. As will be illustrated in the following examples, these exceptions can be related to the FCC matrix properties. 3.3.1. Normal behavior

Usually residue catalysts show the same ranking in MAT and Pilot Unit, as can be seen in Figures 4(a–d) and 5(a–d). But even if the ranking is the same the results are different. In MAT experiments, the C/O ratio is usually much lower than in commercial operation as exemplified in Figure 4a for the two catalysts F and G. The reason for this difference can be attributed to how the C/O ratio is

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 21

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

21

Conversion (wt%)

85

80

75 F G

70 2 (a)

3

4 C/O

6

5

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

55 53 51 49 F G

47 45 70

(b)

75 80 Conversion (wt%)

85

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

25

20

15 F G

10 70 (c)

75 80 Conversion (wt%)

85

14 12 Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

10 8 6 4 F G

2 0 70 (d)

75 80 Conversion (wt%)

85

Fig. 4. (a) Conversion as a function of C/O, MAT data. Yield of (b) naphtha, (c) gas (C4-) and (d) coke as a function of conversion, MAT data.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 22

22

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

Conversion (wt%)

85

80

75 F G

70 4

5

6

8

7

9

10

11

C/O

(a)

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

55 F G

53 51 49 47 45 70

(b)

75 80 Conversion (wt%)

85

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

30

25

20 F G

15 70 (c)

75 80 Conversion (wt%)

85

10 8 Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

6 4 F G

2 0 70

(d)

75 80 Conversion (wt%)

85

Fig. 5. (a) Conversion as a function of C/O, ARCO data. Yield of (b) naphtha, (c) gas (C4-) and (d) coke as a function of conversion, ARCO data.

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 23

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

23

calculated for the two reactors. For the MAT reactor the C/O ratio is calculated as the total amount of catalyst divided by the total amount of feed injected during the whole experiment, and the injection time for the feed is today normally round 20 sec but might be as high as 75 sec. But for the commercial unit and for the Pilot Unit, the C/O ratio is calculated as catalyst circulating rate divided by the feed injection rate. Total gas yields and naphtha yields are usually of the same magnitude for both MAT and Pilot Unit. However, a major difference between the two reactors is the coke yield, which is higher in the MAT unit than in the Arco Pilot Unit (see Figures 4d and 5d). Figure 4d shows that the coke yield is high in the MAT reactor when the North Sea atmospheric residue is used as feed. However, in the Arco Pilot Unit the coke yield is lower than in the commercial unit because this unit is working at atmospheric pressure and not slightly pressurized as a commercial FCC unit. But also the MAT is working at atmospheric pressure, so the pressure impact cannot be the only reason for the different coke yields between the MAT and Arco units. One explanation for the different coke yields might be the fact that the residence time is higher in the MAT unit than in the Arco Pilot Unit. 3.3.2. Effect of large matrix surface areas

As mentioned before catalysts usually show the same ranking in the MAT unit and in the Pilot Unit. This makes the catalyst evaluation easier because the MAT reactor can be used for screening of new catalysts so that only the most promising will be considered for a further evaluation in the Pilot Unit. This procedure will be correct only if all catalysts are ranked correctly in the MAT unit. However, we have observed that this is not always the case for catalysts tested with atmospheric residue. Sometimes promising new residue catalysts show different rankings in MAT and Pilot Units. It is easy to misjudge such catalysts because they do not follow the expected common behavior. One such case is if a new catalyst has a much larger active matrix than the reference catalyst. The new catalyst will then show a higher coke yield and a corresponding lower naphtha yield than the reference catalyst in the MAT evaluation and the new catalyst might be rejected from further testing because of this result. Such an example is catalyst L in Figure 6(a–c), which is a catalyst with a much larger active matrix surface area than the reference catalyst H. As can be seen in this figure, catalyst L showed a much lower naphtha yield and a much higher coke yield than the reference catalyst, H, in the MAT test. However, such results are typical for a catalyst like the L one in the MAT test and not at all unexpected. Without this knowledge it would have been easy to disregard this catalyst and not consider it for final Pilot Unit test. That would, however, been a mistake because the L catalyst showed a quite different and more promising ranking in the Pilot Unit, see Figure 7(a–c). Especially the naphtha yield was higher in the Pilot Unit for catalyst L compared with the reference catalyst and the coke yield was only slightly higher for catalyst L than for the reference catalyst.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 24

24

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

60

55

50

45 H L

40 65

70

(a)

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

Yield of C4- Gas

25

20

15 H L

10 65

70

(b)

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

20

Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

15

10

5 H L

0 65

(c)

70

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

Fig. 6. Yield of (a) naphtha, (b) gas (C4-) and (c) coke as a function of conversion, MAT data.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 25

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

25

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

55

53

51

49

47

H L

45 65

70

(a)

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

25

20

15 H L

10 65

70

(b)

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

12 10 Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

8 6 4 2

H L

0 65 (c)

70

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

Fig. 7. Yield of (a) naphtha, (b) gas (C4-) and (c) coke as a function of conversion, ARCO data.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 26

26

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

Conversion (wt%)

85

80

75 M N 70 2

3

(a)

4

5

C/O

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

50 48 46 44 M N

42 40 70

(b)

75

80

85

Conversion (wt%)

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

25

20

15 M N 10 70

(c)

75

80

85

Conversion (wt%) 16 14

Yield of Coke(wt%)

Ch002.qxd

12 10 8 6 4

M N

2 0 70 (d)

75

80

85

Conversion (wt%)

Fig. 8. (a) Conversion as a function of C/O, MAT data. Yield of (b) naphtha, (c) gas (C4-) and (d) coke as a function of conversion, MAT data.

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 27

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

27

Conversion (wt%)

85

80

75

70

M N

65 4

5

6

(a)

7

8

9

C/O

Yield of Naphtha (wt%)

55 53 51 49 47

M N

45 65

70

(b)

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

Yield of C4- Gas (wt%)

30

25

20

15

M N

10 65

70

(c)

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

10 9 8 Yield of Coke (wt%)

Ch002.qxd

7 6 5 4 3 2

M N

1 0 65

(d)

70

75 Conversion (wt%)

80

85

Fig. 9. (a) Conversion as a function of C/O, ARCO data. Yield of (b) naphtha, (c) gas (C4-) and (d) coke as a function of conversion, ARCO data.

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 28

28

S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad

3.3.3. Effect of small matrix surface areas

Another ranking problem arises if the new catalyst has much smaller active matrix than the reference catalyst. This case will also give different ranking in the MAT unit and Pilot Unit. The results in the MAT unit might be very promising for such a new catalyst compared with the reference and this new catalyst will then probably be recommended for further evaluation in the Pilot Unit. But in the Pilot Unit the new catalyst will show much lower naphtha yield and higher coke yield than in the MAT unit and as a result, the ranking in the Pilot Unit will be different. This is a reversed analogy to what was said about catalysts with large matrix surface areas. It might even happen that a catalyst will show promising MAT data but will be impossible to test it in the Arco unit if its matrix surface area is too small [17]. The reactor will then be coked in the injection zone because the catalyst is not able to crack the total amount of large components in the feed. This case is illustrated by the reference catalyst M and the new catalyst N in Figures 8(a–d) and 9(a–d). In these figures, we can see that the ranking of the two catalysts was different in the MAT unit and in the Arco unit. Not only the naphtha yield showed different behavior in the MAT and Arco unit, but also the total gas (C4-) and coke yields were reversed. 4. CONCLUSIONS As a result of the research presented in this paper the following conclusions have been reached. (1) Evaluation of residue FCC catalysts should be performed with the same feed as used in the commercial FCC unit. (2) Residue FCC catalysts should be impregnated with metals before testing. (3) MAT reactors are suitable for screening and first evaluation of residue FCC catalysts. (4) Pilot units should be used for final evaluation of residue FCC catalysts. (5) Residue FCC catalysts with a large active matrix surface area might give erroneous ranking in MAT tests. (6) Residue FCC catalysts with a small active matrix surface area are often ranked higher in the MAT than in the Pilot Unit when residue feed is used. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

H. Torgaard, Oil Gas J., 1983, 81(Jan 10), 100. T. C. Tsai, W. P. Pan, L. J. Leu and S. T. Yu, Chem. Eng. Commun., 1989, 78, 97. A. K. Krishna, J. H. Arndt, C. W. Kuehler and D. C. Kramer, Oil Gas J., 1996, 94(42), 44. D. S. Henderson and F.G. Ciapetta, Oil Gas J., 1967, 65(42), 88. D. M. Nace, Ind. Eng. Chem. Product Res. Dev., 1969, 8(1), 24. W. R. Gustafson, ACS Symp. Preprints, Div. of Petrol. Chem., 1969, 14(3), B56. W. R. Gustafson, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Dev., 1972, 11(4), 507.

Ch002.qxd

6/16/2007

3:39 PM

Page 29

Discrepancies in FCC Catalyst Evaluation of Atmospheric Residues

29

[8] S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad, Appl. Catal. A, 1995, 129, 21. [9] S.-I. Andersson and J.-E. Otterstedt, Katalistiks’ 8th Annual FCC Symposium, Budapest, 1–4 June 1987, Paper 21. [10] B. R. Mitchell, Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev., 1980, 19, 209. [11] W. C. Cheng, M. V. Juskelis and W. Suarez, AIChE Annual Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, USA, November 1–6, 1995. [12] L. A. Gerritsen, H. N. J. Wijngaards, J. Verwoert and P. O’Connor, Akzo Catalysts Symposium, 1991, 109–124. [13] D. Wallenstein, R. H. Harding, J. R. D. Nee and L. T. Boock, Appl. Catal. A, 2000, 204, 89. [14] R. Pimenta, A. R. Quiñones and P. Imhof, Akzo Nobel Catalysts Symposium, Paper F-6, 1998. [15] P. D. L. Mercera, J. M. H. Dirkx and G. Hadjigeorge, Akzo Nobel Catalysts Symposium, Paper F-7, 1998. [16] P. Imhof, M. Baas and J. A. Gonzales, Cataly. Rev., 2004, 46, 151. [17] S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad, Oil Gas Europ. Mag., 1997, 23(4), 19. [18] S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad, ACS Symp. Preprints, Div. Petrol. Chem., 1999, 44(4), 495. [19] T. Myrstad and H. Engan, Appl. Catal. A, 1998, 171, 161. [20] S.-I. Andersson and T. Myrstad, Appl. Catal. A, 1997, 159, 291. [21] C. L. Hemler, D. A. Lomas and D. G. Tajbl, Oil Gas J., 1984, 82(May 28), 79. [22] ARCO LAB FCC Operating Manual.