NARTC 2025 Conference Newspaper

narTC 2025

Challenges in diesel hydrotreating catalyst selection

Tiago Vilela and Nattapong Pongboot AVANTIUM

During the proposal stage, Catalyst scheme F was conservatively estimated to be 9°C lower than that of Catalyst scheme B. However, in reality, Catalyst scheme F was by far the best performer, with 25°C better activity than Catalyst scheme B, which is also among the poorest per- formers. The same observation applies to Catalyst schemes E and G to a certain extent, where their actual activity is top tier while being underestimated on paper. Case Study 2: Benchmarking four catalyst systems In this case, four catalyst schemes were tested with the objective of processing 5 vol% LCO. According to all the cata- lyst vendors, the catalysts could handle this amount of LCO for the intended cycle duration. After the first test results with 5 vol% LCO + 95 vol% SR diesel, a very high catalyst deactivation rate was observed. It became clear that none of the catalyst schemes could handle the LCO and would not last the 36-month cycle in the com- mercial unit. As seen in Figure 2 , although there were activity gaps between catalyst systems, the relative differences were not that large. The differences in WABT between catalyst systems will be a matter of cycle months, not years. More importantly, based on the test data, no catalyst system would meet the required cycle length with this operating scenario. In this case, the most conserv- ative catalyst scheme on paper, Catalyst scheme D, turns out to be the best per- former in real life. On the contrary, a seemingly attrac- tive catalyst scheme on paper, Catalyst scheme A is a poor choice, as it required the highest WABT to achieve 10 ppm product sulphur based on the actual test results. Conclusion Without independent catalyst testing, it is extremely difficult to select the right die- sel hydrotreating catalyst for your appli- cation. Real-world catalyst testing reveals the true catalyst performance and pro- vides refiners with reliable data for their economic evaluation. A parallel catalyst testing system bene- fits both refiners and catalyst vendors by allowing one catalyst vendor to offer/test more than one catalyst loading scheme, increasing the chance of getting bet- ter catalyst loading schemes. The data obtained from pilot plant testing can also be used for kinetic modelling to gain more insights into actual catalyst performance. Reference 1 Flowrence is a registered trademark for Avantium’s high-throughput catalyst testing systems. Contact: Tiago.Vilela@avantium.com

Selecting the best diesel hydrotreating catalyst is complex due to several factors: • Diesel hydrotreating net conversion is typically less than 5.0 wt% without dewax- ing, making it difficult to distinguish the best catalyst based on yield gaps alone. • Hydrogen consumption is considerably lower than that of hydrocracking, making the assessment more challenging because the differences between vendors can be minimal. • Predicting product properties with dif- ferent estimators makes direct compari- sons less useful, particularly in terms of volume swell. • Catalyst activity is estimated using kinetic models, but each vendor has their own models and assumptions, leading to comparison biases. Economic Importance of Catalyst Selection Catalyst loading strategies for light cycle oil (LCO) processing must consider factors like olefin saturation, metal loading/disper- sion, and pore structure to handle contam- inants and ensure reactor stability. Choosing the optimal catalyst can increase refining profits, extend unit cycle lengths, improve product quality, and reduce energy consumption. Some spe- cific economic benefits include: • Increasing refining profit by processing more refractory and less expensive feed components. • Maximising unit cycle length to avoid unplanned shutdowns. • Improving product quality and yield by lowering product sulphur, nitrogen, den- sity, and total aromatics, and increasing cetane number. • Reducing energy consumption by min- imising the energy required to initiate chemical reactions and maximising heat recovery. High-Throughput Catalyst Testing Avantium’s high-throughput parallel test- ing technology allows for efficient and accurate testing of multiple catalyst sys- tems, providing high-quality data with minimal waste. Single pellet single string reactors (SPSRs) help minimise axial dis- persion and ensure reproducible reac- tor loading. Avantium’s micro-pilot plant allows for highly efficient testing of cata- lysts for fixed-bed processes, producing the highest data quality with low amounts of feed. Realistic scaling down of diesel hydro- treaters for lab testing involves adjusting parameters like hydrogen partial pressure and hydrogen-to-oil ratio and including demetallisation catalysts when neces- sary. The first step in designing an effec- tive catalyst testing programme involves a comprehensive review of the commercial operation. Independent testing is essential to accu- rately determine catalyst performance,

+26.0˚C

+25.0˚C

Prediction Actual

+24.0˚C

+22.5˚C

+19.5˚C

+17.0˚C

+14.0˚C

+12.0˚C

+9.0˚C

+8.0˚C

+7.0˚C

+2.0˚C

Catalyst scheme

Figure 1 WABT requirements for 8 ppm product sulphur

The project was executed in accord- ance with protocols from catalyst vendors, ensuring good mass balance and data con- sistency. For quality assurance, Avantium used duplicate reactors for the catalyst systems to ensure good repeatability. The key highlight here is to find the cat- alyst system that can process the feed blend of 25% LCO over the 60-month cat- alyst cycle length and, at the same time, stay within the hydrogen consumption limit (dictated by the size of the make-up hydro- gen compressor). This amount of LCO is relatively high compared to standard die- sel hydrotreating units. Since the refinery had never processed this high percentage of LCO before, this study can also be considered proof of con- cept for whether the economic drive from the linear programming (LP) planning tool can be implemented in the real world. The predicted weight-averaged bed temperatures (WABTs) were based on dif- ferent kinetic models and assumptions. While some catalyst vendors offered attractive catalyst activity on paper, with others being more conservative (such as higher WABT), the reality turned out to be quite different, as demonstrated in Figure 1 . DID you know? Avantium’s high- throughput parallel testing technology allows for efficient and accurate testing of multiple catalyst systems, providing high-quality data with minimal waste

+17.0˚C

Prediction Actual

+8.0˚C

+7.0˚C

+3.5˚C

+2.0˚C +2.0˚C

Catalyst scheme

Figure 2 WABT requirements for 10 ppm product sulphur

avoiding reliance on vendor predictions and ensuring reliable data for economic evaluations. This article summarises two recent case studies illustrating how our independent catalyst testing was utilised to identify the most effective diesel hydrotreating catalyst. Case Study 1: Benchmarking nine catalyst systems Testing often reveals discrepancies between predicted and actual catalyst performance, emphasising the need for independent testing to uncover true cata- lyst efficiency. In the first case study, catalyst vendors offered various combinations of base met- als and stacking strategies. Some ven- dors proposed 100% nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) for the maximum hydrodesulphuri- sation (HDS)/ hydrodearomatisation (HDA) activity, while others used combinations of cobalt-molybdenum (CoMo)/NiMo to balance the hydrogen consumption and provide more HDS stability over the oper- ating cycle. In total, nine catalyst loading schemes (including the incumbent loading scheme) were compared. In a conventional catalyst test system, it will take much longer to finalise the results as only a few catalyst systems can be tested at the same time. With 16 par- allel reactors in Avantium’s proprietary Flowrence¹ system, the whole study was conducted in less than two months with comparable results to the commercial- scale unit.