April 2017 First test of canola to the FCC
Nov 2018 First test of tallow to the FCC
June 2019 Re nery forms dedicated renewables team
July 2020 First canola delivery by rail
Sept 2020 Formed advanced feed and technology screening team
Mar 2022 First processing of tall oil in the FCC
May 2019 Joint sponsorship of UBC PhD student with BC EMLI
Aug 2020 First delivery on new dedicated tallow barge
Nov 2020 First processing of canola in the distillate hydrotreater
July 2019 Co-processing R&D programme initiated
80,000
Environmental sustainability impacts from innovative low carbon fuels production Emissions reduction equivalent of # cars o the road
40,000
15,000
2019
2020
2021
Figure 2 Parkland timeline
2017 (see Figure 2 ). Since 2017, Parkland has progressively increased FCC co-processing. Today, the Parkland refinery FCC consistently processes more than 10 vol% renewable feed and regularly exceeds 20 vol% (see Figure 3 ). By 2026, Parkland has a goal of reducing customer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to one million metric tons per year or the equivalent of more than 350,000 cars. To accomplish this goal, it is working towards increasing co-processing to 40 vol% renewable feed at the FCC in the next four years and a longer-term goal of the FCC processing 100% renew- able feeds. When a refiner like Parkland determines that government regulations enable renewable processing or co-processing to be economically beneficial and a consistent source of renewable feed is found, this unlocks a plethora of additional questions like: u Which is better for us – co-processing at an FCC, hydrotreater, or building a renewable diesel unit? v How do we manage the risk to operations that results from processing a renewable feed? w What compliance pathways are available to us and pro- vide the most efficient use of capital/feedstock? To help with Question 1, Parkland developed a list of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of its best two options (see Table 1 ). This list proved helpful to its decision-making process and can help other refineries weigh similar options. The list could also be combined with other data, such as a risk matrix, to choose the best option.
0 300,000 200,000 100,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 800,000 700,000 900,000
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023 target
Figure 3 Parkland total annual FCC co-processing rates
Because co-processing at an FCC can often use existing infrastructure and be implemented relatively quickly (when compared to a dedicated renewable diesel unit, as seen in Table 1), this pathway was chosen, and Grace was able to step in and help Parkland with managing the operational risk. Grace has been researching co-processing renewable feeds for decades and has supported a multitude of FCC co-pro- cessing applications worldwide. References 2, 3, and 4 are a representative sample of related co-processing publications. Renewable feedstock availability Because of the limited availability of renewable feed- stocks for refiners compared to conventional feedstocks
Co-processing
Dedicated unit – renewable diesel plant
Advantages
Advantages
• Uses existing infrastructure with low capital required
• Can produce SAF along with renewable diesel • Neat 100% renewable products produced • Well understood technology yields
• Quick to implement
• Can take advantage of lower carbon intensity feedstock
Disdvantages
Disdvantages
• Blended product stream • Difficulty tracking yields
• High capital costs required • Slower to implement
• Limited industry knowledge as Parkland is leading on innovation • Technical risk and resulting uncertainty can impact supply chain • 5% SAF blend limit
Table 1 Co-processing at an FCC vs a dedicated unit
67
PTQ Q3 2023
www.digitalrefining.com
Powered by FlippingBook