FCC coprocessing oil sands heavy gas oil and canola oil. 3. Some cracking characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coprocessing of bitumen-derived feeds and biomass through a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) route has the potential to assist in the reduction of fuel and petroleum product carbon footprints while meeting government regulatory requirements on renewable transportation fuels. This approach is desirable because green house gas (GHG) emissions for producing renewable biofuels are significantly lower than those for fossil fuels, and coprocessing can be executed using existing refining infrastructure to save capital cost. The present study investigates the specific FCC performances of pure heavy gas oil (HGO) derived from oil sands synthetic crude, and a mixture of 15 v% canola oil in HGO using a commercial equilibrium catalyst under typical FCC conditions. Cracking experiments were performed using a bench-scale Advanced Cracking Evaluation (ACE) unit at fixed weight hourly space velocity (WHSV) of 8 h−1, 490–530 °C, and catalyst/oil ratios of 4–12 g/g. This work focuses on some cracking phenomena resulting from the presence of oxygen in the blend—a lower heat requirement for cracking due to the exothermic water formation, which also entails lower hydrogen yield at a given severity. The distribution of feed oxygen in gaseous and liquid products, the mitigation in GHG emissions, and the technological and economical advantages of the coprocessing option are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".