PTQ Q3 2025 Issue

3.5

2.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 7.0

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Conversion (wt%)

10% Cat-Aid/Ecat

Ecat

0.10 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

10.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 40.0 35.0 45.0 50.0

Conversion (wt%)

Figure 6 Selected ACE yields for a high iron Ecat steamed by itself and after co-steaming with Cat-Aid additive

mixture of Ecat with 10 wt% Cat-Aid additive underwent steaming under the same conditions prior to running on ACE for comparison purposes. The co-steamed Ecat with the additive clearly showed that the Ecat particles morphology improved, having a smoother surface, indicating iron poisoning control (similar to Figure 4). The ACE results depicted in Figure 6 show a 0.8 wt% reduction in coke yield from the original level of 5.6 wt%, 0.2 wt% reduction in dry gas (baseline of 2.2 wt%), and a 0.1% reduction in hydrogen (baseline of 0.4 wt%) at constant con- version. Similarly, no loss in naphtha (not shown) or increase in bottoms was observed. Further delta yields at constant conversion are shown in Table 1 for a better representation of the additive impact on the ACE yields. Refinery case study: combating iron poisoning In multiple refinery case studies, Cat-Aid additive has shown the ability to reduce fresh catalyst and Ecat consumption, improve product selectivity, and decrease delta coke. The lower delta coke allowed higher levels of contaminated feed to be processed. Lower catalyst costs, improved yields, and increased residue processing led to higher refinery profit - ability. The direct benefits of the additive are detailed at a North American refinery primarily seeking to lower operat - ing expenses while maintaining similar yields in its FCC unit. This refinery operates with a full-burn FCC unit, pro - cessing gasoil/resid without a feed hydrotreater. Its typical method of managing high metals was to increase fresh catalyst and purchased Ecat additions. Cat-Aid additive was introduced into the unit, targeting ~10% of the circu- lating inventory. An extra benefit of the additive is that it is

manufactured on a SOx adsorbing substrate, which ena- bles it to capture SOx and protect other metal trapping sites (for vanadium). This unit used a SOx reduction additive to control its SO₂ emissions. The additive enables refineries to reduce the consumption of SOx reduction additive or caus- tic soda if equipped with a wet gas scrubber. The results of the trial are shown in Table 2 . With Cat-Aid additive in the unit, the refinery was able to lower the daily additions of fresh catalyst, purchased Ecat, and SOx removal additives by 7%, 75%, and 80%, respec- tively. The yield structure was essentially unchanged, with the notable exception of additional LCO and reduced slurry. These positive benefits occurred even while the Ecat metals increased, thanks to the additive’s ability to manage metals. The metals trap additive enabled the refinery to reduce its operating expense by more than $0.10 per bbl of feed (does

Selected regressed yields at constant conversion

Selected yields

Ecat

Ecat w/10%

Confidence

Cat-Aid

interval at 95% (±)

Coke

5.6 2.2 0.4 0.8 6.5 6.9

4.8 2.0 0.3 0.8 7.1 7.4

0.3

Dry gas

0.05 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.09

Hydrogen Ethylene Propylene C 4 olefins

LPG

15.5 26.8 32.0

16.7 26.5 32.6

0.3 0.6 0.2

Total gasoline

Bottoms

Table 1

PTQ Q3 2025