PTQ Q3 2025 Issue

Results of the Cat-Aid metals trap additive trial

0.60 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

Base With Cat-Aid

Pre-Cat-Aid With Cat-Aid

Delta

Feed quality Feed API

25.0

25.3

0.3

K Factor

12.11

12.06

-0.05

CCR, wt%

2.3

0.0

Operations Rate

Constant

Riser temp, ºF Dense temp, ºF

991

992

1,335

1,331

-4

Commercial applications

Yields Gasoline, vol% LCO, vol% Slurry, vol% LV yield, vol% Ecat Ecat V, ppm Ecat Fe, wt%

not include additional value seen in the yields improve- ment). The additive’s cost was offset by the decrease in SOx reduction additive, fresh catalyst, and flushing Ecat use. The metals trap also decreased delta coke and regen - erator temperature (by 4ºF), which offered the potential for an additional profitability improvement by processing lower-value feedstocks. The results seen in this discussion are just one example of a budget-minded refiner attempting to optimise Opex while managing metals. Other refiners may take advan - tage of the benefits of the metals trap additive differently. It begins with the additive’s ability to trap iron and vanadium, which directly leads to more desirable reactions in the unit, lowering delta coke. Figure 7 shows multiple cases where the FCC’s delta coke was reduced while managing metals. Refiners then have options to take advantage of the improved heat balance for their specific optimisation goals. These benefits can be a combination of all the advantages provided by Cat-Aid: • Increased feed rate and residue processing. • Lowered delta coke and regenerator temperature. • Increased conversion, decreased H₂/dry gas. • Increased LPG olefinicity. • Lowered fresh and/or flushing Ecat addition rates. • Lowered SOx emissions, SOx reduction additive usage, and/or scrubber caustic soda consumption. • Improved Ecat circulation/fluidisation properties. Conclusions The growing abundance of lower-value feedstocks, along with the availability of effective metals-trapping technologies, creates opportunities for oil refiners to enhance profitability. Iron contamination, which can significantly increase Opex if not managed properly, can be effectively mitigated through commercially proven strategies. As the mechanisms behind iron poisoning become better understood through advanced characterisation techniques, more efficient metals-trapping solutions are being developed, enabling refiners to fully cap - italise on the expected Opex savings from processing lower- value feedstocks and managing catalyst additions. References 1 EIA website: Tight oil production estimates by play: https://www.eia. gov/petroleum/data.php#crude (accessed March 2025) Figure 7 Reduction of delta coke in multiple commercial applications with Cat-Aid additive

54.4 20.3

54.5 22.2

0.0 1.9

6.0

5.2

-0.8

108.7

108.9

0.2

1,909

2,033

124 0.03

0.67

0.70

Additions (per bbl feed) Fresh adds, lb/bbl

0.70 0.70

0.65 0.18

-0.05 -0.52

Ecat adds, lb/bbl

SOx reduction additive adds, lb/bbl

0.05

0.01

-0.04

Table 2

2 de Graaf, B., Radcliffe, C., Evans M., Diddams P., Processing shale oil in an FCC unit: catalyst and profit optimisation, D igital Refining, August 2015. 3 Mathieu, Y., Corma, A., Echard, M., Bories, M., Single and combined Fluidized Catalytic Cracking (FCC) catalyst deactivation by iron and calcium metal-organic contaminants, Applied Catalysis A: General 469 (2014) pp451-465. 4 Adanenche, D. E., Aliyu, A., Atta, A.Y., El-Yakubu, B.J., Residue fluid catalytic cracking: A review on the mitigation strategies of metal poisoning of RFCC catalyst using metal passivators/traps, Fuel 343 (2023) 127,894. 5 Yuxia, Z., Quansheng, D., Wei, L., Liwen, T., Jun L., Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis , Vol 166, 2007, pp201-212, Studies of Iron Effects on FCC Catalysts. 6 de Graaf, B., Tang Y., Oberlin, J., Diddams, P., Shale crudes and FCC: a mismatch from heaven, PTQ , May 2014. 7 Hochheiser, T., Tang, Y., Allahverdi, M., de Graaf, B., FCC additive improves residue processing economics with high iron feeds , AFPM Annual Meeting, 2014. 8 Toenjes, A., Hochheiser, T., Blair, H., Setting the trap, Hydrocarbon Engineering , March 2019. 9 Kalirai, Boesenberg, U., Falkenberg, G., Meirer, F., Weckhuysen, B.M., ChemCatChem 7 (2015) 3674–3682. X-ray Fluorescence Tomography of Aged Fluid-Catalytic-Cracking Catalyst Particles Reveals Insight into Metal Deposition Processes. 10 Liu, Z., Zhang, Z., Liu P., Zhai, J., Yang, C., Iron contamination mech - anism and reaction performance research on FCC catalyst, Journal of Nanotechnology , Vol 2015, Article ID 273859. 11 Ferreira, J.M.M., Sousa-Aguiar, E.F., Aranda, D.A.G., FCC catalyst accessibility – A review, Catalysts 2023, 13, 784. 12 Question 81: Under what conditions is iron on FCC catalyst mobile, and how does this affect catalyst performance? 2015 AFPM Q&A and Technology Forum.

PTQ Q3 2025