PTQ Q2 2025 Issue

• Overreliance on catalyst vendor proposals Issue: Refiners often fully trust the catalyst vendor’s pro- posal, which is based on proprietary kinetic models. These models, while grounded in core principles like Langmuir- Hinshelwood kinetics, vary in assumptions and accuracy. Impact: Vendors may adjust product yields and properties to make their proposals more attractive, leading to poten - tially misleading results. Solution: Refiners should benchmark catalysts in trustwor- thy independent testing facilities to ensure accurate perfor - Issue: Most catalyst selections do not include catalyst test - ing or a proper selection of catalyst options. Not all cata - lysts are commonly tested and are often overlooked. Impact: Minor performance flaws in large processing units can lead to significant financial losses. Solution: Rigorous testing of all refining catalysts is essen- tial to avoid costly performance issues. • False assumptions Issue: Refiners may presume that the catalyst vendor with the largest market share provides the best catalyst. mance evaluation. • Lack of testing Impact: Market leaders do not always offer the highest performing catalysts. Independent testing has shown that some non-market leaders develop superior catalysts. Solution: Refiners should evaluate multiple catalyst sup- pliers through independent testing to identify the best- performing catalysts. • Prioritising cost over performance Issue: Refiners may choose cheaper catalysts to save costs. Impact: Selecting subpar catalysts can result in financial losses far exceeding initial cost savings. Solution: Refiners should focus on catalyst performance rather than price, as the long-term benefits of high- performing catalysts outweigh the cost differences. Insights Vilela et al highlight several key aspects that further under - score the importance of independent testing:1 • Changes in feedstock quality can significantly affect cat- alyst performance, making pilot plant studies essential to predict these impacts accurately. • High-throughput testing with the use of the proprietary Flowrence technology allows for the simultaneous testing of up to 16 different catalysts under identical conditions, providing reliable and statistically significant results.8 • Independent testing enables refiners to compare multiple catalyst options cost-effectively, ensuring the selection of the most efficient catalyst by delivering accurate perfor- mance data to support better long-term planning and oper- ational decisions, ultimately enhancing refinery profitability. Naphtha reforming catalyst testing This case study provides a practical example of the benefits of independent catalyst testing in naphtha reforming.4 Catalytic reforming is crucial for producing high-octane reformate for gasoline blending and high-value aromatics. It also serves as a primary hydrogen producer for refiner- ies. Small changes in yield can significantly impact refinery

a 0.5% shift from C1-C4 to C 5 + can result in an annual gain of €800,000. According to Pongboot et al, a performance gap between the best catalyst and an average one for a 54,000 bpd hydrocracker could be up to $20 MM/yr.3 Multiple catalyst options undergo rigorous testing under conditions similar to those of existing processes, culmi - nating in an economic evaluation to determine the most advantageous catalyst system for the refinery. Challenges Despite its many advantages, independent testing is not without challenges. Testing companies may lack compre - hensive context regarding certain functionalities or intricate aspects of the evaluated catalysts: • Industrial vs laboratory-scale fixed-bed reactor: Pilot plant testing aims to reproduce the industrial process in a shorter period of operation. Experimental aspects require consideration to ensure meaningful results and minimum biases between catalyst suppliers .3,9 Since most pilot plants are once-through, the only way to simulate a two-stage hydrocracking process is to split the process into two parts: It is important to select testing facilities with qualified testing methods and resulting data quality supported by catalyst experts with actual refinery experience  First-stage hydrocracking experiment: use fresh feed (Vacuum gasoil [VGO], Heavy coker gasoil [HCGO], dea - sphalted oil [DAO]) from the refinery with the target first stage per pass conversion. v Second-stage hydrocracking experiment: use recycle feed (unconverted oil [UCO]) from the refinery with the tar- get second stage per pass conversion and recycle feed rate. Continuous catalytic reforming (CCR) is a moving bed process that is simulated in a fixed-bed pilot plant. In CCR operation, the catalyst is circulated between reaction and regeneration sections with a much slower space velocity compared to reactants. In a fixed-bed pilot plant simulation, there is no catalyst movement. • Data normalisation is crucial for fair comparisons between catalysts, particularly when variations in product cuts could distort results. By correcting for interferences, such as the presence of inert gases and specific hydrocarbons in the product streams, evaluations can better reflect the true per- formance of catalysts. It is important to select testing facilities with qualified testing methods and resulting data quality supported by catalyst experts with actual refinery experience. Common pitfalls An article by Vilela et al 2 highlights several pitfalls in cat- alyst selection that should be considered in independent testing, including:

PTQ Q2 2025