1. Coal to Liquids – CTL Reactors : Fixed Bed Reactor and Slurry Bed Reactor FT Catalysts : Precipitated iron and supported cobalt Espinoza Prime 3 offers the following CTL technology

2. SYNTHESIS GAS (SYNGAS) C SOURCE + H 2 O + O2 CO + H 2 + CO 2 + H 2 O (Same) FT REACTION n CO + n(2+x) H2 (CH (2+2x) ) n + n H 2 O (Similar) WGS REACTION CO + H 2 O CO 2 + H 2 FISCHER-TROPSCH REACTION Fe >> Co For Iron and Cobalt catalysts

3. A SIMPLIFIED FT – PU Process Flow Diagram Water Light HC Hydrogenation Fischer- Tropsch Reactor Distillation Column Hydrocracker Syngas cleaning Wax Light HC Naphtha Diesel H2H2 H2H2 Wax Secondary wax cleaning Separator Recycled to extinction

4. Espinoza Prime 3 Technological Preferences Precipitated Fe catalyst Supported Co catalyst Fixed BedSlurry Bed Yes No

5. Fixed BedSlurry Bed Fe Co Espinoza Prime 3 Technological Preferences

6. SBR – Fe cat FB - Co cat Fixed BedSlurry Bed Fe Co Influence of Plant Size on Technology Selection Plant capacity : 1000 to 3500 bpd

7. FB - Co cat Fixed BedSlurry Bed Fe Co Plant capacity : 4000 to 10000 bpd Influence of Plant Size on Technology Selection SBR - Fe cat

8. Plant capacity : > 10000 bpd From : To : Influence of Plant Size on Technology Selection

9. Summary Table for Iron vs Cobalt in Slurry Bed Reactors ItemIronCobalt ActivityLowerHigher MethaneLowerHigher Diesel YieldSimilar Olefin/oxygenates in productsHigherLower Catalyst lifeLowerHigher Contaminants toleranceHigherLower RegenerationNoYes Mechanical StrengthLowerHigher FilterabilityMore complex but more reliable Simpler but less consistent Reactor VolumeLargerSmaller Optimal H2/CO ratio in fresh feed~ 1.7 – 1.8~ 2.1 CO2 SelectivityHigherLower Overall CO2 producedSimilar Cost $/bbl - Fe : 7 to 10 Co : 30 to 35 Catalyst life ~ Co 10 times larger than Fe HigherLower Overall Technical ReliabilityHighMedium

10. Summary Table for Iron vs Cobalt in Fixed Bed Reactors ItemIronCobalt ActivityMuch LowerHigher MethaneLowerHigher Diesel YieldSimilar Olefin/oxygenates in productsHigherLower Catalyst lifeLowerHigher Contaminants toleranceHigherLower RegenerationNoYes Mechanical StrengthLowerHigher FilterabilityMore complex but more reliable Simpler but less consistent Reactor VolumeMuch largerSmaller Optimal H2/CO ratio in fresh feed~ 1.7 – 1.8~ 2.1 CO2 SelectivityHigherLower Overall CO2 producedSimilar Cost $/bbl - Fe : 7 to 10 Co : 30 to 35 Catalyst life ~ Co 10 times larger than Fe HigherLower Overall Technical ReliabilityHigh

11. Espinoza Prime 3 Technological Preferences Low volumetric productivity. Too many reactors needed Technological risk. Cat/wax separation related problems may delay start- up/lower production Precipitated Fe catalyst Supported Co catalyst Fixed BedSlurry Bed Yes

12. PARAMETERFIXED BED SLURRY BED EFFECT Pre-shaped supportSpherical, extruded(*) Spray dried Catalyst activityHigh activity not needed As high as Possible. FB: easier to devel. and prepare Mechanical/Chemical strength MediumHigh or Low (no medium like poorly promoted γ-Al 2 O 3 ) FB cats need less or no structural promoters Average pore diameterCan be large. Smaller than that for FB Better diffusion for FB catalysts COMPARISON FOR FB AND SBR CATALYSTS

13. PARAMETERFIXED BED SLURRY BED EFFECT Size constraintsfunction of ΔP and diffusion function of filtration & fluidization Study effect of size on performance Effectiveness factor (η)<< 1~ 1FB : put metals on accessible region Diffusion constraints YesShould not be present FB cat pre-shape and Impregnation technique important DispersionFunction of select, stabil. red T o etc High: limited by deactiv. rate FB cats easier to develop and prepare COMPARISON FOR FB AND SBR CATALYSTS (Cont.)

14. Fixed Bed FT Reactors Poisons remain at the top PH 2 O increase, Gas Lin Vel decrease (lower heat transfer), High ΔP Diameter ~ 1.5 – 2” Lower heat transfer region P H2O and heat transfer at Rx bottom limit conversion

15. Fixed Bed FT Reactors

16. Diameter ~ up to 34’ Continuous slurry movement. All cat inventory exposed to poisons Good heat transfer at any point ΔP = gas distributor plus hydrostatic Conversion limited by max P H2O inside reactor (towards top) Slurry Bed FT Reactors

18. Typical Preparation Stages for the Precipitated Fe Catalyst

19. Iron Catalysts Iron catalysts have a high WGS activity during FT reaction while cobalt catalysts do not. Result : The H 2 /CO ratio increases during reaction.

20. COBALT CATALYSTS Typically supported on an inorganic oxide - Alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, zinc oxide, mixtures - 10-35 wt% cobalt loading - Typical finished catalyst cost in range of $10-30/lb Usually with precious metal reduction promoter - Ruthenium, rhenium, platinum, etc. Other additives sometimes employed - Rare earth oxides, base metals, alkalis Must be reduced to the metal prior to reaction - Hydrogen treatment at up to about 700-750° F

21. Metal concentration Diffusion constraints, Low metal area Radial Co Concentration Profile: Bad Impregnation Supported Co Catalysts

22. Radial Co Concentration Profile: Good Impregnation Metal concentration Supported Co Catalysts * We pay particular attention to the radial Co concentration profile

23. Co Metal Crystallites: Effect of their Size Cobalt crystallite size Frequency High metal surface Difficult reduction Fast deactivation Low metal surface Easier reduction Higher stability * Our supported Co catalyst for fixed bed reactors has the optimum average crystallite size

24. Preferred Range for the H2/CO Ratio: Co Catalysts

25. Preferred Range for the H2/CO Ratio: Fe Catalysts

26. Gasifier Sasol-Lurgi (1) Sasol-Lurgi (2) KRW (3) Lurgi MPG (4) H2/CO1.632.170.700.77 H239 3141 CO24184453 CO22831184 CH491160.15 N2+Ar0101.85 Typical Syngas Composition from Different Gasifiers (vol %)

27. WGS to Adapt the H2/CO in Feed for Cobalt and Iron Applications Cobalt application (Stoichiometric ratio ~ 2.14) Sasol-Lurgi KRWLurgi MPG CO to CO23.6019.722.55 H2/CO2.092.172.09 H242.63950.763.55 CO20.41824.330.45 CO231.63137.726.55 CH491160.15 N2+Ar0101.85

28. WGS to Adapt the H2/CO in Feed for Cobalt and Iron Applications Iron application (Stoichiometric ratio ~ 2.07) Sasol-Lurgi (1) Sasol-Lurgi (2) KRW (3) Lurgi MPG (4) CO to CO22017.820.1 H2/CO1.862.171.86 H2413948.861.1 CO221826.232.9 CO2303135.824.1 CH491160.15 N2+Ar0101.85

29. Cobalt Catalysts Performance

30. Iron Catalysts Performance

31. Comparison of Cobalt and Iron Performance Both catalysts show a similar performance in terms of carbon efficiency when using a coal derived syngas feed.

32. 32 S CONTAMINANT LEVEL (ppm) 0.001’s0.01’s0.1’s1’s10’s CLEANING COST Fe Catalysts Co Catalysts EXTRA COST FOR Co CATALYSTS COST OF FEED(S) CLEANING FOR Fe AND Co CATALYSTS The S compounds in the feed for both catalysts have to be very low, but cobalt catalysts require an additional step to go from the low 100’s ppb (eg ~ 200) for Fe catalysts to the low 10’s (eg ~ < 20) ppb.

33. Gasifier Syngas Cleanup Water Gas Shift FT Reactor H2OH2O H2OH2O O 2 Source Coal Gasifier Syngas Cleanup H2OH2O O 2 Source Coal Water Gas Shift FT Reactor H2OH2O Additional Syngas Cleanup Fe BASED PROCESS Co BASED PROCESS ~ 200 ppb S ( * ) ~ 20 ppb S H 2 /CO ~ 1.6 - 1.9 H 2 /CO ~ 2.05 – 2.1 ( * ) M E Dry CO 2 Removal Differences in the Fe and Co Based Processes Due to Irreversible Poisons in the Feed