Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market by Components (Binder, Filler, Matrix), Configuration (Side by Side Type, Stacked Type), Feedstock Type, Unit Capacity, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market was valued at USD 8.05 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 8.48 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 5.54%, reaching USD 12.40 billion by 2032.
Comprehensive contextual framing of fluid catalytic cracking as a strategic refining asset balancing feedstock flexibility, product demands, and regulatory imperatives
Fluid catalytic cracking remains a cornerstone conversion process within refining, enabling heavier feedstocks to be transformed into higher-value lighter products that underpin transportation fuels and petrochemical feedstocks. The process integrates complex catalyst formulations, reactor configurations, and ancillary units, and it operates at the nexus of refinery economics, regulatory compliance, and evolving feedstock availability. Recent years have seen the technology evolve beyond a single-purpose yield maximization function toward a flexible asset capable of responding to shifts in crude slate, product demand, and decarbonization imperatives.
Across refining organizations, FCC units are increasingly viewed as strategic levers for producing tailored product slates that balance gasoline and diesel quality requirements with rising petrochemical demand for light olefins. In parallel, continuous improvements in catalyst design-particularly in zeolite formulations that govern selectivity and stability-have enabled refiners to extract greater value from lower-grade feedstocks. At the same time, operational priorities now extend to emissions management, hydrogen consumption optimization, and integration with downstream upgrading units. Consequently, executives must evaluate FCC performance through both short-term operational KPIs and longer-term capital and regulatory factors that will shape configuration and catalyst choices over the coming decade.
Critical convergence of feedstock shifts, petrochemical integration, digitalization, and decarbonization that is reshaping FCC technology choices and investment priorities
The landscape surrounding fluid catalytic cracking is undergoing several transformative shifts that are redefining technology deployment and commercial strategies. First, crude quality divergence has altered feedstock availability: heavier, more sulfur- and metalliferous streams are increasingly processed through complex pre-treatment and upgrading pathways, pressuring catalyst formulations to withstand fouling while maintaining selectivity. At the same time, growing petrochemical integration has reframed FCC units as dual-purpose assets that must optimize for both fuels and olefinic intermediates, driving broader adoption of zeolite-enhanced catalyst systems tailored for propylene and ethylene co-production.
Another major shift is the convergence of digitalization and process intensification. Refiners are applying advanced monitoring, real-time catalysts surveillance, and predictive analytics to extend catalyst life, reduce unplanned downtime, and refine operating windows. Regulatory and corporate decarbonization commitments are also reshaping investment priorities: hydrogen management, heat integration, and emissions control measures are increasingly evaluated alongside yield and unit reliability. Finally, supply chain resilience and localization strategies have gained prominence, prompting a re-evaluation of vendor relationships, spare parts inventories, and retrofit pathways to ensure continuity under geopolitical or trade disruptions. Taken together, these forces are accelerating innovation in both catalyst chemistry and FCC configurations while influencing where and how capital is deployed.
How 2025 trade measures reshaped procurement dynamics, supplier networks, and retrofit decisions across FCC operations with lasting supply chain implications
The policy environment in 2025 introduced a renewed emphasis on trade measures that ripple across the FCC ecosystem, and the cumulative effects merit careful operational and strategic response. Tariff measures affecting catalyst raw materials, finished catalyst imports, and key equipment components have increased the effective cost and delivery lead time for some suppliers, prompting refiners to reassess sourcing strategies. In addition, tariffs on capital goods and spare parts have made the timing and scope of retrofits and major overhauls more sensitive to procurement geography, incentivizing longer maintenance planning horizons and deeper engagement with local fabrication partners.
Beyond direct cost impacts, trade measures have catalyzed structural shifts in supplier networks. Some refiners have accelerated qualification of multiple catalyst suppliers or pursued joint development arrangements to secure technology access while buffering against interruptions. Others have explored partial localization of consumable manufacturing to reduce exposure to cross-border tariffs. Importantly, tariffs have also influenced the calculus for capacity expansion and new-build projects by increasing the relative attraction of modular and incremental investments that minimize up-front import dependencies. Finally, the broader market response has included intensified negotiation of long-term service contracts, revision of inventory strategies to smooth supply, and heightened attention to compliance and documentation protocols to avoid inadvertent penalty exposure under changing trade rules.
Segment-driven technical and commercial levers across catalyst chemistry, configuration, feedstock choice, and capacity that determine FCC product slates and operational resilience
A rigorous segmentation-based read of the FCC value chain illuminates where technical innovation and commercial focus are converging. Viewed through component composition, catalysts comprise binder, filler, matrix, and zeolite catalyst fractions, where the zeolite component-particularly Zeolite Y and ZSM-5 varieties-dictates primary selectivity and olefinic yield characteristics while the binder and matrix influence attrition resistance and catalyst lifetime. As such, refiners balancing gasoline and light olefins production often prioritize catalyst blends that combine robust matrix resilience with targeted zeolite functionality to manage deactivation pathways.
Configuration choices also matter: side by side type arrangements historically favored operational simplicity and staged regeneration schemes, whereas stacked type configurations can enable higher throughput and more aggressive catalyst circulation strategies when targeting olefin co-production. Feedstock type remains a core determinant of process design, with deasphalted oil, residue, and vacuum gas oil presenting distinct contaminant profiles and thermal cracking behaviors; these feedstock differences drive upstream pretreatment investments and influence cycle-on-stream planning. Unit capacity considerations, spanning large capacity, medium capacity, and small capacity installations, further shape economics and flexibility; larger units often justify more advanced monitoring and continuous catalyst replacement strategies, while smaller units prioritize modular upgrades and cost-effective catalyst formulations. Finally, end-user requirements differ across diesel production, gasoline production, and light olefins production, where light olefins demand is further differentiated by the target split between ethylene and propylene, compelling refiners to fine-tune catalyst composition and operating severity to align with strategic product priorities.
How geographic feedstock endowments, regulatory regimes, and petrochemical demand shape differentiated FCC strategies across global regions
Regional dynamics exert a decisive influence on FCC investment, feedstock sourcing, and technology adoption patterns. In the Americas, ample access to light tight oil and differentiated crude slates has encouraged flexible FCC operations that capitalize on regional feedstock arbitrage, while petrochemical integration along key industrial corridors supports shifting emphasis toward propylene and ethylene co-production. Across Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory stringency, refinery complexity, and strategic energy policy interact in varied ways: some markets prioritize emissions compliance and lower-sulfur fuels, prompting incremental upgrades and emissions control retrofits, whereas resource-rich jurisdictions in the Middle East pursue scale and integration that favor larger capacity units and petrochemical-focused configurations.
Asia-Pacific reflects one of the most dynamic demand centers for FCC-derived products, driven by robust petrochemical growth, refinery expansions, and a competitive supplier landscape. There, high utilization rates and strong demand for light olefins have accelerated adoption of catalyst technologies optimized for propylene and ethylene, and they have catalyzed investments in both new-build and debottleneck projects. Across all regions, cross-border trade flows, tariff environments, and local industrial policy continue to shape where suppliers locate production and how refiners prioritize localized sourcing versus global supply chains, creating differentiated risk profiles and strategic choices for operators depending on their geographic footprint.
Competitive landscape evolution where catalyst innovators, licensors, and service providers converge to deliver integrated outcomes and supply continuity for refiners
Competitive dynamics across the FCC value chain are being redefined by a combination of technological differentiation, aftercare services, and integrated solution offerings. Leading catalyst producers and technology licensors are increasingly bundling advanced zeolite formulations with digital monitoring tools, regeneration protocols, and lifecycle service agreements to move beyond transactional sales toward outcomes-based partnerships. This shift is reinforced by refiners’ preference for suppliers who can provide robust qualification data, predictable supply, and joint-operational troubleshooting during turnarounds and capacity uprates.
EPC and engineering firms are likewise competing on the basis of modularization, retrofit speed, and emissions reduction expertise, with a particular emphasis on solutions that reduce downtime and facilitate incremental upgrades. Maintenance and aftermarket service providers have found value in offering predictive maintenance frameworks and performance benchmarking that shorten learning cycles and extend catalyst run lengths. In response, many firms are pursuing collaborative R&D with operators to co-develop bespoke catalyst blends or unit configurations that meet specific feedstock or product objectives, while also investing in regional manufacturing and logistics to mitigate tariff-driven and geopolitical risks. These strategic moves highlight an industry-wide trend toward tighter supplier-operator integration and a premium on demonstrable operational uplift.
Practical, high-impact steps for operators to safeguard margins, enhance resilience, and accelerate selective upgrades across FCC assets
Industry leaders seeking to preserve margin and maintain strategic flexibility should prioritize a set of pragmatic, actionable initiatives. First, diversify supplier bases and validate secondary suppliers through accelerated qualification programs to reduce single-source exposure and to insulate operations from trade-driven interruptions. Second, invest selectively in catalyst R&D partnerships that target specific feedstock challenges, such as metal tolerance and deactivation resistance, enabling higher on-stream availability and refined product control. Third, align capital planning with flexible configuration options: consider modularization and staged retrofits that allow capacity and selectivity adjustments without committing to large-scale, high-risk capital deployments.
Additionally, deploy digital process optimization and condition-based maintenance programs to extend catalyst life, reduce unplanned outages, and optimize regenerations. Strengthen upstream pretreatment strategies for heavier feedstocks-such as deasphalting and contaminant removal-to preserve catalyst performance and limit unexpected turnover. Finally, integrate commercial and technical decision-making by establishing cross-functional teams that assess feedstock economics, product offtake agreements, and regulatory compliance in concert, thereby ensuring that catalyst and configuration choices support both operational objectives and corporate sustainability commitments.
Transparent, multi-source research approach combining operator interviews, technical literature, patent analytics, and supply chain mapping for defensible insights
The research underpinning this report integrates multiple methodological pillars to ensure balanced, verifiable analysis. Primary inputs were gathered via structured interviews with refinery technical leaders, catalyst scientists, licensors, and aftermarket service providers to capture operational practice, procurement behavior, and technology evaluation criteria. Secondary inputs included a systematic review of peer-reviewed technical literature, industry white papers, patent filings related to zeolite and matrix innovations, and regulatory documents that affect emissions and fuel quality standards. Trade and supply chain analyses were conducted using customs flows, production footprints, and logistics assessments to map sourcing dependencies and to identify potential bottlenecks.
Analytical rigor was achieved through cross-validation of qualitative insights against operational case studies and engineering performance data, while scenario analysis was applied to explore the implications of tariff measures, feedstock shifts, and regulatory tightening. Data quality controls included triangulation between independent sources, methodological transparency in how technical parameters were interpreted, and sensitivity checks to ensure conclusions remain robust across reasonable operational assumptions. The resulting synthesis provides a defensible foundation for strategic recommendations while maintaining clear traceability to source inputs and analytical steps.
Integrated synthesis of technical and strategic imperatives highlighting how refiners can balance near-term optimization with long-term FCC flexibility and resilience
The aggregate of technical, commercial, and policy dynamics portrayed in this analysis underscores the evolving nature of fluid catalytic cracking from a yield-maximization process to a strategic, multifunctional asset that must reconcile feedstock realities, product diversification, and decarbonization imperatives. Advances in catalyst chemistry-particularly in zeolite engineering-coupled with configuration choices and digital operations are enabling refiners to tune product slates more precisely while extracting greater value from heavier and more diverse feedstocks. Concurrently, trade policy developments and regional investment patterns are reshaping procurement and localization strategies, increasing the importance of supply chain resilience.
For operators and technology providers alike, the central challenge will be to balance near-term operational optimization with longer-term structural investments that enhance flexibility and regulatory compliance. By focusing on targeted catalyst development, supplier diversification, and modular capital strategies, companies can create optionality that supports both fuel and petrochemical demands. In short, the future of FCC lies in integrated approaches that combine material science advances, process digitalization, and pragmatic commercial planning to sustain competitiveness under a rapidly changing global energy and policy environment.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Comprehensive contextual framing of fluid catalytic cracking as a strategic refining asset balancing feedstock flexibility, product demands, and regulatory imperatives
Fluid catalytic cracking remains a cornerstone conversion process within refining, enabling heavier feedstocks to be transformed into higher-value lighter products that underpin transportation fuels and petrochemical feedstocks. The process integrates complex catalyst formulations, reactor configurations, and ancillary units, and it operates at the nexus of refinery economics, regulatory compliance, and evolving feedstock availability. Recent years have seen the technology evolve beyond a single-purpose yield maximization function toward a flexible asset capable of responding to shifts in crude slate, product demand, and decarbonization imperatives.
Across refining organizations, FCC units are increasingly viewed as strategic levers for producing tailored product slates that balance gasoline and diesel quality requirements with rising petrochemical demand for light olefins. In parallel, continuous improvements in catalyst design-particularly in zeolite formulations that govern selectivity and stability-have enabled refiners to extract greater value from lower-grade feedstocks. At the same time, operational priorities now extend to emissions management, hydrogen consumption optimization, and integration with downstream upgrading units. Consequently, executives must evaluate FCC performance through both short-term operational KPIs and longer-term capital and regulatory factors that will shape configuration and catalyst choices over the coming decade.
Critical convergence of feedstock shifts, petrochemical integration, digitalization, and decarbonization that is reshaping FCC technology choices and investment priorities
The landscape surrounding fluid catalytic cracking is undergoing several transformative shifts that are redefining technology deployment and commercial strategies. First, crude quality divergence has altered feedstock availability: heavier, more sulfur- and metalliferous streams are increasingly processed through complex pre-treatment and upgrading pathways, pressuring catalyst formulations to withstand fouling while maintaining selectivity. At the same time, growing petrochemical integration has reframed FCC units as dual-purpose assets that must optimize for both fuels and olefinic intermediates, driving broader adoption of zeolite-enhanced catalyst systems tailored for propylene and ethylene co-production.
Another major shift is the convergence of digitalization and process intensification. Refiners are applying advanced monitoring, real-time catalysts surveillance, and predictive analytics to extend catalyst life, reduce unplanned downtime, and refine operating windows. Regulatory and corporate decarbonization commitments are also reshaping investment priorities: hydrogen management, heat integration, and emissions control measures are increasingly evaluated alongside yield and unit reliability. Finally, supply chain resilience and localization strategies have gained prominence, prompting a re-evaluation of vendor relationships, spare parts inventories, and retrofit pathways to ensure continuity under geopolitical or trade disruptions. Taken together, these forces are accelerating innovation in both catalyst chemistry and FCC configurations while influencing where and how capital is deployed.
How 2025 trade measures reshaped procurement dynamics, supplier networks, and retrofit decisions across FCC operations with lasting supply chain implications
The policy environment in 2025 introduced a renewed emphasis on trade measures that ripple across the FCC ecosystem, and the cumulative effects merit careful operational and strategic response. Tariff measures affecting catalyst raw materials, finished catalyst imports, and key equipment components have increased the effective cost and delivery lead time for some suppliers, prompting refiners to reassess sourcing strategies. In addition, tariffs on capital goods and spare parts have made the timing and scope of retrofits and major overhauls more sensitive to procurement geography, incentivizing longer maintenance planning horizons and deeper engagement with local fabrication partners.
Beyond direct cost impacts, trade measures have catalyzed structural shifts in supplier networks. Some refiners have accelerated qualification of multiple catalyst suppliers or pursued joint development arrangements to secure technology access while buffering against interruptions. Others have explored partial localization of consumable manufacturing to reduce exposure to cross-border tariffs. Importantly, tariffs have also influenced the calculus for capacity expansion and new-build projects by increasing the relative attraction of modular and incremental investments that minimize up-front import dependencies. Finally, the broader market response has included intensified negotiation of long-term service contracts, revision of inventory strategies to smooth supply, and heightened attention to compliance and documentation protocols to avoid inadvertent penalty exposure under changing trade rules.
Segment-driven technical and commercial levers across catalyst chemistry, configuration, feedstock choice, and capacity that determine FCC product slates and operational resilience
A rigorous segmentation-based read of the FCC value chain illuminates where technical innovation and commercial focus are converging. Viewed through component composition, catalysts comprise binder, filler, matrix, and zeolite catalyst fractions, where the zeolite component-particularly Zeolite Y and ZSM-5 varieties-dictates primary selectivity and olefinic yield characteristics while the binder and matrix influence attrition resistance and catalyst lifetime. As such, refiners balancing gasoline and light olefins production often prioritize catalyst blends that combine robust matrix resilience with targeted zeolite functionality to manage deactivation pathways.
Configuration choices also matter: side by side type arrangements historically favored operational simplicity and staged regeneration schemes, whereas stacked type configurations can enable higher throughput and more aggressive catalyst circulation strategies when targeting olefin co-production. Feedstock type remains a core determinant of process design, with deasphalted oil, residue, and vacuum gas oil presenting distinct contaminant profiles and thermal cracking behaviors; these feedstock differences drive upstream pretreatment investments and influence cycle-on-stream planning. Unit capacity considerations, spanning large capacity, medium capacity, and small capacity installations, further shape economics and flexibility; larger units often justify more advanced monitoring and continuous catalyst replacement strategies, while smaller units prioritize modular upgrades and cost-effective catalyst formulations. Finally, end-user requirements differ across diesel production, gasoline production, and light olefins production, where light olefins demand is further differentiated by the target split between ethylene and propylene, compelling refiners to fine-tune catalyst composition and operating severity to align with strategic product priorities.
How geographic feedstock endowments, regulatory regimes, and petrochemical demand shape differentiated FCC strategies across global regions
Regional dynamics exert a decisive influence on FCC investment, feedstock sourcing, and technology adoption patterns. In the Americas, ample access to light tight oil and differentiated crude slates has encouraged flexible FCC operations that capitalize on regional feedstock arbitrage, while petrochemical integration along key industrial corridors supports shifting emphasis toward propylene and ethylene co-production. Across Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory stringency, refinery complexity, and strategic energy policy interact in varied ways: some markets prioritize emissions compliance and lower-sulfur fuels, prompting incremental upgrades and emissions control retrofits, whereas resource-rich jurisdictions in the Middle East pursue scale and integration that favor larger capacity units and petrochemical-focused configurations.
Asia-Pacific reflects one of the most dynamic demand centers for FCC-derived products, driven by robust petrochemical growth, refinery expansions, and a competitive supplier landscape. There, high utilization rates and strong demand for light olefins have accelerated adoption of catalyst technologies optimized for propylene and ethylene, and they have catalyzed investments in both new-build and debottleneck projects. Across all regions, cross-border trade flows, tariff environments, and local industrial policy continue to shape where suppliers locate production and how refiners prioritize localized sourcing versus global supply chains, creating differentiated risk profiles and strategic choices for operators depending on their geographic footprint.
Competitive landscape evolution where catalyst innovators, licensors, and service providers converge to deliver integrated outcomes and supply continuity for refiners
Competitive dynamics across the FCC value chain are being redefined by a combination of technological differentiation, aftercare services, and integrated solution offerings. Leading catalyst producers and technology licensors are increasingly bundling advanced zeolite formulations with digital monitoring tools, regeneration protocols, and lifecycle service agreements to move beyond transactional sales toward outcomes-based partnerships. This shift is reinforced by refiners’ preference for suppliers who can provide robust qualification data, predictable supply, and joint-operational troubleshooting during turnarounds and capacity uprates.
EPC and engineering firms are likewise competing on the basis of modularization, retrofit speed, and emissions reduction expertise, with a particular emphasis on solutions that reduce downtime and facilitate incremental upgrades. Maintenance and aftermarket service providers have found value in offering predictive maintenance frameworks and performance benchmarking that shorten learning cycles and extend catalyst run lengths. In response, many firms are pursuing collaborative R&D with operators to co-develop bespoke catalyst blends or unit configurations that meet specific feedstock or product objectives, while also investing in regional manufacturing and logistics to mitigate tariff-driven and geopolitical risks. These strategic moves highlight an industry-wide trend toward tighter supplier-operator integration and a premium on demonstrable operational uplift.
Practical, high-impact steps for operators to safeguard margins, enhance resilience, and accelerate selective upgrades across FCC assets
Industry leaders seeking to preserve margin and maintain strategic flexibility should prioritize a set of pragmatic, actionable initiatives. First, diversify supplier bases and validate secondary suppliers through accelerated qualification programs to reduce single-source exposure and to insulate operations from trade-driven interruptions. Second, invest selectively in catalyst R&D partnerships that target specific feedstock challenges, such as metal tolerance and deactivation resistance, enabling higher on-stream availability and refined product control. Third, align capital planning with flexible configuration options: consider modularization and staged retrofits that allow capacity and selectivity adjustments without committing to large-scale, high-risk capital deployments.
Additionally, deploy digital process optimization and condition-based maintenance programs to extend catalyst life, reduce unplanned outages, and optimize regenerations. Strengthen upstream pretreatment strategies for heavier feedstocks-such as deasphalting and contaminant removal-to preserve catalyst performance and limit unexpected turnover. Finally, integrate commercial and technical decision-making by establishing cross-functional teams that assess feedstock economics, product offtake agreements, and regulatory compliance in concert, thereby ensuring that catalyst and configuration choices support both operational objectives and corporate sustainability commitments.
Transparent, multi-source research approach combining operator interviews, technical literature, patent analytics, and supply chain mapping for defensible insights
The research underpinning this report integrates multiple methodological pillars to ensure balanced, verifiable analysis. Primary inputs were gathered via structured interviews with refinery technical leaders, catalyst scientists, licensors, and aftermarket service providers to capture operational practice, procurement behavior, and technology evaluation criteria. Secondary inputs included a systematic review of peer-reviewed technical literature, industry white papers, patent filings related to zeolite and matrix innovations, and regulatory documents that affect emissions and fuel quality standards. Trade and supply chain analyses were conducted using customs flows, production footprints, and logistics assessments to map sourcing dependencies and to identify potential bottlenecks.
Analytical rigor was achieved through cross-validation of qualitative insights against operational case studies and engineering performance data, while scenario analysis was applied to explore the implications of tariff measures, feedstock shifts, and regulatory tightening. Data quality controls included triangulation between independent sources, methodological transparency in how technical parameters were interpreted, and sensitivity checks to ensure conclusions remain robust across reasonable operational assumptions. The resulting synthesis provides a defensible foundation for strategic recommendations while maintaining clear traceability to source inputs and analytical steps.
Integrated synthesis of technical and strategic imperatives highlighting how refiners can balance near-term optimization with long-term FCC flexibility and resilience
The aggregate of technical, commercial, and policy dynamics portrayed in this analysis underscores the evolving nature of fluid catalytic cracking from a yield-maximization process to a strategic, multifunctional asset that must reconcile feedstock realities, product diversification, and decarbonization imperatives. Advances in catalyst chemistry-particularly in zeolite engineering-coupled with configuration choices and digital operations are enabling refiners to tune product slates more precisely while extracting greater value from heavier and more diverse feedstocks. Concurrently, trade policy developments and regional investment patterns are reshaping procurement and localization strategies, increasing the importance of supply chain resilience.
For operators and technology providers alike, the central challenge will be to balance near-term operational optimization with longer-term structural investments that enhance flexibility and regulatory compliance. By focusing on targeted catalyst development, supplier diversification, and modular capital strategies, companies can create optionality that supports both fuel and petrochemical demands. In short, the future of FCC lies in integrated approaches that combine material science advances, process digitalization, and pragmatic commercial planning to sustain competitiveness under a rapidly changing global energy and policy environment.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
192 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Adoption of novel zeolite-based catalysts for maximizing propylene yields in FCC units
- 5.2. Implementation of AI-driven process control systems for real-time FCC reactor optimization
- 5.3. Integration of carbon capture technologies into FCC units to reduce CO2 emissions and footprint
- 5.4. Retrofitting existing FCC units with residue upgrading catalysts to process heavy crude blends
- 5.5. Co-processing of renewable and bio-based feedstocks in FCC to support decarbonization goals
- 5.6. Development of sulfur-scavenging additives to mitigate SOx emissions from FCC regenerator flue gas
- 5.7. Optimization of catalyst circulation rates to enhance conversion efficiency and extend cycle length
- 5.8. Deployment of inline particle size analyzers for monitoring catalyst attrition and activity in FCC units
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Components
- 8.1. Binder
- 8.2. Filler
- 8.3. Matrix
- 8.4. Zeolite Catalyst
- 8.4.1. Zeolite Y
- 8.4.2. ZSM-5 Zeolite
- 9. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Configuration
- 9.1. Side by Side Type
- 9.2. Stacked Type
- 10. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Feedstock Type
- 10.1. Deasphalted Oil
- 10.2. Residue
- 10.3. Vacuum Gas Oil
- 11. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Unit Capacity
- 11.1. Large Capacity
- 11.2. Medium Capacity
- 11.3. Small Capacity
- 12. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by End User
- 12.1. Diesel Production
- 12.2. Gasoline Production
- 12.3. Light Olefins Production
- 12.3.1. Ethylene
- 12.3.2. Propylene
- 13. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Axens Joint Stock Company
- 16.3.2. BASF SE
- 16.3.3. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.
- 16.3.4. Chevron Lummus Global
- 16.3.5. DuPont de Nemours, Inc
- 16.3.6. Emerson Electric Co.
- 16.3.7. Evonik Industries AG
- 16.3.8. Exxon Mobil Corporation
- 16.3.9. Flour Corporation
- 16.3.10. Honeywell International Inc.
- 16.3.11. JGC Catalysts and Chemicals Ltd.
- 16.3.12. Johnson Matthey Group.
- 16.3.13. Ketjen by Albemarle Corporation
- 16.3.14. Kuwait Catalyst Company.
- 16.3.15. Magma Group
- 16.3.16. N.E. CHEMCAT Corporation
- 16.3.17. Naugra
- 16.3.18. Shell PLC
- 16.3.19. Sulzer Ltd.
- 16.3.20. W.R. Grace Company
- 16.3.21. Yueyang sciensun chemical industry co., LTD
- 16.3.22. Zeopore Technologies NV
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
