Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 02 Feb 2016, 13:57:41

Tanada wrote:So Pstarr here is how I see it, Uncle Sugar should build a few dozen GTL processing centers to keep the trucks, trains and cargo ships moving and the farm and construction equipment working during the post peak oil declines without crashing the whole economy from physical shortages. At the same time they should be investing every dime they can tax or borrow into non fossil carbon based energy infrastructure to get us off the depleting but heavily polluting energy system we use now.


I agree with most of your post, but not so much here. I guess in my mind this amounts to trying to bail the sinking Titanic with buckets. Modern renewables have not been able to garner much more than 1.3% of the primary energy supply over the last twelve years that I have been tracking it. It took 150 years to build out a FF infrastructure.

Then, I think you will agree that it all depends upon the rate of decline post peak, as to how mitigating any action can, or will, be.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 02 Feb 2016, 14:09:36

Right Monte. And in another words it is too late, we should have embarked on this alt energy program 20-30 years ago as Hirsch so patiently advised?
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25739
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 06 Mar 2016, 01:17:46

I found this while researching info for the Micor GTL thread a little further down the forum page. The same company that is building the Micro GTL plant in Oklahoma City to produce 200/bbl/d of syndiesel is building a much larger plant in Ashtabula, Ohio, on the coast of Lake Erie to convert cheap Marcellus shale gas into diesel/jet fuel that sells for a much higher price. The plant is designed to take in Utica shale gas and put out 2,800 bbl/d of synthetic diesel and other products with a construction and start up cost of $300,000,000.00 starting later this year or early next year.

UK-based Velocys Buys Ashtabula, OH GTL Plant

Last September (2013) MDN told you about an innovative new $300 million gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant being built in Ashtabula, OH that will convert Marcellus and Utica Shale gas into chemicals and diesel fuel (see Utica Shale Gas-to-Liquids Plant Planned for Ashtabula, OH and More Details on Ashtabula, OH Gas-to-Liquids Plant). The plant is being built by a Houston-based company called Pinto Energy using technology created by Velocys. This morning Velocys announced they’re buying out Pinto Energy lock, stock and barrel–100%–including (and primarily for) the Ashtabula GTL plant now under construction…

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2013/09/ut ... tabula-oh/

In March (2015)the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued a draft permit to Ashtabula Energy that will allow the company to build a gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant converting Utica Shale gas into other products like diesel fuel (see OH EPA Issues Draft Lake Erie Discharge Permit for Ashtabula GTL Plant). The permit will allow the plant to discharge wastewater into Lake Erie (essentially freshwater used for cooling in the plant). After holding two public meetings and further consideration, the Ohio EPA has issued a final permit to Ashtabula–a sign that the project will now move forward. Just one teeny tiny problem that we can see. Ashtabula was bought out by Velocys GTL, the manufacturer of the equipment that will be used in the plant. Just over a week ago Velocys suspended its CEO for “possible serious misconduct” (see Velocys GTL Company Suspends CEO for Possible Serious Misconduct). So what does that mean for the future of the Ashtabula GTL project?…

We don’t know! But it’s certainly a concern that the top guy has been suspended pending an investigation. What was he doing? And do his alleged actions have implications for the viability of the company?

Here’s the good news from the Ohio EPA:

Ohio EPA has approved a wastewater discharge permit for a proposed Ashtabula Energy industrial processing plant to be located on the south side of Lake Road East, on the east side of EMC facility in Ashtabula.

The Ashtabula plant will convert natural gas to diesel fuel and other liquids. The permit will allow the facility to discharge 1.625 million gallons of wastewater per day into Lake Erie. The discharge would contain cooling water, water treatment plant residuals, non-process storm water, sanitary wastewater, and treated process waste streams. All permitted process and sanitary wastewater would be cleaned and treated prior to being discharged.

Two public meetings were held and public comments accepted and considered regarding the facility permit. Responses to comments made at the meetings can be reviewed online along with the final permit.

These documents can also be reviewed at Ohio EPA’s Northeast District Office, 2110 East Aurora Road, Twinsburg, (330) 963-1200, or at the Division of Surface Water, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700, Columbus, (614) 644-2001. Calling ahead for an appointment is recommended.

Issuance of the permit can be appealed to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC). Appeals generally must be filed within 30 days of issuing the final action. Therefore, Ohio EPA recommends that anyone wishing to file an appeal contact ERAC at (614) 466-8950 for more information.*

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/07/oh ... gtl-plant/

(December 2015) The Ashtabula, OH GTL (gas-to-liquids) plant being developed in Ashtabula County, OH is one step closer to reality, according to a press release recently issued by Velocys, the company building the plant. Velocys announced the successful completion of pilot plant tests. Velocys, a UK-based company, maintains a pilot plant in Ohio where they experiment with GTL designs. According to the release, the results of these latest tests are being incorporated into the design of the Ashtabula GTL plant. We’d be remiss if we also didn’t remind you that earlier this year Velocys suspended its CEO, Roy Lipski, for potential misconduct (see Velocys GTL Company Suspends CEO for Possible Serious Misconduct). Velocys said at the time there was no financial misconduct involved (which makes you wonder just what did happen), and a month later, in August, Lipski left the company for good (see Energy Voice, Velocys parts company with suspended chief executive). Apparently the company has recovered from that mishap and is now pushing forward with all speed. It’s great to see them making progress with their technology and with the Ashtabula project…

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/12/ve ... gtl-plant/

Image
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13821
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 14 Oct 2016, 09:57:17

Construction is complete at Envia Energy’s gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Oklahoma City, and preliminary commissioning is under way, according to United Kingdom-based Velocys Plc.

That project will take landfill gases, mostly methane, and convert them to biofuels, including diesel and naphtha, Kallanish Energy has learned.

Partners include Waste Management, NRG Energy, Envia Energy and Ventech Engineering. The joint venture was formed in March 2014 with project ground broken in May 2015.

The showpiece plant will rely on the Velocys technology in a smaller-scale gas-to-liquids operation.

“Operational start-up of the Envia plant is now within sight; its successful steady-state operation will represent the next seminal milestone for Velocys and a significant step for the smaller GTL industry,” said Velocys CEO David Pummell, in a statement.

Velocys did not provide a scheduled start-up date for the plant.

The company provided a $9 million loan to Envia for the project. The drawdown on that loan will begin in the fourth quarter, with final drawdown slated for the first quarter of 2017.

Envia said no additional funding will likely be needed from Velocys.

Velocys personnel have been working on the Oklahoma City site since July.

The company has temporarily halted plans for a $200 million GTL plant in Ashtabula in northeast Ohio, due to problems raising the needed funds.


http://www.kallanishenergy.com/2016/09/ ... ids-plant/
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13821
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 14 Oct 2016, 11:43:23

T - And what do their economics look like now with the decreased oil price? A hint:

"United Kingdom-based Velocys plc said Thursday that it would postpone the development of its small-scale 5,000 b/d gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Northeast Ohio, citing the commodities downturn and the effects it's had on the company's ability to raise capital for the project."

The stock has lost 85% of its value since the oil price slide began: was 226 and now 35. But just like a shale well that will never return 100% of the investment they'll carry on with the completed plant as long as the cash flow remains positive. A fate many alt energy projects have to deal with.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 11:49:50

ROCKMAN wrote:yoshua - A bit more recent from last Feb:

"In the First Episode in this two part series we reviewed the history of the crude-to-gas ratio that before 2008 averaged 7.5X but jumped to an all time high of 54X in 2012 during the “Great Divide” when oil prices were over $100/Bbl and natural gas sank below $2/MMBtu. A high crude-to-gas ratio between 2009 and 2014 (averaging 27X) underpinned a Golden Age of natural gas processing as well as a boom in crude production from shale. Producers diverted their drilling budgets to gas liquids and crude plays to exploit higher prices. In the meantime natural gas production continued to grow despite lower prices – in part because of associated gas that came along with high liquids production. In the past 19 months (since June 2014) crude prices have fallen hard and faster than natural gas – leading to the ratio languishing in the mid teens by December 2014. Despite some recovery above 20X for brief periods in 2015 the crude-to-gas ratio started 2016 by tumbling to its lowest point since March 2009 (12.5X) on January 20, 2016. With crude and natural gas markets oversupplied and inventories for both commodities brimming over – the crude-to-gas ratio looks set to stay low for a while. In this second episode we look at the consequences of a continued low crude-to-gas ratio."

But when you NG volumes converted to "bbls of oil EQUIVALENT" understand the pubcos are following the govt's SEC rules:

"The volume of natural gas needed to generate the equivalent amount of heat as a barrel of crude oil. Approximately 6,000 cubic feet of natural gas is equivalent to one barrel of crude oil."

Which means they are converting 6 mcf (6,000 cf) with a value of abot $18 to 1 bbl of oil with a value about $50. Which means that every 1 bbl oil equivalent is not worth $50 but $18. IOW a companyfor its book value, converts 1 bcf (1,000,000 mcf) of NG its bbls equivalent those "bbls of oil" are actually only worth about 1/3 of the current prices of oil.

Which is why you never see a pubco offer "Oil-equivalent gas (OEG)" instead of "Barrels of oil-equivalent (BOE)" even though both are acceptable to the SEC.


Do you have a reasonable estimate of how many boe of natural gas it takes when run through a Fischer-Tropsch system to get the actual diesel equivalent barrel?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 12:20:45

this might help answer your question

http://www.lngplants.com/conversiontables.html

1 LNG Gallon = 82.6 standard cubic feet of natural gas
1 LNG gallon = 82,644 Btu
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5314
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 12:55:37

rockdoc123 wrote:this might help answer your question

http://www.lngplants.com/conversiontables.html

1 LNG Gallon = 82.6 standard cubic feet of natural gas
1 LNG gallon = 82,644 Btu


Liquified Natural Gas is not much use in a Diesel engine.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 14:54:01

Sub - Found this:

One of the largest uses of F-T technology is in Bintulu, Malaysia. This Shell factory turns natural gas into low-sulfur diesel fuels and food-grade wax. They produce approximately 12,000 barrels/day.

In October 2006, Finnish paper and pulp manufacturer UPM announced its plans to produce biodiesel using the Fischer–Tropsch process. It said that it will do this along with the manufacturing processes at its European paper and pulp plants. It will use waste biomass from paper and pulp manufacturing as raw material for biodiesel.

You might dig through this site:

http://biodieselmagazine.com/blog/artic ... esel-plant

From them:

In the past week, Wuhan, Hubei, China-based Sunshine Kaidi New Energy Group announced that its subsidiary, Kaidi Finland, plans to build a €1 billion biorefinery in Kemi, Finland.

The plant will produce 150,000 tons of wood-based synthetic diesel and 50,000 tons of biogasoline per year.

Finland already has a novel, wood-based renewable diesel producer with UPM Biofuels, which hydrotreats crude tall oil, a residue of pulp production, in its Lappeenranta plant.

While many news outlets and even Kaidi itself are referring to the Finland-based, Chinese-owned project’s end-product as “biodiesel,” it is not. To those of us who work in this space every day, the term “biodiesel” specifically means fatty acid methyl esters from either the transesterification of glycerides or the esterification of free fatty acids.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Carnot » Thu 15 Dec 2016, 09:26:47

Sorry that I have been out of circulation for some time. Work, illness and lack of topics worthy of a comment come to mind. This topic stirred my imagination as it is still alive unlike biofuels which are as dead as a dodo.

GTL yields. Information in the public domain is not great, and when it is published it is often not that easy to decipher. Very roughly the yield can be quoted as follows ( Data from Myers- Petroleum Refining Processes 3rd edition and Fischer Tropsch Technology by Steynberg and Dry). Thermal efficiency is around 63% and carbon efficiency around 80% (ie. 80% of carbon in feed converted)

600 million SCF/day (3 million tonnes p.a.) yields 2 million tonnes GTL products.

There are several modes of operation but usually the preferred fuel mode is to maximise kero and gas oils, whereupon the yield would be roughly 25% kero and 50% gas oil (up to 60% possible), as well as 25% tops and naphtha.

In terms of diesel (gas oil) 1 million tonnes of diesel is about 20 kbd. 0.5 million tonnes kero is about 10.7 kbd.

In refining terms this would be a bonsai plant.

GTL gas oil and kero are high quality premium products, low in sulphur and praffinic. GTL naphtha makes poor gasoline blendstock as it is parffinnic with low branching and has an octane number in the 60's at best. That makes GTL not a good process for gasoline production and it would necessitate significant upgrading (iosm/ reforming/ FCC/ alky). Reforming would be challenging.

As with all GTL plant they are highly complex and cost a large fortune to build and operate, which is perhaps why so few have been built and in my view why even fewer are likely to be built in the future. Both Shell and Sasol have quietly dropped their plans for GTL plants in the US. Neither made economic sense. A small GTL would make even less sense as you would loose the economies of scale.

GTL based on municipal waste does not work either. Witness the quiet withdrawal of British Airways from the Solena GTL project last year. Despite all the fanfare it could not compete with fossil fuels and never would be able to in my humble opinion.

I trust that this is of some interest to one of two readers.
Carnot
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed 07 Aug 2013, 09:54:16
Location: Europe

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 15 Dec 2016, 09:40:21

But aren't the economics of the products based greatly on input costs and output profits? Today it might not make sense because while methane feedstock is cheap currently kerosene and diesel are also selling for moderate prices. After peak oil when crude prices are permanently high the economics shift so long as fracked methane stays cheap.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Dec 2016, 10:31:49

"But aren't the economics of the products based greatly on input costs and output profits?" Always has and always will be the controlling factors. And "greatly"? Aside from govt subsidies what else matters?

But there's the additional angle: what happens when burning the coal source becomes politically unacceptable. At that point the coal becomes worthless and will reduce that side of the calculous. Which in a sense will function as a govt subsidy.

But in the end short of a huge expansion of the process it won't affect the price of the liquides generated: it will be priced at the then current market level. As far as the economics they can be modeled anyway one chooses based on assumptions used...especially future prices of the output. Easy proof looking at many of the crippled shale players. Many armchair "experts" predicted many years of increasing US oil production based on $90+/bbl oil. And as Dr. Phil would ask: "How's that working for you?" LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests