[StarvingLion]

"You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet."

Obviously you sure can.

But it can't happen with degenerates passing themselves off as leaders. And that is what we have with the neoliberal banking clan, the stupid petro engineers and geologists, and the utterly childish tech feudal lords with their useless toys (solar cell, batteries, etc...a small sample only).

So I have to do it all myself. I finally gave up on the nonsense of nuclear reactors and have found the total solution:

I have initiated a GLOBAL GEOTHERMAL ENERGY + SYNTHETIC FUELS EMPIRE.

Sure, laugh now...but you know the upcoming...

LIQUID FUELS CATASTROPHE

is looming. And its all because this natural gas crap can't scale. The laughable toys called solar and wind can't scale. The laughable batteries can't scale.

The truly staggering potential of Geothermal Energy is simply impossible with Ponzi Finance. The degenerate Neoliberal Banking Establishment will have to be wiped out first. Thats no problem because the upcoming Liquid Fuels Catastrophe will do that for me.

Well thats enough for this post. I am basically a Super Genius trying to save the world. The rest of you degenerates have already given up. Thanks for nothing, degenerates.

I now understand what Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, had to endure.

[hvacman]

"You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet."

Obviously you sure can.

SL - I KNEW I recognized your voice - you're Dr. Science!

Obviously, you sure know what you are talking about when it comes to science. I bet you even have a Masters Degree....in Science!:)

http://drscience.com/wordpress/

[MonteQuest]

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.

[Tanada]

What kind of real world experience has developed from this technology?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Don't want to be a party pooper; BUT.
--snip--I could get either of these websites knocked up out of thin air in a day for peanuts. A couple of people to answer phones in a couple different countries..... Just thinking out loud.

Then, I say: Go For It! Wait until naptime, then, email them or get on the phone! If they no longer deal with this product / process, what has been put in place as a suitable substitute to deal with flaring?

I was under the impression that in much of the first world, such as the US, that flaring was basically illegal, via EPA enforcement.

However, doing some reading on it via Google searches, it seems that there are many loopholes, delays, etc. so flaring is still likely to be widespread for a long time. For one thing, US fracking has driven the cost of natural gas down by a LOT. Clearly this greatly industry is far less incented to capture the gas unless forced to do so.

Chalk up another absurd counterexample to how much the Paris CO2 emissions limits are likely to do in the real world over the next several years.

[Tanada]

Don't want to be a party pooper; BUT.
--snip--I could get either of these websites knocked up out of thin air in a day for peanuts. A couple of people to answer phones in a couple different countries..... Just thinking out loud.

Then, I say: Go For It! Wait until naptime, then, email them or get on the phone! If they no longer deal with this product / process, what has been put in place as a suitable substitute to deal with flaring?

I was under the impression that in much of the first world, such as the US, that flaring was basically illegal, via EPA enforcement.

However, doing some reading on it via Google searches, it seems that there are many loopholes, delays, etc. so flaring is still likely to be widespread for a long time. For one thing, US fracking has driven the cost of natural gas down by a LOT. Clearly this greatly industry is far less incented to capture the gas unless forced to do so.

Chalk up another absurd counterexample to how much the Paris CO2 emissions limits are likely to do in the real world over the next several years.

I brought it back up because in one of the enviro groups I belong to people have been posting pictures of scores of flares at wells in the Bakken again and I was trying to determine just how practical this micro GTL plan actually is.

[toolpush]

http://www.velocys.com/index.php

The leaders in Micro GTL, using ideas/patents from original NASA research.

PS. It takes 9-10 mcf to make 1 barrel of oil, which has an energy content of 6 mcf. Now there is one set of economics, if you need to buy that gas, and there is another set of economics, if that gas is being saved from being flared!

[ROCKMAN]

I think some folks have missed the point of this tech. Scale is the prime issue...and it's meant to be very small scale so forget about upsizing. That's for folks like SASOL building $billion plants. And as the pushed says it also has nothing to do with the price of NG...it's free. And EROEI is not relevant either: your using energy that would be tossed away.

The application would be for a single oil well flaring NG or a small cluster of such wells close together. And the economics aren't the only potential advantage: flaring/venting NG is becoming a significant regulatory issue. About a year ago I read about Statoil (?) planning to deploy units in the Bakken. Not sure what the current status might be.

[ROCKMAN]

Pusher - Your link looks like it's still too big for well head processing. Maybe on a big offshore platform...if there's room. The link at the begining shows 1 bbl per 500 MCF of NG. Given well head gas is selling for $2.50/MCF that would be $2,500 per bbl yield. So obviously the NG has to be free. Which it is when being flared. So the economics boil down to the cost of the unit and maintenance.

So a well flaring 1 million cf/day (1,000 MCF/day) could yield 2 bbls. That's a lot of gas for a single well and only produces about $4/day of fuel. Or about $1,500/year. I serious doubt a well head application would come close to being viable. So I assume they are still thinking large scale plant operations. Which gets back to the source of the flaring problem: to expensive to lay enough pipelines to gather enough of the NG to sell profitably.

[Tanada]

Thank you Toolpush and ROCKMAN, this is just the kind of information I was looking for

[ROCKMAN]

T - You're welcome. We keep seeing the same error with so many "solutions": small scale successes, like something working in a lab, and assuming it's scalable. Or taking a tech like GTL and assuming one particular system can be applied to every situation. And it's true with folks who should know better: about 20 years ago the Rockman developed a bit of a reputation for drilling hz wells in conventional reservoirs. So companies would offer him contracts to do so on one of their fields. But hz wells are not a cure-all for every problem. The majority of the time he would have to explain it wasn't an appropriate application for their project. And these were petroleum geologists and engineers.

Yes: I talked myself out of consulting fees a number of times. LOL.

[toolpush]

Rockman,

Here is one of their presentation, directed at well head gas

http://www.velocys.com/press/ppt/ppt150 ... um_eng.pdf

The scale is 250-300 bpd, and it quotes 10,000 cf of gas per bbl. So a small gas gather system would be required. They have also investigated siting a plant on an FPSO for offshore work. They were working with Petrobras, not sure what has come of that.

PS
http://www.velocys.com/press/ppt/ppt150 ... um_eng.pdf

The offshore version is mentioned in this one.

[ROCKMAN]

Now I have a problem: 1 cu ft of dry NG = 1 Btu. And I bbl diesel = 137,000 Btu. So they say they can convert 10,000 Btu (10,000 scf of NG…their number) of NG into 137,000 Btu of diesel (10,000 scf of NG yields 1 bbl of FT liquid…again their numbers).

That seems to be a rather amazing process. I don’t think I got the numbers wrong but I’m sure some will check on me. LOL. But maybe that's where the 2 MW of power comes in. The 2 MW that magically appear for free. LOL.

[Tanada]

Now I have a problem: 1 cu ft of dry NG = 1 Btu. And I bbl diesel = 137,000 Btu. So they say they can convert 10,000 Btu (10,000 scf of NG…their number) of NG into 137,000 Btu of diesel (10,000 scf of NG yields 1 bbl of FT liquid…again their numbers).

That seems to be a rather amazing process. I don’t think I got the numbers wrong but I’m sure some will check on me. LOL. But maybe that's where the 2 MW of power comes in. The 2 MW that magically appear for free. LOL.

Seems how we are talking about raw gas right at the well head wouldn't it all depend on just how 'wet' the gas is? If it has bunches of Ethane, Propane, Butane and Pentane in the mix that will make up a bunch of the energy difference you are pointing to ROCKMAN.

[ROCKMAN]

T - If the NG has a significant NGL component you strip it out with a JT plant at the wellhead and sell that easily transported liquid for a very nice price. That's what the Rockman does every day in Cameron Ph, La. One does not flare wet gas for two reasons: the value of the easily extracted NGL's and regulatory/air quality issue. And beside: dry NG has about 900 Btu's per scf and very wet NG was around 1,400 Btu's per scf. So using their numbers again they are still trying to turn 14,000 Btu's of wet gas into 137,000 Btu's of diesel. If I've got the numbers correct. My calculation seems ridiculous but that's what my computer tells me. LOL.

[hvacman]

T - If the NG has a significant NGL component you strip it out with a JT plant at the wellhead and sell that easily transported liquid for a very nice price. That's what the Rockman does every day in Cameron Ph, La. One does not flare wet gas for two reasons: the value of the easily extracted NGL's and regulatory/air quality issue. And beside: dry NG has about 900 Btu's per scf and very wet NG was around 1,400 Btu's per scf. So using their numbers again they are still trying to turn 14,000 Btu's of wet gas into 137,000 Btu's of diesel. If I've got the numbers correct. My calculation seems ridiculous but that's what my computer tells me. LOL.

RM - Never trust a mechanical engineer to get his strata right or a geologist to get his energy units right. One standard cubic foot of dry NG has approximately 1,000 BTU's of energy. One MCF (1,000 cubic feet) has about 1 million BTU's. One therm of NG is 100,000 BTU's, or about 100 cubic feet. So redo your calcs using 1000 BTU's/cubic foot and see if things add up better. I believe you should find that GTL processes are typically about 50-60% efficient in converting gas BTU's to liquid BTU's.

So you can confirm the NG BTU/c.f. number, remember that almost all HC fuels have weight-based heat value of about 21,000 BTU/lb. Air at STP is 0.075 lb/cubic foot. NG has a specific gravity of 0.62 relative to air, so it weighs 0.0465 lb/c.f. Multiply by 21,000 = 976.5 BTU/c.f.

[hvacman]

Now I have a problem: 1 cu ft of dry NG = 1 Btu. And I bbl diesel = 137,000 Btu. So they say they can convert 10,000 Btu (10,000 scf of NG…their number) of NG into 137,000 Btu of diesel (10,000 scf of NG yields 1 bbl of FT liquid…again their numbers).

That seems to be a rather amazing process. I don’t think I got the numbers wrong but I’m sure some will check on me. LOL. But maybe that's where the 2 MW of power comes in. The 2 MW that magically appear for free. LOL.

Their numbers are correct.
10,000 SCF NG @ 1,000 BTU/SCF = 10,000 x 1,000 = 10,000,000 BTU's of NG into the process.
1 bbl = 42 gallons @ 137,000 BTU/gallon = 42 x 137,000 = 5,754,000 BTUs of liquid fuel out.

So the GTL process is 57.5% efficient on an energy basis.

[ROCKMAN]

Hman - very good. I did have the Btu of 1 scf wrong. But is this correct: they can convert 10 MCF {that cost about $25 at Henry Hub today) into 42 gallons of diesel that has a wholesale price of $1.18/gallon last Dec. IOW you can turn $25 of NG into $50 of diesel. If I haven't screwed these numbers up (and depending in the cost of the equipment) then to hell with flare gas: I would start making diesel on all my gas wells. And I know operators who are selling their gas for $1/mf today. That would be $10 of NG to make $50 of diesel. Heck of a deal...unless the unit cost a $million or two.

Also more good advice: don't ask a geologist to spell anyting.

[Tanada]

Rockman,

Here is one of their presentation, directed at well head gas

http://www.velocys.com/press/ppt/ppt150 ... um_eng.pdf

The scale is 250-300 bpd, and it quotes 10,000 cf of gas per bbl. So a small gas gather system would be required. They have also investigated siting a plant on an FPSO for offshore work. They were working with Petrobras, not sure what has come of that.

PS
http://www.velocys.com/press/ppt/ppt150 ... um_eng.pdf

The offshore version is mentioned in this one.

Both links seem to go to the same report? Other than that it makes interesting reading, I have been expecting GTL to become a major factor in the post peak oil world after we discovered how to get so much gas from shale rock so much cheaper with fracking.

In my mind this is how I see one possible future,

Step One) develop and prove GTL with the most modern and efficient methods possible. Based on this report they are completing construction and testing of the first plant using this technology right now in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Step Two) if shown to be commercially viable determine input costs and output prices that can be shown to be profitable taking into account all other expenses.

Step Three) Propagate the technology across the landscape for other applications where it would be appropriate. It is not magic, just business.

Step Four) as we decline from peak oil use GTL as a replacement fuel source more and more gradually transitioning at the price point which provides for expansion and substitution as needed. If this technology is as flexible as the media release indicates it will also work on CO/H2 feed stocks that are the result of underground coal gasification.

I also have a younger brother who works in a toxic waste neutralization facility, they put the material through pyrolysis and then use the resulting gas for F-T synthesis gas. They were making a fair income until the price of crude crashed because the owners of the waste were paying them to take it off their hands and they were getting petroleum coke from a neighboring refinery cheap as the co-fuel for the waste.

[ROCKMAN]

Pusher - By your number 10,000 cf (10 mcf) will yield 1 bbl. So for 250 bbls/day: 10 mcf X 250 = 2,500 mcf. That's nothing even for a single gas well. I've got two wells in Matagorda CO making a total of 8,000 mcf/day. That would yield 800 bbls of diesel. And I'm selling that 8,000 mcf/day for $2.50/mcf = $20,000/day. And I could sell 800 bbls (33,600 gallons) for $40,000. Or I could make an extra $7.3 million per year running though that GTL plant. And how much does this size plant cost? Until we see that number there's no way to tell if it would be economical or not. So $10 million for the plant and ops costs....sounds good. $50 million for the plant and ops cost...forget about it. LOL.