Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 03 Mar 2016, 14:08:41

What kind of real world experience has developed from this technology?
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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 03 Mar 2016, 23:00:23

Ferretlover wrote:
SeaGypsy wrote: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. 8)

Then, I say: Go For It! :lol: 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.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9201
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 03 Mar 2016, 23:19:55

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
Ferretlover wrote:
SeaGypsy wrote: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. 8)

Then, I say: Go For It! :lol: 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.
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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby toolpush » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 02:02:45

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!
toolpush
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 09:49:16

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 08:52:30

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 09:20:15

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 10:32:11

Thank you Toolpush and ROCKMAN, this is just the kind of information I was looking for :-D
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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 11:42:34

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby toolpush » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 12:20:36

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.
toolpush
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 09:49:16

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 15:04:56

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 15:18:41

ROCKMAN wrote: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.
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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 15:31:07

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby hvacman » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 18:26:47

ROCKMAN wrote: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
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 13:19:53

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby hvacman » Fri 04 Mar 2016, 18:35:21

ROCKMAN wrote: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.
hvacman
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 13:19:53

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 05 Mar 2016, 00:09:37

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 05 Mar 2016, 10:07:35

toolpush wrote: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.
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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 05 Mar 2016, 16:50:23

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.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 05 Mar 2016, 23:51:10

ROCKMAN wrote: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.


Not sure how close you are to Pasadena, TX ROCKMAN, but the latest press release says they are about finished building the moduals for the plant there and soon will be shipping them to Oklahoma City, OK for installation and testing.

ENVIA Energy

Commercial reference site under construction.

ENVIA Energy's Oklahoma City GTL project is located adjacent to Waste Management's East Oak landfill site and will use a combination of landfill gas and natural gas as feedstock. ENVIA Energy is a joint venture set up between Waste Management, NRG Energy, Ventech and Velocys that was announced in March 2014.

The plant will deploy a number of Velocys' full-scale commercial Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reactors, the manufacture of which are complete. All ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) certifications required for the reactors prior to installation and commissioning of the plant have been issued. Commercial production of the initial FT catalyst charge for the plant has also been completed by world class manufactures and certified by Velocys' quality control protocols.

Fabrication of the modular process units by Ventech Engineers at their fabrication facility in Pasadena, Texas is essentially complete. Mechanical completion of the plant is expected in mid-year 2016.

Press releases:

24th March 2014
29th July 2014
15th May 2015
2nd September 2015
5th February 2016

In February 2016 Velocys gained a greater equity share of the ENVIA project and a greater influence in the commissioning, start-up and operations of the plant. Members of Velocys' 70-strong R&D and manufacturing supply chain teams have considerable experience in the commissioning and start-up of commercial GTL projects for Sasol.

Neville Hargreaves discusses the significance of ENVIA Energy's project in "Setting the stage for the future of smaller scale GTL" – Gas Processing (Aug-2015)


http://www.velocys.com/projects_envia_energy.php
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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 06 Mar 2016, 02:17:46

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: 16141
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is Micro-GTL a Good Techofix for Gas Flaring?

Unread postby hvacman » Mon 07 Mar 2016, 13:43:28

ROCKMAN wrote: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.


RM - your NG/diesel relative cost numbers are correct. It reflects the far greater value per BTU for versatile, portable liquid high-energy-density liquid fuel as compared to gas. Gas is better suited for stationary applications. Another corollary of the POD. With technology improvements and the POD, it makes increased economic sense to convert FF gasses to FF liquids.

That differential value is also why, despite the low historic cost of diesel, I have been involved in numerous diesel-to-gas boiler conversions the past few years. Some NG, but even more LPG. Per the EIA, LPG is selling for 50 cents/gallon wholesale - that's for 92,000 BTU's, or 184,000 BTU/$. #2 heating oil is wholesaling at $1.50/gallon - for 140,000 BTU's, or 93,000 BTU/$. So LPG is half the cost of oil on a BTU/$ basis. Also, all the new boiler/burner technology is designed around NG/LPG. We're seeing combustion efficiencies of up to 95%. Oil-fired boilers are typically stuck at about 85%, which adds even more value to adapting to NG or LPG. Plus with oil you have to deal with sooting burners and heat exchanger surfaces, double-walled piping and storage tanks etc.

The last boiler tech with solid experience with oil-fired equipment in northern California/southern Oregon will be retiring soon, so economics won't even be a factor. No one left to fix the old beasts. The few remaining oil-fired boilers will die of old-age and be yanked for one of those new-fangled shiny gas-models.

Regarding geologists and spelling - I'll just quote Mark Twain - 'Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination.'

MT would have found a kindred spirit in the RM, in many ways:)
hvacman
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 13:19:53

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests