[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'P')usher - 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.

[Tanada]

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.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')K-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…

[hvacman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'H')man - 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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')onstruction 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.

[ROCKMAN]

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.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'y')oshua - 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.

[rockdoc123]

this might help answer your question

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

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1') LNG Gallon = 82.6 standard cubic feet of natural gas
1 LNG gallon = 82,644 Btu

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', 't')his might help answer your question

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

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1') LNG Gallon = 82.6 standard cubic feet of natural gas
1 LNG gallon = 82,644 Btu

[ROCKMAN]

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.

[Carnot]

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.

[Subjectivist]

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.

[ROCKMAN]

"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.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')EW ORLEANS (AP) — Low oil prices and a volatile market are prompting a South African energy and chemical company to drop plans for an $11 billion to $14 billion U.S. plant to convert natural gas to liquid fuels and to pull out of Canadian shale.

“Sasol will not invest in further greenfields gas-to-liquids projects,” the company said last week in a news release posted on its website. Its current GTL plants “are generating good returns and cash flows,” but new projects aren’t worth it in the current market, the statement said.

The company had announced in January that it was delaying final investment plans for the plant near Lake Charles, Louisiana, because of a collapse in world oil prices.

“I hate to see ... that the gas-to-liquids project is not being able to happen,” but it’s a minor setback in $100 billion in development across southwest Louisiana, said Calcasieu Parish Police Juror Hal McMillin. He said that includes an $11.1 billion ethane cracker being built by Sasol, which has an ethylene plant, an alumina plant and an alcohol plant operating in the area.

The ethane cracker will turn a component of natural gas into ethylene, used in the chemical industry. State officials have said it is expected to create 500 permanent jobs, with construction jobs peaking at 5,000.

Sasol has more than doubled its workforce in Louisiana, from 450 to nearly 1,000 jobs averaging $80,000 a year, Don Pierson, secretary of Louisiana Economic Development, wrote in an emailed statement.

[AdamB]

At an EIA conference 2 or 4 years back I had the opportunity to each lunch at a table that included some of their engineering team, and it was quite a hot topic, the price of oil needed to make GTL commercially viable here in the States. They had apparently had a project going on, and settled on a number in the low $100's somewhere, and the price of oil at the time was close, but not quite there yet. At $60, it makes sense that there just isn't room for it in the oil mix.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')dam, $100/barrel came and went a decade ago. Sorry
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight now, I believe the #1 contender among synthetic oils is gas-to-liquids(GTL).

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')t's about fuel, you idiot. Read the thread before you post nonsense .

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wayne Dyer', 'T')he highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'N')atural gas is made into paint and liquid fertilizer.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'d call it cool, interesting, and a good start. But we're a LONG way from a practical, affordable solution on a planetary scale, IMO.

[Tanada]

CO2 to liquid fuels moved to carrect thread please continue that discussion HERE