Posted on 02/19/2014 10:36:43 AM PST by thackney
You can make syngas from wood, waste products, etc so having good F-T plants is a good idea.
Rather than flare gas off, GTL is an improvement.
Technically capable and economically profitable are both required. The first is done. The second is a lot harder in the US with GTL.
It is far more economically in locations where the supply is far larger than the local demand, like Qatar.
on a
cost per unit of energy basis,
crude oil costs 5 or 10 times as much as NG.
there has to be a hitch somewhere.
perhaps someone here knows.
That would be the cost of converting to a liquid.
“The F-T reaction typically happens at high pressure (40 atmospheres) and temperature (500o-840oF) in the presence of an iron catalyst.”
Funny. Sounds almost like the conditions you might expect to occur deep in the Earth’s crust, where we find plenty of petroleum products. We also know methane can be an abiotic product, since we find it on planets where there never was life.
Could abiotic methane just be undergoing a similar reaction naturally, to produce the more complex hydrocarbons?
Despite the ample supplies of natural gas in the area, the company has taken the decision that GTL is not a viable option for Shell in North America, at this time, due to the likely development cost of such a project, uncertainties on long-term oil and gas prices and differentials, and Shell’s strict capital discipline.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3102553/posts
05 Dec 2013
Understanding that Carbon and Hydrogen, in an Oxygen deficient environment, eventually combine to its lowest energy state of Methane and depending on the element ratio, percentages of ethane and the like, is far different than proving a abiotic PRODUCT from another process.
I seem to remember an article that stated a Texas university, I believe it was Texas A&M, had developed a modified, more economical version of the FT GTL approach. Any further info?
prices, last time I looked.
diesel, $2.50 a gallon wholesale,,, 140,000 btu.
NG, at Henry, 1 million btu, $4.00.
do the math, even if half is lost,
still pays.
This one?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3059392/posts
Still just a pilot after many years. They seem to be selling lectures and presentation, not process licenses or product.
Do you think Shell, who has three of these plants in commercial operation in other countries, can not do math?
You guess at half product loss does not consider energy input and capital expenses.
Hell with this, why aren’t we gasifying coal, Sasol-style? The US isn’t a country so much as an enormous coal deposit with some dirt on top.
(Not that we shouldn’t do this too)
Press release -> spokes-speak to English conversion -> “There’s too much risk involved in building anything chemical- and energy-related in a country with an out-of-control E”P”A and a commie TOTUS”
I don’t trust Shell.
perhaps they never wanted to succeed
.
other companies seem to be interested.
Remember that Sasol (and Germany) went FT on coal because they couldn’t get enough liquid fuel at any price. Prices matter.
There is a reason their Coal-to-Liquid commercial operation has not be built in any other country, in spite of their many years of marketing it.
They have had success in selling GTL technology.
Right... That is why they own the largest GTL plant in the world.
Hence LNG ships I guess.
Closer to 3~3.5 times as much. Then you have to guess how much Natural Gas is going to rise while it becomes used by more and more transportation demands.
Energy Price Spread: Natural Gas vs. Crude Oil in the US
http://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/energy-price-spread-natural-gas-vs-crude-oil-in-the-us.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.