Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ALongview on June 6, 2011 at 18:19

Thanks John. Maybe it would be safe to say that Chesapeake has had an advance look at some of the plans that are already in process.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ghawker on June 7, 2011 at 1:56

I may be all wrong here, but doesn't the GTL conversion involve massive amounts of CO2 generation?  If so, it's hardly pollution free, and substantial costs would be involved to sequester this gas to make it "politically correct".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bwanablue on June 7, 2011 at 2:14

Here's an article about a Shell-Qatari GTL joint venture.

Supposedly economical at $20.00 per bbl crude prices.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/04/arabian-alchemy-shell-mak...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 7, 2011 at 3:31

This certainly looks to be a valid source of information.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on June 7, 2011 at 4:12

From the web:  

 

Carbon dioxide reuse

In 2009, chemists working for the U.S. Navy investigated Fischer-Tropsch for generating fuels, obtaining hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater. When combined with the dissolved carbon dioxide using a cobalt-based catalyst, this study produced mostly methane gas. However, when using an iron-based catalyst, it was possible to reduce the methane produced to 30 per cent with the rest being predominantly short-chain hydrocarbons. Further refining of the hydrocarbons produced applying solid acid catalysts, such as zeolites, can potentially lead to the production of kerosene-based jet fuel.^[21]

The abundance of CO₂ makes seawater an attractive alternative fuel source. Scientists at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory stated that, "although the gas forms only a small proportion of air – around 0.04 per cent – ocean water contains about 140 times that concentration".^[21] Robert Dorner presented the findings of his work to the American Chemical Society on 16 August 2009, at the Marriott Metro Center in Washington DC.^[22] Of course, such a method requires an energy source - since CO₂ is a major product of combustion, converting it back into combustible material is a highly endothermic (energy-absorbing) process. In practice this would probably come from nuclear power, which is in abundant supply aboard nuclear powered ships.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stevew on June 6, 2011 at 20:10

Anyone know what T. Boone Pickens thinks of this?  If anyone would be interested in a new use for natural gas as a transportation fuel it would be Pickens.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 7, 2011 at 3:13

AL, the biggest issues with GTL are the cost (both capital and operating including fuel gas) and the byproducts.  Shell's Pearl project in Qatar cost substantially more than originally planned and there is not much experience with building and operating GTL plants of this size.

 

Diesel is only a portion of the products which also include LPG and ethane.  So the plant must be sited in a area with local markets or offtake infrastructure.  This may be not be as much of an issue for North America but is a challenge for many international locations with stranded gas resources.

 

The positive is the GTL diesel can be utilized in the transportation market by exisitng vehicles.

 

Generally the process has been considered for areas with very cheap feed gas (< $1.00/Mcf) as an alternative to LNG (Malaysia, Qatar, Nigeria).   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on June 7, 2011 at 3:20

From the web:

 

It was the dearth of foreign exchange after World War I that motivated the Germans to search for alternative supplies of fuels; the current annual expenditure by the United States of $90 billion which alone creates our gigantic balance-of-payments deficit is a parallel phenomenon. While the dollar is still recognized and accepted as a principal currency—unlike the German mark after 1918—our huge payments for imported petroleum constitute a devastating hemorrhage of national substance, glut the foreign money markets with increasingly devalued dollars, and create inflation at home and indebtedness overseas. Just as Germany then and now was dependent on outside sources for its supply of liquid energy, so the United States today is forced to rely on foreign suppliers for approximately half its fuel needs. This dependence jeopardizes America’s ability to act free from intimidation and circumscription in matters of foreign policy. Economically, the latitude of OPEC to raise oil prices at will has immediate and, in the long run, intolerable implications for this country.

However, the vast coal deposits in the United States afford this country an incomparably better opportunity to become largely energy-independent than Germany with its coal, beds had in the 1930s and 1940s or even now. In contrast to this country, Germany’s coal reserves are virtually depleted, and what is left is difficult and costly to extract. The price of a ton of coal in Germany currently is $100, compared to $25 per ton in the United States.⁴⁰

Different methods need to be applied in producing synthetic fuels, depending on the type of raw material used and the end-product desired. Whatever scientific-technical approach will ultimately be deemed preferable, there is no doubt that from a purely technological point of view this country can assure itself of adequate supplies of fuel in relatively short order.⁴¹ The actual problem is not one of technology so much as one of political responsibility, courage, will, and wisdom on the part of the administration and the United States Congress. The approval of a $20 billion synthetic fuel program by the United States Congress is a first, cautious step in the right direction. Anyone who might be appalled at the sums which need to be invested—the $20 billion is only part of a total of $88 billion to be expended for this purpose—need only remind himself, however, that at the present time we spend more than that total amount every year for imported petroleum.

A word of caution, though. The magnitude of the problem facing this country has another dimension that should not be underestimated. At the peak of their synthetic fuel production in 1943, when half of their economy and their armed forces ran on synthetic fuel, the Germans produced 36,212,400 barrels of fuel a year. At current rates of imported fuel alone, that quantity in this country would last all of four and one-half days!

  

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page