DOCSLIB.ORG

Shell Gas to Liquids in the Context of a Future Fuel Strategy – Technical Marketing Aspects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shell Gas to Liquids in the Context of a Future Fuel Strategy – Technical Marketing Aspects Shell Global Solutions Shell Gas to Liquids in the context of a Future Fuel Strategy – Technical Marketing Aspects Ralph A. Cherrillo, Richard.H. Clark, Ian G. Virrels Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. Roger Davies Shell Gas & Power 9th Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction Workshop, 24-28 Aug 2003, Newport RI Talk Synopsis • REQUIREMENTS OF A FUTURE FUEL STRATEGY • Sustainability challenges • Technology Drivers • Fuel Options • GAS TO LIQUIDS • Advantages • Background studies • Pre-Marketing Activities - Stakeholders • Fleet trials • CONCLUSIONS Shell Global Solutions 2 Sustainability challenges • Required to be met by any changes in transport fuels • Need to balance the requirements of affordable mobility while reducing local and global environmental impacts • Cleaner Hydrocarbon Fuels enable more fuel efficient/low emission engine technology • Renewable Biofuels - e.g. ethanol and vegetable oil esters • Radical new technologies - e.g. Fuel cells & Hydrogen • Alternatives need to meet economic and social sustainability criteria as well as contributing to environmental objectives • Need to understand the challenge of consumer acceptance Shell Global Solutions 3 Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gases - US Study g CO Better 2 /mile 800 700 600 Petroleum Natural Gas 500 400 300 200 100 0 Gasoline ICE Diesel ICE Gasoline Fuel Cell HEV Diesel ICE HEV Naphtha Fuel Cell HEV Renewable/ FT Diesel ICE Electricity CNG ICE FT Naphtha FC HEV Liquid H2 FC HEV Methanol Fuel Cell HEV Gaseous H2 FC HEV E-85 ICE Elecrolysis GH2 FC HEV Shell Global Solutions Ethanol Fuel Cell HEV Technology Drivers • First step is to extend availability of improved fuels which enable more efficient and lower emission engine technology • Diesel direct injection • Gasoline direct injection • Diesel particulate traps • 3 way catalysts (NOx, CO, HC) • NOx traps • EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) • SCR NOx reduction (selective • De-NOx storage & reduction catalytic reduction) catalysts • DPNR (diesel particulate & NOx • Hybrid engines reduction) • EGR • Hybrid engines Fuels for the future Fuels for the future • Low S diesel • Low S gasoline • Provision of Urea/Ammonia? • HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) …new fuel types? Shell Global Solutions 5 One view of the Future • The next 20 years will see a wider range of technologies and fuel types, especially in the developed world……one possible scenario is: % of New cars 100 LPG/CNG 90 80 Diesel (inc Bio-diesel/GTL) Compression 70 ignition engines 60 50 Hybrid HCCI 40 Gasoline (inc Ethanol) Spark 30 ignition 20 Naphtha/Methanol 10 Hydrogen 0 Fuel cell 2000 2010 2020 Shell Global Solutions 6 Fuel Options – Bio-fuels, CNG, LPG & GTL Bio-fuels • Ethanol, ETBE (gasoline), Esters (Diesel) • Can substitute oil imports & use agricultural surpluses, but practical limits on availability • Use existing infrastructure • Significant GHG reduction potential on WTW basis, but depends on production • Cost 2-4 x conventional fuels, although still cheaper than some alternatives CNG LPG • Lower Sulphur, low PM, NOx & • Lower sulphur, PM, NOx and SOx SOx • Overall emissions similar to CNG • Can substitute oil imports • Infrastructure costs lower than • Expensive infrastructure CNG • Bulky on-board storage • Less bulky storage • Shell companies assess locally • Supplied by Shell in many whether to supply (eg. Argentina) markets for both fleet and private motorist, Shell Global Solutions 7 Fuel Options – Bio-fuels, CNG, LPG & GTL • Alternatives such as CNG, LPG and GTL have a role in the future fuel mix, but unlike bio-fuels do not provide significant GHG benefits • CNG, LPG and GTL have potential as niche fuels, especially where urban air quality is problematic • GTL combined with appropriate engine technology would offer CNG type emissions benefits at lower overall cost 5 Shell GTL (100%) Emissions benefits vs CNG CNG "Typical" Heavy-Duty Euro-III (2000) Vehicle- 4.5 SMDS SMDS with "Cat" # Buses 4 Standard Diesel 3.5 3 75-95% # SMDS with PM Traps 2.5 (CRT) & De-NOx Selective BAT 90-95% 2 Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Emissions (g/km) 90-95% 1.5 90% 1 BAT 0.5 BAT 0 PM*10 NOx/10 NMHC*10 CO Shell Global Solutions 8 Shell Gas to Liquids –Process and Products CO + 2H –(CH) – 600 MMscf/d 2 2 n 75,000 bbl/day SyngasSyngas Synthesis Hydrocracking Natural Manufacture naphtha, LPG, Gas gasoil, Power speciality O Generation + products O22 Water Water Commercially proven technology, at Bintulu, Malaysia since 1993 ….. Gasoil product • Odourless, low-toxicity, biodegradable, water-white • Paraffinic • Cetane 75-80 • Sulphur 0 ppm • Density 780 Kg/m3 • Pour Point -18C* *future Shell GTL plants Shell Global Solutions 9 Advantages of GTL Automotive Gasoil • Strategic diversification of energy supply - Gas-derived fuel • Significant emissions benefits as a blend or 100% • Compatible with existing diesel infrastructure • Life cycle analysis (PWC), GTL vs. Refinery system (DEER2002 paper) • GTL, less impact on on air acidification and smog formation • No greater impact on global warming. • “Future-Proof”. Compatible with most conceivable directions of the fuels market • More cost effective in reducing emissions than any competing fuel Shell Global Solutions 10 Bridging the gap to Renewable Transportation Fuels GTL offers a ‘seamless transition’ Future to future transport fuels/systems H2 Fuel Cells Biomass to Liquids (BTL) GTL Transport Fuel HC fuel Fuel Cells n io Diesel / Electric Hybrids sit an Tr Dedicated Vehicles with Improved efficiency Now GTL can be Improved conventional fuels used in all of these systems Shell Global Solutions 11 Copy right is vested with Shell International Gas. May not be reproduced or transmitted without prior written consent of Shell International Gas. Emissions Performance -Current “on the road” technologies We have a good idea of emissions benefits in current engine technology Summarised %benefits for 100% Shell GTL Benefit Light-Duty Heavy-Duty (%) Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro I Euro II Euro III PM 42 39 41 18 18 34↔10 NOx 10 5 5 16 15 5↔19 HC 45 63 62 13 23 <9 But…. CO 40 53 75 22 5 16 Shell Global Solutions 12 Emissions Performance -Future Challenges • Developed world is rapidly moving towards “sulfur free” diesel • E.g. <15ppm or <10ppm S • Is there a benefit of GTL over other sulfur free systems ? • Modern engine technologies with or without advanced aftertreatment are liable to make all fuels look similar • Does GTL still have an edge on emissions performance ? • Research effort and collaborations to address these issues • Collaborations with VW and Bosch on light- and heavy duty engines • Shell commission work with AVL (Austria) in Euro-4 (2000) and Euro-5 (2005) prototype heavy duty engines Shell Global Solutions 13 Emissions Performance – Collaborations with Bosch & VW 1Cyl. HD Diesel Engine, Vd approx 2l , BOSCH-SHELL Comparison of Fuels • n = 1710 rpm, load = 100%, EGR- Rate 18%, Bosch HD research engine Soot Emission inj. pressure 1800 bar configured to Euro-4 or 0,05 0,1 NOx = 3,5 g/kWh NOx = 2,0 g/kWh Euro-5 NOx limits 0,04 0,08 (Euro 4 Limit) (Euro 5 Limit) 0,03 0,06 • ESC - PM Limit Euro 4/5 100% GTL showed PM [g/kWh] 0,02 [g/kWh] 0,04 ESC - PM Limit Euro 4/5 benefits against other sulfur 0,01 0,02 0 0 free fuels Current EU Sulphur Free Sulphur Free SMDS Current EU Sulphur Free Sulphur Free SMDS 1 2 1 2 spec. Fuel Consumption VW-SHELL 210 210 205 205 [g/kWh] • Studies with prototype Euro- [g/kWh] 4 engines and cars with 200 200 Current EU Sulphur Free 1 Sulphur Free 2 SMDS Current EU Sulphur Free 1 Sulphur Free 2 SMDS 100% GTL & EU standard . diesel DS/EMF C 2967shell 23.12.2002 • PM benefits of ~50% © Alle Rechte bei Robert Bosch GmbH, auch für den Fall von Schutzrechtsanmeldungen. Jede Verfügungsbefugnis, wie Kopier- und Weitergaberecht, bei uns. • i.e. better than in earlier technologies Shell Global Solutions 14 Emissions Performance -Shell study at AVL NOx emissions comparison from prototype Euro-5 • Engines Heavy PrototypeDuty Eurodiesel 5 Heavy engine Duty Diesel Engine with with Urea Urea SCR SCR De NOx CatalystDe-NOx 2.5 catalyst • Prototype Euro-4 (2005) engine Euro 5 limit with PM trap 2 • Prototype Euro-5 (2005) engine 1.5 with SCR deNOx • Fuels NOx (g/kW.h) 1 • Blends of GTL in ULSD (50ppm S) 0.5 • 2 sulfur free fuels (<10ppm S) 0 Extrapolated NOx benefits of 100% GTL from blends Sulphur Free "A" Sulphur Free "B" ULSD ULSD + 30% Shell GTL ULSD + 70% Shell GTL yp p yp 3.5 studies in ULSD • Significant NOx benefits of GTL 3 still seen in both advanced Euro 4 ~16% benefit engine systems (Euro-4 and 2.5 Euro-5) 2 1.5 NOx (g/kW.h) Euro 5 ~26% benefit • NOx benefits of GTL blends (30 1 & 70%) when compared to 0.5 either ULSD of sulfur free fuels 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Fraction of Shell GTL Shell Global Solutions 15 Cost-effectiveness Study USA Recent independent WTW study performed by TIAX: For 2002: • GTL fuels offer significant reductions in criteria pollutants • Other gas-based fuels can achieve greater reductions (per vehicle), but the cost impact of using GTL fuels is significantly less • GTL fuels are (several times) more cost-effective for reductions in criteria pollutants For 2010: • GTL fuels will continue to be the most cost-effective option for reductions in criteria pollutants from existing engines • Emissions will be strictly controlled and all new engines will have similar emission levels, eliminating the environmental drivers for CNG / LPG • But, after-treatment technologies are in the early stages of development and new emission limits may not be achievable (without
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Fuel Policy
    The City of Ypsilanti Alternative Fuel Policy Prepared by John Sherwood Mechanic Department of Public Services ALTERNATIVE FUEL POLICY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Ypsilanti seeks to be at the forefront of the implementation of alternative fuel technology. The City’s goal is to increase the usage of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) each year as technology allows while monitoring each new technological advancement to suit the application and departmental needs. Currently, the capital costs for AFVs are greater than conventional vehicles. In addition, some alternative fuels are also more expensive than conventional unleaded or diesel fuels. It is recommended that the City purchase three types of Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) (1) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles, (2) Flex Fuel vehicles, and (3) Hybrid vehicles. If the City actively pursues these AFV options, an expanded alternative fuel infrastructure must be developed either as a city-owned facility or in partnership with other agencies in Washtenaw County. Capital improvements needed for the alternative fuel infrastructure will be costly. Although the City is not mandated by federal or state regulations to purchase alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) or use alternative fuels, considerable efforts have been made since 1999 to analyze available alternative fuel vehicle options for City use. The City has made vehicle and equipment purchasing decisions based upon operational issues, fiscal concerns and responsible environmental stewardship. When selecting AFVs, consideration is given to the end user application and their operational functions since the size and location of fuel tanks impact the storage, functionality and useful bed space of the vehicles. Other issues include availability of fuel supply, ability to refuel without long delays, driving range between fuel stops, vehicle usage by on-call staff including responding to emergency or disaster situations and the availability of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Current Status of Alternative Fuels and Vehicles
    1. INTRODUCTION Motor vehicles are the underlying source for two major global issues the United States (U.S.) faces: 1) the dependence on foreign oil from unstable political regions, and 2) the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a leading contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that affect Earth’s climate. There are 200 million drivers traveling 10 trillion vehicle miles each year in the U.S. In the Denver region alone, vehicles are driven more than 70 million miles each day. Dependence on foreign oil: A matter of U.S. Security The U.S. uses about 14.5 million barrels of oil per day for transportation (which equates to 609 million gallons) and imports more than 60% of its petroleum, two-thirds of which is used to fuel vehicles in the form of gasoline and diesel. The demand for petroleum imports is increasing and with much of the worldwide petroleum resources located in politically volatile countries, the U.S. is vulnerable to supply disruptions. Climate Change While the U.S. contains only 5% of the world’s population, it is responsible for 25% of global GHG emissions. Transportation accounts for 28% of GHG emissions in the U.S., second to electric power Figure 1 (Figure 1). It is the 2006 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions fastest growing by sector (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent) source of GHGs, Residential accounting for 47% of Commericial 5% the net increase in 6% total U.S. GHG Agriculture emissions since 1990. 8% Trends in Colorado are similar, with Electric Power electric power being 34% the lead source of Industry 19% CO2 emissions at 42%, followed by transportation at 31% Transportation (Figure 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Mini-Gtl Technology Bulletin
    MINI-GTL TECHNOLOGY BULLETIN Volume 4, January 2018 INTRODUCTION This bulletin represents a 2017 year-end review of technology and commercial developments in the emerging small-scale GTL industry. There have been comings and goings and the field is consolidating. A key highlight is the first application of a micro-GTL plant to a flare in North Dakota by GasTechno. STATE OF THE MINI-GTL INDUSTRY Only one of the 5 commercial plants currently under development came on line in 2017, namely the ENVIA Energy’s GTL plant on the Waste Management landfill in Oklahoma. The plant, partially fed with landfill gas, announced its first finished, saleable products on June 30, but has not yet reached the 250 bpd design capacity. However, they are close: on October 30, they announced achieving 200 bpd production. Unfortunately, Velocys, the technology leader and partner in the project has announced that they will focus on renewable feedstocks only, taking them out of the gas flare monetization business for the time being. The start-up of the other 4 plants (Greyrock 1, Juniper GTL, Primus 1 and Primus 2) will now happen in 2018. The new owner of Juniper GTL, York Capital, will likely target future plant sizes of more than 5000 bpd (consuming 50 MMscfd of gas), clearly outside the gas flare range. However, both Greyrock and Primus GE continue strong business development efforts in the gas flare arena. Haldor Topsoe has joined forces with Modular Plant Solutions (MPS) and has designed and engineered a small-scale methanol plant called “Methanol-To-GoTM”. The size of the plant is similar to the Primus 1 and 2 plants with a gas feed rate of 7 MMscfd versus 5 MMscfd for the Primus GE plants.
    [Show full text]
  • GTL Or LNG: Which Is the Best Way to Monetize “Stranded” Natural Gas?
    388 Pet.Sci.(2008)5:388-394 DOI 10.1007/s12182-008-0063-8 GTL or LNG: Which is the best way to monetize “stranded” natural gas? ＊ Dong Lichun, Wei Shun’an, Tan Shiyu and Zhang Hongjing School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China Abstract: A large portion of world’s natural gas reserves are “stranded” resources, the drive to monetize these resources leads to the development of gas-to-liquids (GTL) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) technologies. LNG has the advantage of having been developed for the past 40 years and having an excellent safety record. GTL on the other hand is another option with substantial benefits, but its development stage and commercial viability are far behind LNG. This paper presents a techno-economic comparison of GTL with LNG, including technical development, plant effi ciency, market potential for the products, and capital cost for the infrastructure. The aim is to give an overall view on both LNG and GTL and provide a perspective on the profi tability of these two technologies. Key words: GTL (gas to liquids), LNG (liquefi ed natural gas), “stranded” natural gas 1 Introduction LNG and GTL serve different energy markets with different marketing systems, policies and strategies. The Natural gas is playing a more and more important role comparison between LNG and GTL is the most prominent in the supply of energy for both industrial and domestic use. debate for resource owners, developers and investors The total global annual gas consumption is forecast to rise alike. Several factors have to be considered to evaluate to 4.59 trillion cubic meters by 2020 with an annual increase the project economics.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas to Liquids (GTL)
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2012 Gas to Liquids (GTL) Andrew David Hix [email protected] Mark Moore [email protected] Rachel Kendall [email protected] Rachel Svoboda [email protected] William Maningas [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the Catalysis and Reaction Engineering Commons, and the Petroleum Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Hix, Andrew David; Moore, Mark; Kendall, Rachel; Svoboda, Rachel; and Maningas, William, "Gas to Liquids (GTL)" (2012). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1492 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Process Design and Economic Analysis CBE 490 Gas to Liquids (GTL) Dr. Paul Bienkowski Written By: Group 4 Andrew Hix Mark Moore [email protected] [email protected] Rachel Kendall Rachel Svoboda [email protected] [email protected] Will Maningas [email protected] Date Submitted: May 9, 2011 Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 419 Dougherty Knoxville, TN 37996 Table of Contents List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..ii
    [Show full text]
  • Small Scale Gas Monetization Via Minigtl Options Dr
    BP GTL Plant Nikiski, Alaska 3 MMscfd of natural gas 300 bpd product Small Scale Gas Monetization via miniGTL Options Dr. Theo H Fleisch Commissioned by World Bank Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) Partnership GGFR Partnership: Sponsor of study • Problem: 5 TCF associated gas (AG) flared in 2010 − Equal to 20% of US consumption − 320MM tons of unnecessary CO2 emitted into atmosphere • Solution: Development and adoption of viable AG utilization options − Compressed natural gas (CNG) − Liquefied natural gas (miniLNG) − Gas to Wire (GTW) − Gas to Liquids (miniGTL) − Gas to Chemicals (miniGTC) GTL: Gas to Liquids – Broad Product Optionality Gas to Liquids GTL -FT Diesel Step 2: Step 3: Fischer Upgrading Naphtha Tropsch Lubes Step 1: Natural Syngas Gas to Chemicals (GTC) and Fuels Gas Manu- facture Methanol DME, Olefins, Gasoline Fuel Additives (MTBE, butanol, DMC, etc) Others (Ammonia, Urea, etc) Why GTL? • Monetize stranded/flared gas • Add value to gas (gas/oil arbitrage: $4/MMBTU to $20/MMBTU) • Value added products − Clean drop-in designer fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet, butanol) − Advanced fuels and chemicals (DME, methanol, etc) • Energy security − Reduction of imported fuels (10bcfd gas equates to 1MMbpd) − Domestic production (investments, jobs) SHELL BINTULU SASOL ORYX METHANEX/BP ATLAS SASOL SECUNDA Some historic conversion plants Pearl GTL: 1st Mega Plant 1.4bcfd gas to 140,000bpd liquid products GTL projects in the US • Past: Only North Slope gas was considered for GTL • Today: − Sasol pursues a GTL project in Lousiana − Shell
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Liquefaction
    http://uu.diva-portal.org This is an author produced version of a paper published in International journal of energy research. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Citation for the published paper: Höök, M. & Aleklett, K. ”A review on coal-to-liquid fuels and its coal consumption” International journal of energy research, 2010, Vol. 34, Issue 10: 848-864 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1596 Access to the published version may require subscription. Published in International Journal of Energy Research Volume 34, Issue 10, October 2010, Pages 848-864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1596 A review on coal to liquid fuels and its coal consumption Mikael Höök*, Kjell Aleklett* Corresponding author: [email protected], phone: +46 18-471 7643, fax: +46 18-4713513 * Uppsala University, Global Energy Systems, Department of physics and astronomy, Box 535, SE-751 21, Lägerhyddsvägen 1, Sweden, http://www.fysast.uu.se/ges Abstract Continued reliance on oil is unsustainable and this has resulted in interest in alternative fuels. Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) can supply liquid fuels and have been successfully used in several cases, particularly in South Africa. This article reviews CTL theory and technology. Understanding the fundamental aspects of coal liquefaction technologies are vital for planning and policy-making, as future CTL systems will be integrated in a much larger global energy and fuel utilization system. Conversion ratios for CTL are generally estimated to be between 1-2 barrels/ton coal. This puts a strict limitation on future CTL capacity imposed by future coal production volumes, regardless of other factors such as economics, emissions or environmental concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas-To-Liquids (GTL): a Review of an Industry Offering Several Routes for Monetizing Natural Gas David A
    1 Gas-to-Liquids (GTL): a Review of an Industry Offering Several Routes for Monetizing Natural Gas David A. Wood DWA Energy Limited, Lincoln, United Kingdom Chikezie Nwaoha Independent Researcher, Nigeria Brian F. Towler Professor and CEAS Fellow for Hydrocarbon Energy Resources, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Wyoming, USA Draft of Article published in Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering Volume 9, November 2012, Pages 196–208 Abstract Gas-to-liquids (GTL) has emerged as a commercially-viable industry over the past thirty years offering market diversification to remote natural gas resource holders. Several technologies are now available through a series of patented processes to provide liquid products that can be more easily transported than natural gas, and directed into high value transportation fuel and other petroleum product and petrochemical markets. Recent low natural gas prices prevailing in North America are stimulating interest in GTL as a means to better monetise isolated shale gas resources. This article reviews the various GTL technologies, the commercial plants in operation, development and planning, and the range of market opportunities for GTL products. The Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) technologies dominate both large-scale and small-scale projects targeting middle distillate liquid transportation fuel markets. The large technology providers have followed strategies to scale-up plants over the past decade to provide commercial economies of scale, which to date have proved to be more costly than originally forecast. On the other hand, some small-scale technology providers are now targeting GTL at efforts to eliminate associated gas flaring in remote producing oil fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Liquids
    June 14, 2013 EIA’s Proposed Definitions for Natural Gas Liquids Term Current Definition Proposed Definition Note Lease Condensate (lease condensate): A Lease condensate: Light liquid Includes lease condensate natural gas liquid recovered from hydrocarbons recovered from lease condensate as part of associated and non associated gas separators or field facilities at associated the crude oil stream, wells from lease separators or field and non-associated natural gas wells. not an NGL. facilities, reported in barrels of 42 Mostly pentanes and heavier U.S. gallons at atmospheric pressure hydrocarbons. Normally enters the crude and 60 degrees Fahrenheit. oil stream after production. Plant Plant condensate: One of the Plant condensate: Liquid hydrocarbons Adds temperature condensate natural gas liquids, mostly pentanes recovered at inlet separators or and pressure. and heavier hydrocarbons, recovered scrubbers in natural gas processing plants and separated as liquids at gas inlet at atmospheric pressure and ambient separators or scrubbers in processing temperatures. Mostly pentanes and plants. heavier hydrocarbons, equivalent to pentanes plus. Natural gas Natural gas plant liquids: Those Natural gas plant liquids (NGPL): Those Identifies ethane plant liquids hydrocarbons in natural gas that are hydrocarbons in natural gas that are separate from the (NGPL) separated as liquids at natural gas separated as liquids at natural gas LPG and includes it in processing plants, fractionating and processing plants, fractionating and NGPL. Removes cycling plants, and in some instances, cycling plants. Products obtained include isopentane, since it is field facilities. Lease condensate is ethane, liquefied petroleum gases part of pentanes excluded. Products obtained include (propane and butanes), and pentanes plus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Gas-To-Liquids and Natural Gas Production Technology Penetration on the Crude Oil-Natural Gas Price Relationship
    The Influence of Gas-to-Liquids and Natural Gas Production Technology Penetration on the Crude Oil-Natural Gas Price Relationship David J. Ramberg, Y.H. Henry Chen, Sergey Paltsev and John E. Parsons Report No. 288 December 2015 The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change combines cutting-edge scientific research with independent policy analysis to provide a solid foundation for the public and private decisions needed to mitigate and adapt to unavoidable global environmental changes. Being data-driven, the Program uses extensive Earth system and economic data and models to produce quantitative analysis and predictions of the risks of climate change and the challenges of limiting human influence on the environment—essential knowledge for the international dialogue toward a global response to climate change. To this end, the Program brings together an interdisciplinary group from two established MIT research centers: the Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR). These two centers—along with collaborators from the Marine Biology Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole and short- and long- term visitors—provide the united vision needed to solve global challenges. At the heart of much of the Program’s work lies MIT’s Integrated Global System Model. Through this integrated model, the Program seeks to: discover new interactions among natural and human climate system components; objectively assess uncertainty in economic and climate projections; critically and quantitatively analyze environmental management and policy proposals; understand complex connections among the many forces that will shape our future; and improve methods to model, monitor and verify greenhouse gas emissions and climatic impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Oxy-Esterification for Natural Gas Upgrading at The
    Zili Wu, Oak Ridge National Laboratory T. Brent Gunnoe, University of Virginia U.S. DOE Advanced Manufacturing Office Program Review Meeting Washington, D.C. June 12, 2019 This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information. Project Overview Timeline Project Start Date: 10/1/2018 Project Budget and Costs: Cost Budget Period End Date: 9/30/2019 Budget DOE Share Cost Share Total Share % Project End Date: 9/30/2021 Overall Budget $3,277,000 0 $3,277,000 0% Barriers and Challenges: Approved Budget (BP-1&2) $3,277,000 0 $3,277,000 0% • Develop alkane partial oxidations using Costs as of 3/31/19 $297,225* 0 $297,225* 0% inexpensive and air recyclable catalysts * Not up-to-date due to university invoicing • Avoid solvent oxidation • Translation of oxy-esterification process from batch reactors to flow reactors Project Team and Roles: • Zili Wu (ORNL): synthesize/characterize heterogeneous AMO MYPP Connection: catalysts and perform flow reactor evaluations • Process Intensification … "Advance • William Goddard III (Caltech): establish mechanisms using technologies that significantly improve QM-based modeling and will correlate reaction energetics industrial process productivity and energy • John T. Groves (Princeton): contribute catalyst screening efficiency through optimized molecular using low-pressure spectroscopic studies to establish molecular level kinetics, thermodynamics, and heat kinetics & product distributions as a function of catalyst and mass transfer" • T. Brent Gunnoe (U. of Virginia): provide assessment of • "Process intensification targets dramatic catalyst performance, including kinetic studies and product improvements … rethinking existing yields, in batch reactors process designs & operation schemes into • William Schinski (retired Chevron): serve as an industrial ones that are more precise and efficient." consultant and assist with process flow diagrams and process & "… helping to reduce the number of design.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Support Document: Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels
    Technical Support Document Coal-to-Liquids Products Industry Overview Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 28, 2009 Coal-to-Liquids Product Suppliers Technical Support Document Table of Contents Page 1.0. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.1. Purpose........................................................................................................1 1.2. Organization of this Report...........................................................................1 2.0. Overview of the Coal-to-Liquids Industry..................................................................1 2.1. Three Technologies......................................................................................2 2.1.1 Fischer-Tropsch (FT)....................................................................................2 2.1.2 Methanol to Gasoline (MTG)........................................................................5 2.1.3 Direct Liquefaction.......................................................................................5 2.1.4 Products.......................................................................................................7 3.0. Plants......................................................................................................................8 3.1. Existing Plants..............................................................................................8
    [Show full text]