Monday, July 4, 2011
2011/06/27: Portable gas-to-liquid plant promises to turn stranded gas to diesel or jet fuel
By Paul Wiseman
Midland Reporter-Telegram | Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:44 pm
According to an April 2011 GE study approximately 5 percent of the world's natural gas production is wasted by flaring each year. This amount is equal to 23 percent of the total yearly natural gas consumption in the U.S.
Flaring emits 400 million metric tons of CO2 annually without any positive tradeoff such as electricity production. Those figures do not address the amount of natural gas that is simply vented into the atmosphere.
A partnership between 1st Resource Group, Inc. of Fort Worth and the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) has led to the design of a portable conversion unit that will transform natural gas into clean-burning synthetic fuels. This fuel can be blended with either jet fuel or diesel at a refinery or by a jobber.
"This technology, a lot of it, is in the public domain," said Fred McDonnell, associate chair and professor of UTA's chemistry and biochemistry department. The basis of the technology is the Fischer-Tropsch process invented in Germany in the 1920s. Germany, being oil-poor and coal-rich, needed a process to convert gasified coal into vehicle fuel. Both the Nazis and the Japanese used F-T extensively to fuel their military vehicles in World War II.
The process usually involves large-scale plants requiring capital expenditures in the billions of dollars and turning out 30,000-100,000 bbl/day, according to McDonnell. The challenge presented by 1st Resource was to miniaturize both the plant footprint and the cost in order to make it useful for turning stranded gas into something that could be delivered to market instead of to the flaring tip.
As developed by UTA in partnership with 1st Resource, the "portable" version can be loaded into several 40-foot shipping containers and delivered to a well site. Once set up the equipment takes up an acre or a little more depending upon the nature of the terrain. The plant would turn out 500 bbl/day of fuel using 10 mcf of natural gas to produce each barrel, according to McDonnell. The plant will use 32 percent of its feedstock in "heat cost," the energy required to operate. The finished product will then be loaded into tanker trucks for delivery.
According to Clyde Pittman, director of corporate planning for 1st Resource, the company is expecting feedstock costs to be less than Henry Hub prices because, as stranded gas, it is worth less than it would be on the open market. However, 1st Resource is budgeting the process based on hub prices in order to allow some leeway in the bottom line.
McDonnell noted the gas-to-liquids (GTL) process requires oil prices of $70-$100/bbl to be competitive. "If oil were at $40/bbl, this would not be profitable," he said.
Because the process's end product is "too pure" to be put directly into a fuel tank because it has none of the required additives, Pittman said, it will be primarily used as a blend in either jet or diesel fuel. Diesel is heavier than jet fuel and the typical GTL product will be somewhere in between. Its advantage in diesel is that it has no sulfur content, making it environmentally friendly.
If the end product of a particular plant is always going to end up mixed with either diesel or jet fuel, said Pittman, the plant's operators can tweak the process to nudge it toward the appropriate weight. "We would be able, within a limited spectrum, to move the molecular population over toward the jet side or toward the diesel side," he said. Normally, however, the plant would put out a standard fuel that would be blended either way at the refinery.
End users, those who would burn the fuel in vehicles, have shown the greatest interest in the procedure, due to cost and purity of the product. They can arrange with refiners for the processing of the fuel, Pittman explained. "What this can do is, at a very reasonable price, elevate the quality of the fuel. For example, if you have D2 as one blend stock and you have our fuel as the other one, you can combine those and make something that is superior, even D5. Remember, we're a zero-sulfur fuel."
Currently, the only working model is in the lab at UTA. The first "live" plant is expected to be in operation by the end of 2011. Each plant will be operated as a partnership between 1st Resource and the producer, rather than being sold to that producer. Pittman explained that the complexity of the operation, requiring oversight by engineers and hands-on supervision by other highly-trained personnel, makes it imperative that his company maintain control of the process.
With so much stranded gas being flared or vented, Pittman reported that interest in the portable GTL plant has been incredible, especially since the process has only been recently announced. "We have had interest from every continent in the world except Antarctica." Inquiries have come in from both producers and end users.
UMED Holdings, Inc., is helping 1st Resource with the commercialization process. UMED's CEO, Kevin Bentley, said his company has had no shortage of parties interested in being the first to test the procedure. "We are looking for a 10-acre pad site. We have between 100 and 200 possible sites picked out. Now we just have to decide which is the right one to start with."
He added the options for producers and for marketing are practically limitless and that, unlike gas exploration, the portable GTL process will never involve a dry hole-it will always be productive. If a field begins to run dry, the plant can be packed up in those 40-foot containers and shipped to a more productive field.
With the world beating a path to the door of 1st Resources, the portable GTL process would seem to be the "better mousetrap." How 1st Resource came to team up with UTA will be discussed next week.
By Paul Wiseman
Midland Reporter-Telegram | Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:44 pm
According to an April 2011 GE study approximately 5 percent of the world's natural gas production is wasted by flaring each year. This amount is equal to 23 percent of the total yearly natural gas consumption in the U.S.
Flaring emits 400 million metric tons of CO2 annually without any positive tradeoff such as electricity production. Those figures do not address the amount of natural gas that is simply vented into the atmosphere.
A partnership between 1st Resource Group, Inc. of Fort Worth and the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) has led to the design of a portable conversion unit that will transform natural gas into clean-burning synthetic fuels. This fuel can be blended with either jet fuel or diesel at a refinery or by a jobber.
"This technology, a lot of it, is in the public domain," said Fred McDonnell, associate chair and professor of UTA's chemistry and biochemistry department. The basis of the technology is the Fischer-Tropsch process invented in Germany in the 1920s. Germany, being oil-poor and coal-rich, needed a process to convert gasified coal into vehicle fuel. Both the Nazis and the Japanese used F-T extensively to fuel their military vehicles in World War II.
The process usually involves large-scale plants requiring capital expenditures in the billions of dollars and turning out 30,000-100,000 bbl/day, according to McDonnell. The challenge presented by 1st Resource was to miniaturize both the plant footprint and the cost in order to make it useful for turning stranded gas into something that could be delivered to market instead of to the flaring tip.
As developed by UTA in partnership with 1st Resource, the "portable" version can be loaded into several 40-foot shipping containers and delivered to a well site. Once set up the equipment takes up an acre or a little more depending upon the nature of the terrain. The plant would turn out 500 bbl/day of fuel using 10 mcf of natural gas to produce each barrel, according to McDonnell. The plant will use 32 percent of its feedstock in "heat cost," the energy required to operate. The finished product will then be loaded into tanker trucks for delivery.
According to Clyde Pittman, director of corporate planning for 1st Resource, the company is expecting feedstock costs to be less than Henry Hub prices because, as stranded gas, it is worth less than it would be on the open market. However, 1st Resource is budgeting the process based on hub prices in order to allow some leeway in the bottom line.
McDonnell noted the gas-to-liquids (GTL) process requires oil prices of $70-$100/bbl to be competitive. "If oil were at $40/bbl, this would not be profitable," he said.
Because the process's end product is "too pure" to be put directly into a fuel tank because it has none of the required additives, Pittman said, it will be primarily used as a blend in either jet or diesel fuel. Diesel is heavier than jet fuel and the typical GTL product will be somewhere in between. Its advantage in diesel is that it has no sulfur content, making it environmentally friendly.
If the end product of a particular plant is always going to end up mixed with either diesel or jet fuel, said Pittman, the plant's operators can tweak the process to nudge it toward the appropriate weight. "We would be able, within a limited spectrum, to move the molecular population over toward the jet side or toward the diesel side," he said. Normally, however, the plant would put out a standard fuel that would be blended either way at the refinery.
End users, those who would burn the fuel in vehicles, have shown the greatest interest in the procedure, due to cost and purity of the product. They can arrange with refiners for the processing of the fuel, Pittman explained. "What this can do is, at a very reasonable price, elevate the quality of the fuel. For example, if you have D2 as one blend stock and you have our fuel as the other one, you can combine those and make something that is superior, even D5. Remember, we're a zero-sulfur fuel."
Currently, the only working model is in the lab at UTA. The first "live" plant is expected to be in operation by the end of 2011. Each plant will be operated as a partnership between 1st Resource and the producer, rather than being sold to that producer. Pittman explained that the complexity of the operation, requiring oversight by engineers and hands-on supervision by other highly-trained personnel, makes it imperative that his company maintain control of the process.
With so much stranded gas being flared or vented, Pittman reported that interest in the portable GTL plant has been incredible, especially since the process has only been recently announced. "We have had interest from every continent in the world except Antarctica." Inquiries have come in from both producers and end users.
UMED Holdings, Inc., is helping 1st Resource with the commercialization process. UMED's CEO, Kevin Bentley, said his company has had no shortage of parties interested in being the first to test the procedure. "We are looking for a 10-acre pad site. We have between 100 and 200 possible sites picked out. Now we just have to decide which is the right one to start with."
He added the options for producers and for marketing are practically limitless and that, unlike gas exploration, the portable GTL process will never involve a dry hole-it will always be productive. If a field begins to run dry, the plant can be packed up in those 40-foot containers and shipped to a more productive field.
With the world beating a path to the door of 1st Resources, the portable GTL process would seem to be the "better mousetrap." How 1st Resource came to team up with UTA will be discussed next week.
http://umedholdings.com/news/18-20110610-uta-fw-co-build-natural-gas-fuel-converter
2011/06/10: UTA, FW co. build natural gas fuel converter
Dallas Business Journal – by Matt Joyce, Staff Writer
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011
A fledgling Fort Worth energy company and the University of Texas at Arlington have plans for a new natural gas-to-liquid conversion process they say could change the global energy landscape.
UT-Arlington recently announced a licensing agreement with 1st Resource Group Inc. to commercialize the converter. 1st Resource Group aims to begin selling the portable converters within a year, said President and CEO Douglas McKinnon.
The standard converter unit would be capable of producing up to 500 barrels a day of the synthetic diesel jet-fuel mix. McKinnon wouldn't say how much the end product would cost, but said it would be cheaper than a barrel of crude oil.
The project could have broad implications, backers say, including new markets for the natural gas industry, cheaper sources of diesel and jet fuel for uses like trucking companies and airlines and a reduction in the nation's dependence on foreign oil for transportation fuel.
“It will offer the opportunity for natural gas companies to drill more wells,” said Gary Fewell, chief operations officer for 1st Resource Group. “They're sitting on tons of acreage, and there's no reason for them to drill right now. There's a glut on the market.”
Potential natural gas sources for the conversion units could be stranded gas, flared gas from landfills or plants and vented gas, 1st Resources Group said.
High fuel prices have been a major concern for the nation's airline and shipping industries.
Fort Worth-based American Airlines (NYSE: AMR) generally supports the advancement of technologies related to alternative fuels, said Andrea Huguely, a spokewoman for the airline. Huguely did not comment specifically on the UT-Arlington and 1st Resource Group project.
Some of the principals of 1st Resource Group approached UT-Arlington to sponsor research into gas-to-liquid conversion a couple of years ago.
When it proved successful, UT-Arlington licensed the technology to 1st Resource Group to commercialize the process, said Ron Elsenbaumer, the university's vice president for research and federal relations. Neither party would release details of the sponsorship, the licensing agreement or the royalty payments the university will receive if the converters make money.
1st Resource Group will own and operate the units, which will cost $22.5 million each, Fewell said. The company has contracted an engineering firm to work on the design, installation and oversight of the units. Fewell would not identify the company.
Fewell said 1st Resource Group will use local machine shops and fabricators to assemble the components of the converters. Each converter will require a full-time staff of 14 people to handle maintenance and other jobs on side, he said.
UMED Holdings Inc., a Fort Worth-based public company that trades on the pink sheets under the symbol UMED.PK, is financing the commercialization of the converter. Ric Halden, UMED's president, said project developers have met with “large oil and gas exploration companies” to join them in developing the conversion units. He wouldn't disclose the companies.
“We hope to build a thousand units in the next couple of years,” Halden said. “It will be an ongoing process, and we'll have to take on some partners.”
UT-Arlington's conversion process is a variation on a process that's been around for nearly a hundred years. Fred MacDonnell, associate chair of chemistry and biochemistry, said the challenge was developing a process that could be done on a smaller and cheaper scale.
“What we discovered and what we worked on patenting was that you could get a very nice product distribution – predominantly a jet and diesel mixture – when you do the process the way we're doing it,” MacDonnell said.
2011/06/10: UTA, FW co. build natural gas fuel converter
Dallas Business Journal – by Matt Joyce, Staff Writer
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011
A fledgling Fort Worth energy company and the University of Texas at Arlington have plans for a new natural gas-to-liquid conversion process they say could change the global energy landscape.
UT-Arlington recently announced a licensing agreement with 1st Resource Group Inc. to commercialize the converter. 1st Resource Group aims to begin selling the portable converters within a year, said President and CEO Douglas McKinnon.
The standard converter unit would be capable of producing up to 500 barrels a day of the synthetic diesel jet-fuel mix. McKinnon wouldn't say how much the end product would cost, but said it would be cheaper than a barrel of crude oil.
The project could have broad implications, backers say, including new markets for the natural gas industry, cheaper sources of diesel and jet fuel for uses like trucking companies and airlines and a reduction in the nation's dependence on foreign oil for transportation fuel.
“It will offer the opportunity for natural gas companies to drill more wells,” said Gary Fewell, chief operations officer for 1st Resource Group. “They're sitting on tons of acreage, and there's no reason for them to drill right now. There's a glut on the market.”
Potential natural gas sources for the conversion units could be stranded gas, flared gas from landfills or plants and vented gas, 1st Resources Group said.
High fuel prices have been a major concern for the nation's airline and shipping industries.
Fort Worth-based American Airlines (NYSE: AMR) generally supports the advancement of technologies related to alternative fuels, said Andrea Huguely, a spokewoman for the airline. Huguely did not comment specifically on the UT-Arlington and 1st Resource Group project.
Some of the principals of 1st Resource Group approached UT-Arlington to sponsor research into gas-to-liquid conversion a couple of years ago.
When it proved successful, UT-Arlington licensed the technology to 1st Resource Group to commercialize the process, said Ron Elsenbaumer, the university's vice president for research and federal relations. Neither party would release details of the sponsorship, the licensing agreement or the royalty payments the university will receive if the converters make money.
1st Resource Group will own and operate the units, which will cost $22.5 million each, Fewell said. The company has contracted an engineering firm to work on the design, installation and oversight of the units. Fewell would not identify the company.
Fewell said 1st Resource Group will use local machine shops and fabricators to assemble the components of the converters. Each converter will require a full-time staff of 14 people to handle maintenance and other jobs on side, he said.
UMED Holdings Inc., a Fort Worth-based public company that trades on the pink sheets under the symbol UMED.PK, is financing the commercialization of the converter. Ric Halden, UMED's president, said project developers have met with “large oil and gas exploration companies” to join them in developing the conversion units. He wouldn't disclose the companies.
“We hope to build a thousand units in the next couple of years,” Halden said. “It will be an ongoing process, and we'll have to take on some partners.”
UT-Arlington's conversion process is a variation on a process that's been around for nearly a hundred years. Fred MacDonnell, associate chair of chemistry and biochemistry, said the challenge was developing a process that could be done on a smaller and cheaper scale.
“What we discovered and what we worked on patenting was that you could get a very nice product distribution – predominantly a jet and diesel mixture – when you do the process the way we're doing it,” MacDonnell said.
http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/researchmagazine/2009/departments/bytes/energy.php
Energy revolution
$1 million in federal funding boosts research on alternative fuels
Mention the possibility of $30-a-barrel oil and most people will jump on the idea. Likewise, consider those millions of tons of harmful carbon dioxide spewing from industrial plants and ponder whether the emissions could be converted to an affordable hydrocarbon fuel.
Those and other ideas being researched at UT Arlington’s Center for Renewable Energy Science and Technology (CREST) are so intriguing that the U.S. Department of Energy will provide $1 million in funding this academic year.
So what about that $30 oil?
Chemistry Professor Krishnan Rajeshwar is co-director of the Center for Renewable Energy Science and Technology. The center developed a microrefinery process that converts non-food vegetable oils to biodiesel.
“It’s really a synthetic oil, the equivalent of heavy crude, made from Texas lignite,” says Richard Billo, associate dean of engineering research and CREST co-director.
Although oil is a diminishing commodity with the biggest reserves in other countries, Texas is estimated to have more than a 200-year supply of lignite coal. Supplies elsewhere in the world are also vast. Problem is, your car doesn’t burn coal. It uses fuel refined from petroleum crude. Oil.
While coal is also a hydrocarbon, it isn’t liquid. But it can be converted to a liquid, the equivalent of heavy crude oil, then transported to and refined in existing Texas refineries. The resulting gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are then distributed within a vast existing infrastructure—something not currently possible with, say, a transition to hydrogen fuel.
The Germans successfully converted coal to synthetic oil in World War II using the Fischer-Tropsch process, notes Krishnan Rajeshwar, associate dean of the College of Science and CREST co-director. But even with modern methods, Fischer-Tropsch is still expensive, which is why CREST continues to research an alternative fuel technology using microfluidics.
Drs. Rajeshwar and Billo are convinced that a microfluidic reactor can convert coal to synthetic oil at a fraction of the cost of the German technology. Billo says microrefineries built at a low cost can produce large amounts of synthetic oil in a fraction of the time of existing Fischer-Tropsch refining processes.
“The exciting work being done by researchers in the colleges of Engineering and Science to turn coal into oil could revolutionize the way we generate energy in this country.”
Indeed, a similar microrefinery process that converts non-food vegetable oils to biodiesel fuel patented by UT Arlington researchers will be used commercially for the first time in 2009. It reduces from 90 minutes to four minutes the time needed to refine biodiesel fuel.
“I estimate a microrefinery would produce as much crude as a factory built along the competing Fischer-Tropsch technology for about 20 percent of the capital cost of construction,” Billo says. “The technology has come so far that the main area of research involves study of the appropriate catalysts and how to use them.”
A fascinating component of the proposed technology is that it also provides possibilities related to oil-rich shales and tar sands in the Rocky Mountain states, Canada and elsewhere in the world.
“There’s a trillion barrels of oil just in the shales of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado,” Rajeshwar says. “The same process will work with shale, absolutely.”
Such talk impresses U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who initially convinced the team to extend its successful research in the biodiesel microrefinery process to the conversion of Texas lignite to crude.
“We can keep oil and gasoline prices consumer-friendly if we use and support developing technology to unlock energy supplies here at home,” Barton says. “UT Arlington is playing a big role in this process. The exciting work being done by researchers in the colleges of Engineering and Science to turn coal into oil could revolutionize the way we generate energy in this country.”
Barton points out that Texas has large reserves of lignite coal and says that transforming it into oil would lower the price of gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum-based products.
“It only makes sense to convert Texas coal to oil at a cost of $30 a barrel, instead of importing it from Saudi Arabia at a much higher cost,” he says. “I’m really encouraging Professor Billo to continue to make connections with those in the coal industry.”
Though refining the technology for converting coal and oil shales to oil is a CREST priority, converting smokestack carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon fuels is also high on the research list.
“The idea that we can dispose of massive quantities of greenhouse gases like CO2 by piping them underground or into the oceans is not very practical,” Rajeshwar says. Better to capture carbon dioxide at power plants and cement plants, convert it to carbon monoxide and then add hydrogen from a renewable source like the water trapped inside lignite coal to make what’s called syngas.
“What’s produced is a liquid hydrocarbon fuel—synthetic oil—from which we can then make any conventional fuel, like gasoline or diesel,” Rajeshwar says. “The oil produced is very similar to that produced from coal.”
These are not the only ideas making the rounds at CREST. Others abound but are not as advanced.
“This is not hypothetical academia,” Billo says. “What we’re doing here is producing real solutions to this country acquiring sustainable and affordable energy.”
Energy revolution
$1 million in federal funding boosts research on alternative fuels
Mention the possibility of $30-a-barrel oil and most people will jump on the idea. Likewise, consider those millions of tons of harmful carbon dioxide spewing from industrial plants and ponder whether the emissions could be converted to an affordable hydrocarbon fuel.
Those and other ideas being researched at UT Arlington’s Center for Renewable Energy Science and Technology (CREST) are so intriguing that the U.S. Department of Energy will provide $1 million in funding this academic year.
So what about that $30 oil?
Chemistry Professor Krishnan Rajeshwar is co-director of the Center for Renewable Energy Science and Technology. The center developed a microrefinery process that converts non-food vegetable oils to biodiesel.
“It’s really a synthetic oil, the equivalent of heavy crude, made from Texas lignite,” says Richard Billo, associate dean of engineering research and CREST co-director.
Although oil is a diminishing commodity with the biggest reserves in other countries, Texas is estimated to have more than a 200-year supply of lignite coal. Supplies elsewhere in the world are also vast. Problem is, your car doesn’t burn coal. It uses fuel refined from petroleum crude. Oil.
While coal is also a hydrocarbon, it isn’t liquid. But it can be converted to a liquid, the equivalent of heavy crude oil, then transported to and refined in existing Texas refineries. The resulting gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are then distributed within a vast existing infrastructure—something not currently possible with, say, a transition to hydrogen fuel.
The Germans successfully converted coal to synthetic oil in World War II using the Fischer-Tropsch process, notes Krishnan Rajeshwar, associate dean of the College of Science and CREST co-director. But even with modern methods, Fischer-Tropsch is still expensive, which is why CREST continues to research an alternative fuel technology using microfluidics.
Drs. Rajeshwar and Billo are convinced that a microfluidic reactor can convert coal to synthetic oil at a fraction of the cost of the German technology. Billo says microrefineries built at a low cost can produce large amounts of synthetic oil in a fraction of the time of existing Fischer-Tropsch refining processes.
“The exciting work being done by researchers in the colleges of Engineering and Science to turn coal into oil could revolutionize the way we generate energy in this country.”
Indeed, a similar microrefinery process that converts non-food vegetable oils to biodiesel fuel patented by UT Arlington researchers will be used commercially for the first time in 2009. It reduces from 90 minutes to four minutes the time needed to refine biodiesel fuel.
“I estimate a microrefinery would produce as much crude as a factory built along the competing Fischer-Tropsch technology for about 20 percent of the capital cost of construction,” Billo says. “The technology has come so far that the main area of research involves study of the appropriate catalysts and how to use them.”
A fascinating component of the proposed technology is that it also provides possibilities related to oil-rich shales and tar sands in the Rocky Mountain states, Canada and elsewhere in the world.
“There’s a trillion barrels of oil just in the shales of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado,” Rajeshwar says. “The same process will work with shale, absolutely.”
Such talk impresses U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who initially convinced the team to extend its successful research in the biodiesel microrefinery process to the conversion of Texas lignite to crude.
“We can keep oil and gasoline prices consumer-friendly if we use and support developing technology to unlock energy supplies here at home,” Barton says. “UT Arlington is playing a big role in this process. The exciting work being done by researchers in the colleges of Engineering and Science to turn coal into oil could revolutionize the way we generate energy in this country.”
Barton points out that Texas has large reserves of lignite coal and says that transforming it into oil would lower the price of gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum-based products.
“It only makes sense to convert Texas coal to oil at a cost of $30 a barrel, instead of importing it from Saudi Arabia at a much higher cost,” he says. “I’m really encouraging Professor Billo to continue to make connections with those in the coal industry.”
Though refining the technology for converting coal and oil shales to oil is a CREST priority, converting smokestack carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon fuels is also high on the research list.
“The idea that we can dispose of massive quantities of greenhouse gases like CO2 by piping them underground or into the oceans is not very practical,” Rajeshwar says. Better to capture carbon dioxide at power plants and cement plants, convert it to carbon monoxide and then add hydrogen from a renewable source like the water trapped inside lignite coal to make what’s called syngas.
“What’s produced is a liquid hydrocarbon fuel—synthetic oil—from which we can then make any conventional fuel, like gasoline or diesel,” Rajeshwar says. “The oil produced is very similar to that produced from coal.”
These are not the only ideas making the rounds at CREST. Others abound but are not as advanced.
“This is not hypothetical academia,” Billo says. “What we’re doing here is producing real solutions to this country acquiring sustainable and affordable energy.”
Saturday, July 2, 2011
http://www.oilpatchreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101:quantex-targets-coal-to-liquids-at-less-than-50-per-barrel&catid=65:technology
Gordon Eberth, COO of Quantex Energy Inc., admits that his company’s coal-to-liquids (CTL) process seems too good to be true. Could there really be a CTL technology that converts low-grade raw coal to synthetic crude and high-value green coke at a break-even operating cost under US$50 per barrel? A conversion process that generates less CO2 per barrel than Arab light crude?
“Yes, it’s true - almost for sure,” says Eberth with a grin. “We’ve proven the technology in the lab, producing about one barrel per day. That’s a larger bench test than usual. We’re about to do the detailed engineering for a pilot plant producing up to 150 barrels per day [b/d] at Beaumont, Texas. The next move will be a series of reactors, each 1,000 b/d, which can be scaled up progressively to form a commercial plant with a capacity of 20,000 b/d or more. The commercial operation could launch as early as 2013/1024.
Gordon Eberth, COO of Quantex Energy Inc., admits that his company’s coal-to-liquids (CTL) process seems too good to be true. Could there really be a CTL technology that converts low-grade raw coal to synthetic crude and high-value green coke at a break-even operating cost under US$50 per barrel? A conversion process that generates less CO2 per barrel than Arab light crude?
“Yes, it’s true - almost for sure,” says Eberth with a grin. “We’ve proven the technology in the lab, producing about one barrel per day. That’s a larger bench test than usual. We’re about to do the detailed engineering for a pilot plant producing up to 150 barrels per day [b/d] at Beaumont, Texas. The next move will be a series of reactors, each 1,000 b/d, which can be scaled up progressively to form a commercial plant with a capacity of 20,000 b/d or more. The commercial operation could launch as early as 2013/1024.
http://www.wvcoal.com/Research-Development/pittsburghs-gulf-oil-liquefies-and-gasifies-more-coal.html
United States Patent: 4159237
We've previously cited the former Gulf Oil Corporation's Coal scientist, Bruce Schmid, who worked for Gulf's Pittsburg (KS) and Midway Mining subsidiary, at least half a dozen times, in the course of documenting the extensive Coal conversion and liquefaction technology that had been developed and become owned, but left unused, by a one-time major player on Big Oil's roster.
We insert, and append, reference links to some of those past reports along with the two additional Gulf Oil Coal conversion technologies we submit herein, especially since some of the disclosed processes are closely-related to, even integral with, our present subjects.
We regret that we couldn't earlier have provided a more logical and coherent summation of Schmid's Coal conversion work for Gulf Oil. But, that defect in our reportage is reflective, we think, not just of our own significant impairments and inadequacies, but, as well, of the seemingly-deliberate way in which the bits of information, which would have long ago led our nation into an era of liquid fuel self-sufficiency based on Coal, have been left scattered and dispersed in the field, neither harvested nor utilized.
Again, with comment and additional links inserted and appended:
"United States Patent 4,149,237 - Coal Liquefaction Process Employing Fuel from a Combined Gasifier
Date: June, 1979
Inventor: Bruce Schmid, Denver, CO
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA
Abstract: Conversion of raw coal to distillate liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon products by solvent liquefaction in the presence of molecular hydrogen employing recycle of mineral residue is commonly performed at a higher thermal efficiency than conversion of coal to pipeline gas in a gasification process employing partial oxidation and methanation reactions. The prior art has disclosed a combination coal liquefaction-gasification process employing recycle of mineral residue to the liquefaction zone wherein all the normally solid dissolved coal produced in the liquefaction zone is passed to a gasification zone for conversion to hydrogen, where the amount of normally solid dissolved coal passed to the gasification zone is just sufficient to enable the gasification zone to produce the process hydrogen requirement. An unexpected improvement in the thermal efficiency of the combination process is achieved by increasing the amount of normally solid dissolved coal prepared in the liquefaction zone and passed to the gasification zone to enable the gasification zone to generate not only all of the hydrogen required by the liquefaction zone but also to produce excess synthesis gas for use as process fuel. The gasification zone operates with steam and oxygen injection rates resulting in elevated temperatures in the range 2,200. to 2,600F. which enhance thermal efficiency by accomplishing nearly complete oxidation of carbonaceous feed. These high temperatures produce a synthesis gas relatively richer in CO than H2. Because the synthesis gas is utilized as fuel, hydrogen can be recovered from the synthesis gas without degrading the value of the remaining CO-concentrated stream, since the combustion heating value of a concentrated CO stream is about the same as that of an H2 -rich synthesis gas."
-------------
We'll leave our excerpts at that, so we can call attention to the fact that this is yet another process for the liquefaction of Coal wherein no external source of power is required. Any needed energy can be had by separating and combusting some of the produced Carbon Monoxide; which, thus leaves a Hydrogen-enriched synthesis gas and reduces the need, and cost, of either importing Hydrogen from an independent and separate source into the system, or, of providing for the, perhaps, more expensive Steam-gasification of Coal to ensure that adequate quantities of Hydrogen are available.
And, it is not just closely-similar and related to another Gulf CoalTL technology we earlier reported, but was, clearly, developed and almost coincident with:
Pittsburgh's Gulf Oil Liquefies & Gasifies Coal | Research & Development; which discloses: "United States Patent 4,159,236 - Combining Coal Liquefaction and Gasification; June, 1979; Inventor: Bruce Schmid, Denver; Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh; Abstract: The prior art has disclosed a combination coal liquefaction-gasification process wherein ... the gasification zone (produces) the exact hydrogen requirement of the (total) process."
Again, note: Not only do these combined Coal conversion technologies provide for all of their own internal energy requirements, but, there is no need to import expensive Hydrogen. Aside from inputs of Coal and Water, they are virtually self-sufficient.
In any case, several years following issuance of those nearly-coincident US Patents, yet another was awarded to Schmid, with assignment of rights to Gulf Oil, for what might have been seen as even further improvements on the art disclosed by them, as in:
"United States Patent: 4322389 - Integrated Coal Liquefaction-Gasification Plant
Date: March, 1982
Inventor: Bruce Schmid, Denver
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh
Abstract: Conversion of raw coal to distillate liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon products by solvent liquefaction in the presence of molecular hydrogen employing recycle of mineral residue is commonly performed at a higher thermal efficiency than conversion of coal to pipeline gas in a gasification process employing partial oxidation and methanation reactions. The prior art has disclosed a combination coal liquefaction-gasification plant employing recycle of mineral residue to the liquefaction zone wherein all the normally solid dissolved coal not converted to liquid or gaseous products in the liquefaction zone is passed to a gasification zone for conversion to hydrogen. In the prior art plant the amount of normally solid dissolved coal passed to the gasification zone is just sufficient to enable the gasification zone to produce the entire process hydrogen requirement. An unexpected improvement in thermal efficiency has now been achieved by increasing the amount of normally solid dissolved coal from the liquefaction zone and passed to the gasification zone to an amount sufficient to enable the gasification zone to generate not only all of the hydrogen required by the liquefaction zone but also to produce synthesis gas, and adapting the plant to utilize all or a significant amount of this synthesis gas as fuel in the plant.
This invention relates to a plant wherein coal liquefaction and oxidiation gasification operations are combined synergistically to provide an elevated thermal efficiency. The coal feed to the plant can comprise bituminous or subbituminous coals or lignites.
The liquefaction zone of the plant of the present invention provides for the performance of an endothermic preheating step and an exothermic dissolving step. The temperature in the dissolver is higher than the maximum preheater temperature because of the hydrogenation and hydrocracking reactions occurring in the dissolver. Residue slurry from the dissolver or from any other place in the process containing liquid and normally solid dissolved coal and suspended mineral residue is recirculated through the preheater and dissolver steps. Gaseous hydrocarbons and liquid hydrocarbonaceous distillate are recovered from the liquefaction zone product separation system."
---------------
Again, and in sum: The gist of these Gulf Oil processes seems to be that both hydrocarbon gases and hydrocarbon "distillate"-type liquids can be made from Coal in a combined process wherein "the gasification zone" can be made so productive that it can "generate not only all of the hydrogen required by the liquefaction zone but", the "synthesis gas", some of which is burned for fuel, but some of which is directed to "the liquefaction zone" for conversion into "distillate liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon products".
We included, above, reference to only one of our prior reports concerning the Coal conversion science developed by Bruce Schmid, and his immediate colleagues, for Gulf Oil; but, following, with even more comment appended, but with no attempt at order, is a catalogue of at least some of the others:
Pittsburgh's Gulf Oil Patents CoalTL | Research & Development: "United States Patent 4,222, 845 - Integrated Coal Liquefaction-Gasification-Naptha Reforming Process; 1980; Inventor: Bruce Schmid;
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA".
Pittsburgh's Gulf Oil Improves CoalTL Efficiency | Research & Development; "US Patent 4,222,846 - Coal Liquefaction-Gasification ... Including Reforming of Naptha; 1980; Inventor: Bruce Schmid; Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh".
Gulf Oil Improves Coal Liquefaction | Research & Development: "United States Patent 4,230,556 - Integrated Coal Liquefaction-Gasification Process; 1980; Inventors: Norman Carr and Bruce Schmid; Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh".
Gulf Oil H2 for Coal Hydrogenation & Liquefaction | Research & Development: "United States Patent 4,159,237 - Coal Liquefaction Process Employing ... A Combined Gasifier; 1979; Inventor: Bruce Schmid;
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh".
More US Gov & Gulf Oil 1974 CoalTL | Research & Development: "United States Patent 3808119 - Process for Refining Carbonaceous Fuels; 1974; Inventors: Willard Bull and Bruce Schmid; Assignee: Pittsburg and Midway Mining Company (Subsidiary of Gulf Oil) and, the United States of America".
Those, please note, are in addition to other Gulf Oil Coal conversion technologies we have documented as having been developed by other of their scientists; and, there are more Gulf Oil Coal conversion patents attributed to Bruce Schmid, and to some of his colleagues, and to some of his predecessors, which we haven't yet addressed.
The point is, that, in a way similar to the nearly-vast body of Coal conversion technology which was, as we've extensively documented, developed for our local Consolidation Coal Company, Consol, by their very accomplished, award-winning scientist, Everett Gorin, we have, or at one time had, concentrated in one of the very hearts of US Coal Country, a complete and comprehensive body of practical science which would long ago have enabled us to, cleanly and efficiently, start converting our abundant domestic Coal into the liquid hydrocarbon fuels we have, in the decades since, allowed our domestic economy, and our own citizens, to be extorted for the supply of from, largely unfriendly, foreign OPEC powers.
Isn't anyone of stature, anywhere, going to finally stand up and say: "Enough is enough!"?
United States Patent: 4159237
We've previously cited the former Gulf Oil Corporation's Coal scientist, Bruce Schmid, who worked for Gulf's Pittsburg (KS) and Midway Mining subsidiary, at least half a dozen times, in the course of documenting the extensive Coal conversion and liquefaction technology that had been developed and become owned, but left unused, by a one-time major player on Big Oil's roster.
We insert, and append, reference links to some of those past reports along with the two additional Gulf Oil Coal conversion technologies we submit herein, especially since some of the disclosed processes are closely-related to, even integral with, our present subjects.
We regret that we couldn't earlier have provided a more logical and coherent summation of Schmid's Coal conversion work for Gulf Oil. But, that defect in our reportage is reflective, we think, not just of our own significant impairments and inadequacies, but, as well, of the seemingly-deliberate way in which the bits of information, which would have long ago led our nation into an era of liquid fuel self-sufficiency based on Coal, have been left scattered and dispersed in the field, neither harvested nor utilized.
Again, with comment and additional links inserted and appended:
"United States Patent 4,149,237 - Coal Liquefaction Process Employing Fuel from a Combined Gasifier
Date: June, 1979
Inventor: Bruce Schmid, Denver, CO
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA
Abstract: Conversion of raw coal to distillate liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon products by solvent liquefaction in the presence of molecular hydrogen employing recycle of mineral residue is commonly performed at a higher thermal efficiency than conversion of coal to pipeline gas in a gasification process employing partial oxidation and methanation reactions. The prior art has disclosed a combination coal liquefaction-gasification process employing recycle of mineral residue to the liquefaction zone wherein all the normally solid dissolved coal produced in the liquefaction zone is passed to a gasification zone for conversion to hydrogen, where the amount of normally solid dissolved coal passed to the gasification zone is just sufficient to enable the gasification zone to produce the process hydrogen requirement. An unexpected improvement in the thermal efficiency of the combination process is achieved by increasing the amount of normally solid dissolved coal prepared in the liquefaction zone and passed to the gasification zone to enable the gasification zone to generate not only all of the hydrogen required by the liquefaction zone but also to produce excess synthesis gas for use as process fuel. The gasification zone operates with steam and oxygen injection rates resulting in elevated temperatures in the range 2,200. to 2,600F. which enhance thermal efficiency by accomplishing nearly complete oxidation of carbonaceous feed. These high temperatures produce a synthesis gas relatively richer in CO than H2. Because the synthesis gas is utilized as fuel, hydrogen can be recovered from the synthesis gas without degrading the value of the remaining CO-concentrated stream, since the combustion heating value of a concentrated CO stream is about the same as that of an H2 -rich synthesis gas."
-------------
We'll leave our excerpts at that, so we can call attention to the fact that this is yet another process for the liquefaction of Coal wherein no external source of power is required. Any needed energy can be had by separating and combusting some of the produced Carbon Monoxide; which, thus leaves a Hydrogen-enriched synthesis gas and reduces the need, and cost, of either importing Hydrogen from an independent and separate source into the system, or, of providing for the, perhaps, more expensive Steam-gasification of Coal to ensure that adequate quantities of Hydrogen are available.
And, it is not just closely-similar and related to another Gulf CoalTL technology we earlier reported, but was, clearly, developed and almost coincident with:
Pittsburgh's Gulf Oil Liquefies & Gasifies Coal | Research & Development; which discloses: "United States Patent 4,159,236 - Combining Coal Liquefaction and Gasification; June, 1979; Inventor: Bruce Schmid, Denver; Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh; Abstract: The prior art has disclosed a combination coal liquefaction-gasification process wherein ... the gasification zone (produces) the exact hydrogen requirement of the (total) process."
Again, note: Not only do these combined Coal conversion technologies provide for all of their own internal energy requirements, but, there is no need to import expensive Hydrogen. Aside from inputs of Coal and Water, they are virtually self-sufficient.
In any case, several years following issuance of those nearly-coincident US Patents, yet another was awarded to Schmid, with assignment of rights to Gulf Oil, for what might have been seen as even further improvements on the art disclosed by them, as in:
"United States Patent: 4322389 - Integrated Coal Liquefaction-Gasification Plant
Date: March, 1982
Inventor: Bruce Schmid, Denver
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh
Abstract: Conversion of raw coal to distillate liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon products by solvent liquefaction in the presence of molecular hydrogen employing recycle of mineral residue is commonly performed at a higher thermal efficiency than conversion of coal to pipeline gas in a gasification process employing partial oxidation and methanation reactions. The prior art has disclosed a combination coal liquefaction-gasification plant employing recycle of mineral residue to the liquefaction zone wherein all the normally solid dissolved coal not converted to liquid or gaseous products in the liquefaction zone is passed to a gasification zone for conversion to hydrogen. In the prior art plant the amount of normally solid dissolved coal passed to the gasification zone is just sufficient to enable the gasification zone to produce the entire process hydrogen requirement. An unexpected improvement in thermal efficiency has now been achieved by increasing the amount of normally solid dissolved coal from the liquefaction zone and passed to the gasification zone to an amount sufficient to enable the gasification zone to generate not only all of the hydrogen required by the liquefaction zone but also to produce synthesis gas, and adapting the plant to utilize all or a significant amount of this synthesis gas as fuel in the plant.
This invention relates to a plant wherein coal liquefaction and oxidiation gasification operations are combined synergistically to provide an elevated thermal efficiency. The coal feed to the plant can comprise bituminous or subbituminous coals or lignites.
The liquefaction zone of the plant of the present invention provides for the performance of an endothermic preheating step and an exothermic dissolving step. The temperature in the dissolver is higher than the maximum preheater temperature because of the hydrogenation and hydrocracking reactions occurring in the dissolver. Residue slurry from the dissolver or from any other place in the process containing liquid and normally solid dissolved coal and suspended mineral residue is recirculated through the preheater and dissolver steps. Gaseous hydrocarbons and liquid hydrocarbonaceous distillate are recovered from the liquefaction zone product separation system."
---------------
Again, and in sum: The gist of these Gulf Oil processes seems to be that both hydrocarbon gases and hydrocarbon "distillate"-type liquids can be made from Coal in a combined process wherein "the gasification zone" can be made so productive that it can "generate not only all of the hydrogen required by the liquefaction zone but", the "synthesis gas", some of which is burned for fuel, but some of which is directed to "the liquefaction zone" for conversion into "distillate liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon products".
We included, above, reference to only one of our prior reports concerning the Coal conversion science developed by Bruce Schmid, and his immediate colleagues, for Gulf Oil; but, following, with even more comment appended, but with no attempt at order, is a catalogue of at least some of the others:
Pittsburgh's Gulf Oil Patents CoalTL | Research & Development: "United States Patent 4,222, 845 - Integrated Coal Liquefaction-Gasification-Naptha Reforming Process; 1980; Inventor: Bruce Schmid;
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA".
Pittsburgh's Gulf Oil Improves CoalTL Efficiency | Research & Development; "US Patent 4,222,846 - Coal Liquefaction-Gasification ... Including Reforming of Naptha; 1980; Inventor: Bruce Schmid; Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh".
Gulf Oil Improves Coal Liquefaction | Research & Development: "United States Patent 4,230,556 - Integrated Coal Liquefaction-Gasification Process; 1980; Inventors: Norman Carr and Bruce Schmid; Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh".
Gulf Oil H2 for Coal Hydrogenation & Liquefaction | Research & Development: "United States Patent 4,159,237 - Coal Liquefaction Process Employing ... A Combined Gasifier; 1979; Inventor: Bruce Schmid;
Assignee: Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh".
More US Gov & Gulf Oil 1974 CoalTL | Research & Development: "United States Patent 3808119 - Process for Refining Carbonaceous Fuels; 1974; Inventors: Willard Bull and Bruce Schmid; Assignee: Pittsburg and Midway Mining Company (Subsidiary of Gulf Oil) and, the United States of America".
Those, please note, are in addition to other Gulf Oil Coal conversion technologies we have documented as having been developed by other of their scientists; and, there are more Gulf Oil Coal conversion patents attributed to Bruce Schmid, and to some of his colleagues, and to some of his predecessors, which we haven't yet addressed.
The point is, that, in a way similar to the nearly-vast body of Coal conversion technology which was, as we've extensively documented, developed for our local Consolidation Coal Company, Consol, by their very accomplished, award-winning scientist, Everett Gorin, we have, or at one time had, concentrated in one of the very hearts of US Coal Country, a complete and comprehensive body of practical science which would long ago have enabled us to, cleanly and efficiently, start converting our abundant domestic Coal into the liquid hydrocarbon fuels we have, in the decades since, allowed our domestic economy, and our own citizens, to be extorted for the supply of from, largely unfriendly, foreign OPEC powers.
Isn't anyone of stature, anywhere, going to finally stand up and say: "Enough is enough!"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)