Copyright © 2007 by E-MetaVenture, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Coal-to-Liquids: Technology, Commercialization, and Potential Contribution to US and Global Energy Pool
27th USAEE/IAEE North American ConferenceHouston, TexasSeptember 2007
Iraj Isaac Rahmim, Ph.D.E-MetaVenture, Inc.Houston, Texas
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 2
Introduction
Significant recent interest in non-petroleum-based sources of energy– GTL, CTL, BTL
CTL of particular interest in US, China, Russia, India, Australia,…– Governments, inter-governmental bodies, private sector,
environmental organizations– Sense that things are picking up in speed
Much of the technology is old but specific applications are considered– Require working-out various synergies and technical elements– Require careful evaluation of economics, environmental
implications, strategic impacts
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 3
Key Topics
CTL technology
Interested parties and drivers
CTL implementation status and projections
Likely impacts of CTL commercialization
CTL economics and the issue of CO2 recovery and sequestration
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 4
CTL Blocks
Gasification involves pyrolysis, combustion, and gasification chemistries:2 C-H + 3/2 O2 2CO + H2O + HeatC-H + H2O CO + 1.5 H2
Also, some Water-Gas Shift: CO + H2O CO2 + H2
F-T converts SynGas to hydrocarbons:CO + ? H2 —CH2— + CO2 + H2O + Heat
(long chain)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 5
CTL ProductsProduct Upgrading can involve a number of activities:– Primarily hydrocracking of wax to lighter diesel and naphtha
Sample product slate for 50 MBD facility
No HC With HC Comments
LPG 1 2 Similar to other plant (LNG, refinery) LPG
Can be co-processed and marketed with them
Naphtha 9 13 Straight chain paraffinicNear zero sulfur
Preferred use: steam cracker feed
Diesel 25 35 High cetaneNear zero sulfur
Low densityLow aromatics
Lubes 15 <1High gradeLow volatilityLow pour point
Low viscosityLow sulfur
Wax 5 <1 High quality
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 6
Interested Parties
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 7
CTL Drivers
Large coal reserves exist with over 140 years remaining at current productionDemand for oil and natural gas is to continue rapid growthThe majority of coal reserves in the world are located outside the Middle East (e.g., US, Russia, China, India, Australia) resource security
The demand for transportation fuels, particularly diesel and other distillates, is projected to grow rapidly into the foreseeable futureIf this demand is to be met using crude oil, a significant “refinery gap” must be filled
Significant technological improvements in CTL components during the past two decades improved process economics
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 8
Driver: Energy and Product DemandGlobal Reserves
ResourceOil
(incl. CanadianOil Sands)
Natural GasCoal
(4 Grades)
Proved Reserves1,372 X 109 Bbl191 X 109 Tons
6,405 TCF 479 X 109 Tons
Energy Basis (quadrillion Btu) 7,600 6,600 8,500
MTOE Basis(million tons oil equivalent)
191,000 165,000 213,000
Years Remaining (at current production)
41 63 147
BP Statistical Survey or World Energy (2007)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 9
Driver: Energy and Product DemandGlobal Resource Demand Projections
© OECD/IEA, 2007, Key World Energy Statistics.
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 10
Driver: Resource Availability/StrategyGlobal Distribution of Coal ResourcesMillion Tons of Proved Reserves (2006)
BP Statistical Survey of World Energy.
254,43228%
19,8932%
287,09532%
50,7556%
296,88932%
North America
S. & Cent. America
Europe & Eurasia
Africa & Middle East
Asia Pacific
246,643
157,010
114,500
92,445
78,500
USA
Russian Federation
China
India
Australia
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 11
Driver: Resource Availability/StrategyDistribution of Coal Resources—USA
US Geological Survey Open-File Report OF 96-92.
Anthracite, Semi-Anthracite, Meta-Anthracite
Coking CoalMedium and High-Volatile Bituminous
Low-Volatile Bituminous Lignite
Sub-Bituminous
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 12
Driver: Energy and Product DemandGlobal Distillate Demand Projections
-
5 , 000
10 , 000
15 , 000
20 , 000
25 , 000
30 , 000
35 , 000
40 , 000
45 , 000
1977 1987 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Mid
dle
Dis
tilla
te C
onsu
mpt
ion
(MB
D)
Projected Total at 3 %growth
Rest of World ( Excl FSU )
Asia Pacific
Europe
North America
“Refinery Gap”
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 13
Driver: Technology
Individual CTL process elements have been around for many decades
Significant technical improvements during the past two decades:– Fischer-Tropsch– Hydroprocessing
Evolutionary advancements in gasification, gas treating, power generation,…
CO2 capture, compression, transportation, sequestration
Impact on Process
Economics
Environmental Concerns Later
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 14
CTL Facilities and ProjectsExisting
Company Location Size (BPD) Comments
Sasol I Sasolburg, South Africa 5,600 1955; Sasol technology
Sasol II/III Secunda, South Africa 124,000
1955/1980; Light olefins and gasoline; Sasol technology
Petro SA (formerly Mossgas)
Mossel Bay, South Africa 22,500 1991; Gasoline and diesel;
Sasol technology
Converted to GTL—using NG from Mozambique (circa 2004)?
A number of operational pilot plants. Examples: Rentech (15 BPD), Headwaters (30 BPD). Also two commercial GTL units operational.
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 15
CTL Facilities and ProjectsIn the Works (USA)
Project Lead Project Partners Location Feedstock Status Capacity (BPD) Cost (US$ million)
American Clean Coal Fuels None cited Oakland, IL Bituminous,
Biomass Feasibility 25,000 N/A
Synfuels, Inc.GE, Haldor-Topsoe, NACC, ExxonMobil
Ascension Parish, LA Lignite Feasibility N/A 5,000
DKRW Advanced Fuels Rentech, GE Medicine Bow, WY Bituminous Design
(2011) 13,000 1,400
DKRW Advanced Fuels
Rentech, GE, Bull Mountain Land Co.
Roundtop, MT Sub-bituminous, Lignite Feasibility 22,000 1,000-5,000
AIDEA ANTRL, CPC Cook Inlet, AK Sub-bituminous Feasibility 80,000 5,000-8,000
Mingo County Rentech WV Bituminous Feasibility 20,000 2,000
WMPI Sasol, Shell, DOE Gilberton, PA Anthracite Culm Design 5,000 612
Rentech/Peabody N/A MT Sub-bituminous, Lignite Feasibility 10,000-30,000 N/A
Rentech/Peabody N/A Southern IL, SW IN, Western KY Bituminous Feasibility 10,000-30,000 N/A
RentechKiewit Energy Co., WorleyParsons
East Dubuque, IL Bituminous Construction (2010) 1,800 800
Baard Energy AMEC Paragon Wellsvile, OH Sub-bituminous, Lignite Feasibility 35,000 4,000
Headwaters Hopi Tribe AZ Bituminous Feasibility 10,000-50,000 N/A
Headwaters NACC, GRE, Falkirk ND Lignite Feasibility 40,000 3,600
DOE/Office of Fossil Energy—DOE/FE-0509, Green Car Congress
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 16
CTL Facilities and ProjectsIn the Works (Non-US)—Partial
Project Lead Location Status Capacity (BPD)
Shenhua Ordos City, Inner Mongolia, PRC Construction 20,000
Lu’an PRC Construction? 3,000-4,000
Yankuang PRC Construction? 40,000-180,000
Sasol JV PRC Planning 80,000
Shell/Shenhua PRC Planning 70,000-80,000
Headwaters/UK Race Investments PRC Planning 70,000-80,000
Pertamina/Accelon Indonesia Construction? 76,000
Headwaters Philippines Planning 50,000
Alton Resources plc, Jacobs Consultancy, MineConsult Australia Feasibility 45,000
Anglo American (Monash), Shell Victoria, Australia Feasibility 60,000
L&M Group New Zealand Planning 50,000
DOE/Office of Fossil Energy—DOE/FE-0509, Green Car Congress
Also, a number of related projects world-wide: gasification, CCS, direct coal-to-liquids, coal-to-chemicals,…
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 17
CTL Facilities and ProjectsEIA Projection to 2030: Coal used in CTL (USA)
As % Total Consumption:
2015: 1.2
2020: 1.9
2025: 5.2
2030: 6.3
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029Year
Proj
ecte
d U
S C
oal t
o C
TL (l
ong-
Tons
/Day
)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 18
CTL Facilities and ProjectsEIA Projection to 2030: Liquid Fuels from CTL (USA)
As % Total Jet+Distillate Consumption:
2015: 1.3
2020: 1.9
2025: 5.6
2030: 6.2
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029Year
Proj
ecte
d U
S Li
quid
Fue
ls fr
om C
TL (B
arre
ls/D
ay)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 19
A Word on GTL Diesel Supply Projections
A large number of potential projects; only a small fraction likely to be built
Qatar: self-described GTL capital– Oryx I: 2006 start up; March 2007 upgrader on line, May 2007 1st product lift– Shell Pearl: 2009 (cost issues: $18 billion)– ExxonMobil: 2011 (canceled Feb. 2007)– Marathon, ConcoPhillips on hold per Qatar government temporary moratorium—
likely to hold at least until 2009
Nigeria: – Escravos (Sasol/Chevron): under construction (delays and cost increase)
California Energy Commission estimate (early 2000s):– 2010: 75 MBD global GTL diesel capacity– 2015: 388 MBD– 2020: 800 MBD
Sasol Chevron estimate: 600 MBD by 2016-2019
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 20
More on CTL Diesel ProjectionsGlobal
US (Baker and O’Brien study):– 2017-2022: 4-6 large-scale (>40 MBD) CTL in Western US– Some smaller plants under consideration in the Eastern US
Potential: 250 MBD of middle distillates
PRC :– A number of projects under study/planning/construction
Example: 20 MBD plant in Inner Mongolia– CTL considered a key component of the PRCs overall, long-term energy strategy– A new key issue: recent environmental concerns of the PRC government– Projected (Robinson and Tatterson, OGJ Feb 2007 study): as much as 160 MBD
liquid fuels
Others: various projects under study/planning
2020 Hand-waving estimate (global): 300-500 MBD2030: 600-1,000 MBD—many unknown factors
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 21
What Impact will CTL have on…
Coal market? Proved reserves, production, production increase capability
Liquid fuels market? Supply/demand, change in other sources– Diesel– Jet– Naphtha (for cracking or blending)
US v. worldwideRegional markets
A word on specialty products: lubes and waxes
Environmental impact
Some factors affecting CTL growth:
- Petroleum prices
-Capital availability
- E&C resources
- Technology
- Movement on CCS
- Incentives and regulations
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 22
Policy Action (1)Regulations and Incentives—Key Factor
Multiple forms of incentives under consideration (or in effect) in various jurisdictions. Include:
– Direct subsidies or price guaranteesExample: 2005 Federal Transportation Bill—$0.50/gallon of FT naphtha and diesel.
– Loan guaranteesExample: EPAct 2005—loan guarantees for gasification projects with < 65% output as electricity.
– Investment tax creditEPAct 2005—20% credit applied to first $650MM investment during first year of operation
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 23
Policy Action (2)Regulations and Incentives—Key Factor
Other incentives:
– USAF Synthetic Fuel Initiative: successfully tested 50/50 Syntroleum FT fuel; targeting 50% synfuel use (domestic) by 2016; awarded 7,500 Bbl FT jet fuel for 2007.
– Government funding of R&D and demonstration units
Environmental regulations/incentives: – Multiple on emissions from plant and fuel– Multiple on fuel quality– EU: Emissions Trading Scheme– Voluntary emissions trading markets (e.g., Chicago Climate Exchange)– US State initiatives (e.g., California, several NE States)
In flux. Subject to lobbying by interest groups on all sides.
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 24
Typical Overall CTL BalanceTwo Recent Studies
* NETL study for DOD/Air Force (August 2007)** NETL/DOE study (April 2007)*** Not verified. Does not include all energy recovered in process.
Total Liquid Product Capacity 11,000 BPD* 50,000 BPD**Coal (Illinois #6, bituminous)—TPD 4,891 24,533Other feeds: air, water, …Diesel—BPD 7,500 27,819Naphtha—BPD 3,509 22,173CO2—TPD 6,035 32,481Net Power—MW 9.7 124.3Other products: S, slag, fuel gas,…Bbl Liquid/Ton Coal 2.25 2.04Ton CO2/Ton Coal (carbon/carbon) 0.53 0.57Ton CO2/Ton Coal 1.23 1.32Overall Thermal Efficiency—% HHV 51*** 47***
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 25
Typical CTL Economics50,000 BPD*
CAPITAL COST**
Coal and Slurry Prep $ 425 MM
Gasification $ 1,150 MM
Air Separation Unit $ 425 MM
SynGas Clean-Up $ 850 MM
WGS + FT $ 510 MM
Product Upgrading $ 210 MM
Power Generation $ 255 MM
Other $ 425 MM
TIC $ 4,250 MM
OPERATING COST*(annual, 1st year basis)
Fixed $ 230 MM
Variable (net) $ -20 MM
Purchased Feed $ 300 MM
TOC $ 510 MM
• * One scenario. For discussion purposes only. Results depend on a number of variables and parameters including: product prices, plant availability, EPC cost, % debt financing,…
** Excludes CO2 compression, transportation, sequestration costs.
ROI 16.8 %
Simple Payout 6 years
67%
12%
5%
16%
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 26
Driver: Environmental Concerns (1)
As we go from lighter hydrocarbon resources (Natural Gas) to heavier (Crude Oils) to heaviest (Coal)– C/H increases– More CO2 made during conversion to useable fuels
KEY POINT: every single coal carbon molecule, when converted to fuel, will eventually end up in CO2– Question is NOT whether we make CO2– Rather, it IS where we make CO2 and what we do with it– (Same applies to natural gas and crude oil)
Key: Capture, Compress, Transport (pipeline), Sequester (“CCS”)– Multiple sequestration options under consideration
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 27
Driver: Environmental Concerns (2)
Concern: All agree that CCS is necessary for CTL but major parties do not incorporate the cost of CCS in their economics
Concern: Though CTL+CCS compare well with oil refining in terms of CO2 emissions, there are other options (e.g., BTL, nuclear, wind) with significantly lower CO2 emissions
(Concern: Some sequestration options are technically unproven or risky)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 28
CO2 from CTL
Given production of a typical 0.65 ton CO2 per Bbl of liquid products– 50,000 BPD plant: 11.3 million tons CO2/year
Question: – Is this significant? – How important is it to capture, compress, transport,
and sequester (CCS)?
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 29
Worldwide Large Stationary CO2 SourcesProcess Number of Sources
Emissions(million tons CO2/year)
Power 4,942 10,539
Cement Production 1,175 932
Refineries 638 798
Iron and Steel Industry 269 646
Petrochemicals Industry 470 379
Oil and Gas Processing Not Available 50
Other Fossil Fuels 90 33
Bioethanol and Bioenergy 303 91
TOTAL 7,887 13,466
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 30
CO2 Emission Projections from CTL
Typical CCS in the context of CTL: 80-90% CO2 emission reduction– Recovers as much as 95% of the CO2– However, CCS uses energy lower net reduction
CTL with no CCS: emissions worse than refineries, better than coal-fired power plantsCTL with CCS: emissions on par with refineries
Consider earlier EIA US CTL projections:
Projected Emissions from CTL(million tons CO2/years)
without CCS with CCS
2015 10-41 1-82020 28-61 3-122030 175-230 17-46
2030 CTL Emissions as % 2005 Global Stationary Sources 1.3-1.7 0.1-0.3
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 31
CO2 Capture, Compression, Transport, Sequestration (CCS) (1)
Capture includes separation/concentration, treating (e.g., dehydration), etc.– Mature technology used extensively in gas plants and refineries
worldwide
Compression: to pressure acceptable to pipeline
Transport—a number of factors– Distance– Tons per year– <1000 km + >millions of tons per year: pipeline most economical– >1000 km + <millions of tons per year: tankers– Mature technology (e.g., >2,500 km pipelines transporting > 40 million
tons of CO2 per year in the US
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 32
CO2 Capture, Compression, Transport, Sequestration (CCS) (2)
Sequestration can involve– Use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
Example: currently, in US, 30 millions tons per year CO2 is injected for EOR applications
– Injection in depleted oil/gas fields or other suitable geologic formationsMost likely option (largest capacity, location, stability/leak)Current example: 1 million tons per year CO2 from Sleipner gas field is injected into saline aquifer under North Sea
– Ocean storageIn R&D; Technical issues
– Conversion to inorganic carbonates or direct industrial useSmall
In essence: every one of the elements in the CCS chain is tested/run-commercially. However, not all together in one chain.
– Very active area: R&D as well as commercial testing– Very high likelihood of technical success– QUESTION: impact on economics?
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 33
Economics of CTL + CCSCCS economics vary wildly, depending on factors such as capture process specifics, pipeline length, injection reservoir type and depth, etc.
One study (IPCC 2005) (incl. amortized add’l capital):– Capture from power plant: $15-75/ton CO2– Transport (250 km): $1-8– Geological storage (excl. remediation/liability): $0.5-8
Another study (MIT 2007):– Capture/compression: $25/ton CO2– Transportation/storage: $5
A third study (Australia 2006) (capital cost for 0.5 million TPY CO2, equiv. to approx. 2,200 BPD with 50 km pipeline):
– Capture: $25 MM– Compression: $8 MM– Pipeline: $15 MM– Sequestration: $3 MM– Net operating cost: $24/ton CO2 captured (incl. amortized capital)
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 34
Rough CTL+CCS Economics50,000 BPD*
Consider 50,000 BPD CTL
Addition of CCS (incl. 50 km pipeline): – $300 MM extra to TIC– Or $230 MM/year to operating costs (including amortized
TIC addition)
Case CTL CTL+CCS
ROI 16.8 % 11.3 %
Simple Payout 6 years 9 years
* One scenario. For discussion purposes only. Results depend on a number of variables and parameters.
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 35
Summary
Significant new interest in CTL
Many parties—pro and con—in a number of countries– Energy security and strategy, environmental impact, product quality
Mature technology; many variable affecting economics
Large number of projects—mostly in study; a few in design or construction
Projection for CTL diesel suggests 1-2% of demand by 2020, 6-7% by 2030
Capital intensive but multiple studies show potential for reasonable economics
Environmental impact key—CO2 capture, compression, transmission, sequestration
E-MetaVenture, Inc. 36
Contact Information
Iraj Isaac Rahmim, PhDE-MetaVenture, Inc.P. O. Box 271522Houston, Texas 77277-1522USATelephone: USA (713) 446-8867Email: [email protected]