Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Natural Gas to Gasoline

Continued from page 1

By Tyler Hamilton

Friday, August 15, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Gas to go: Several steps are needed to turn natural gas into gasoline. Natural gas is broken down under high temperatures into acetylene and a liquid-phase step converts the acetylene into ethylene. This can be converted into a number of fuel products, including high-octane gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
Credit: Synfuels


The goal for both companies is the same: to tap into natural-gas reserves that are too small or too remote to economically access with a dedicated pipeline. Much of this gas is a by-product of oil extraction. The World Bank estimates that more than 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas--equivalent to the combined gas consumption of France and Germany--are flared or released into the air every year by oil companies that have no economical way of getting the gas to market. The resulting greenhouse-gas emissions are a major contributor to climate change, the World Bank adds.

"With our technology, you can go into the field and process that natural gas into gasoline," Rolfe says. "Now it's a liquid, so it can be sent in existing oil pipelines. There's a huge opportunity for this in places like Russia, the Middle East, and South America."

There is also opportunity in Alaska's North Slope, where oil giants such as BP have been considering GTL projects as a way of getting natural gas to market as a by-product of oil extraction. BP spent $86 million on a demonstration Fischer-Tropsch plant in the late 1990s, with the idea that natural gas could be converted into diesel and mixed with crude oil being shipped through the 1,200-kilometer trans-Alaska oil pipeline. But the BP project never proved commercially viable.

Shirish Patil, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, says that the high cost of Fischer-Tropsch and rising oil prices now have the industry tilting toward building a dedicated natural-gas pipeline. But lower GTL costs could change that. "If there's any process that removes some of the steps of Fischer-Tropsch and reduces overall cost of conversion, that will certainly bear out in the economics," Patil says. "And it's the economics that will prevail."

Rolfe says that Alaska is certainly on Synfuels' radar. "We're working with the state of Alaska to use our plants as an alternative," he says. "The Fischer-Tropsch solution for the North Slope is not elegant at all. It's like getting an elephant up there to do your hard work, when all you need is two or three thoroughbred horses." Rolfe adds that a Synfuels refinery can be self-sufficient in remote areas because half the natural gas it taps can go toward power and heating requirements of the plant while the rest is converted into fuels. And unlike a Fischer-Tropsch plant, no hard waxes or toxic by-products result from the Synfuels process.

Synfuels estimates that only 200 of the 15,000 gas fields outside North America are big enough to justify the high capital costs of a Fischer-Tropsch plant. A handful of such plants exist today, including a Shell refinery in Malaysia and the Mossgas plant in South Africa. Another two plants are also under development, in Qatar and in Nigeria.

Devinder Mahajan, a chemical engineer with the Brookhaven National Laboratory, in New York, says that the industry will be somewhat skeptical until Synfuels has a commercial plant in operation. "There are a lot of investors out there who would put the money in if it has the claimed advantages over Fischer-Tropsch."

But such interest is building. In January, Kuwait-based AREF Energy Holding invested $28.5 million in Synfuels for a minority stake in the company and exclusive rights to market the refineries in the Middle East and North Africa. Rolfe says that sales interest is also building in Australia, Argentina, Egypt, and Kazakhstan.

Hall hopes that the last quarter of 2008 will be a "breakout" year for Synfuels and how it is perceived by the major oil companies. He understands, however, the industry's reluctance. "In this industry, everybody wants to be first to be second when adopting new technology. The Fischer-Tropsch process is at least proven. They know it works." By contrast, he says, Synfuels' approach, "hasn't been proven because there aren't any big facilities out there."

Comments

  • Wrong way!
    We going the wrong way here folks. We need to get off fossil fuels. Finding new ways to make gasoline is not going to get our society any less addicted to fossil fuels. We need to transition our infrastructure from supporting the (largely inefficient) internal combustion engine (ICE) to building and maintaining the (more efficient) electric motor. Fossil fuels, in any form, are going to run out eventually. Electricity is NEVER going to run out. As long as the sun shines, as long as the wind blows, as long as the tides come and go, we will have electrity.

    While I tip my hat to the genious of this innovation, it only serves to keep our society addicted to fossil fuels. This must end, and end soon!

    HJ
    Waldorf, MD
    howard.johnson@att.net
    Rate this comment: 12345

    johnsonha143
    08/15/2008
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Wrong way!
      Persons that are concerned about carbon cycles and weather they are negative or positive, should be excited about this technology. Methane gas produced from rotting vegetation is carbon neutral. Producing fuels for combustion engines this way would cause your car to have less of a carbon foot print. Making a market for methane gas also has the ancillary effect of encouraging companies to use existing sources of methane instead of letting pass into the atmosphere ware it has an effect as a green house gas.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      shomas
      08/15/2008
      Posts:42
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Wrong way!
        Just to clarify a point. Methane is a 20-times more potent GHG than carbon dioxide. So, when organic material decays to methane, atmospheric CO2 essentially trades up to methane. Natural processes remove methane from the air at an historic rate. When humans amass organic debris into anaerobic landfills, a slight imbalance of methane is produced.

        Flaring the methane or using it for energy converts the carbon back to carbon dioxide, making it carbon neutral again. I probably didn't explain that well, but the net result is that atmospheric carbon dioxide eventually becomes carbon dioxide again, rather than the worse compound, methane.

        The trend toward flaring or combusting landfill methane has lowered this source of GHGs even while the number of landfills has grown. That's a small amount of good news on the global warming front.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        MakeSense
        08/16/2008
        Posts:93
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
    • Re: Wrong way!
      And for Aircraft?  Big Batteries?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      trebaryar
      08/15/2008
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Aversion to Petro Hydrocarbons
    While many will post comments that "WE" need to get off Petro Hydrocarbons, the truth is reality. There is NO viable alterative to Petro Hydrocarbons at this time nor most likely in my lifetime.
    The Truth is the entire world and the USA is totally powered by Hydrocarbons. Thus efforts such as the conversion of Natural Gas to Gasoline is very good as it gives us the time to develope altertive energy sources.
    Every thinking person has realized by now that the high cost of energy has affected everything we touch, eat, use or wear. High energy prices affect even the poorest of us the most but ALL are affected. We need to lower the cost of energy and the only way to do so in the next 20, 30 or 50 plus years is to produce more not less energy from the only universal source we have Petro Hydrocarbons.
    Sorry, I lived long enough to remember riding in a mule wagon. The animal energy mode while "natural and carbon free" is a extremely poor substitute for real plentiful energy. Don't believe it look at "progress" in Africa or any other animal powered society.
    Sorry Doc but I take a world with antibotics and MRI's over the altertive.
    John Richmond
    Rate this comment: 12345

    strudle
    08/15/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • Not Wrong Way
    I'll grant all arguments, including many that I consider unsound, to the point that we need to break the current dependence on fossil fuels. Among those arguments are those that point at the economic impact of reliance on foreign sources -- to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars exported each year to purchase fuels.

    But an abrupt break would be catastrophic for our economy and quality of life, not to mention national security.

    We have enormous social and economic investments in the infrastructures that support our current lifestyles. Those "big oil" companies so often criticized are publicly owned, providing investment income to pension funds, 401k funds owned by individuals and supplying income to widows and orphans. Millions of people are employed in manufacture and distribution of vehicles and in gasoline production and distribution and the related infrastructures -- and don't forget the many millions more who provide goods and services to the people so employed.

    We have many tens of millions of existing vehicles whose value would be lost if fuel were not available to them. Yes, I applaud innovations such as plugin hybrids, perhaps biofuels (although the initial approaches may be counterproductive) and new battery technologies or (as yet still on the distant horizon, fuel cells) that may result in usable electric vehicles. It's clear that it will take one or two decades to transition from currently used vehicles to new generations of vehicles less dependent on petroleum fuels. Some of the technologies that now look attractive may not pan out. Some may turn out too expensive, or require a new infrastructure that doesn't develop. The marketplace will winnow out those.

    Reasonably economic gasoline/diesel fuel produced from domestic sources of natural gas would cushion the transition period to new technologies, as well as reduce the export of dollars to foreign fuel sources. It looks promising in that role.

    If one is focussed on global warming, I still recommend the potential of vehicular fuels from natural gas as a reasonable and prudent step -- along with many others -- to move forward.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    wbdeville
    08/15/2008
    Posts:14
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Not Wrong Way
      Synfuels International's GTL is the only GTL technology that can be economically located upstream at the source of associated gas flaring. The World Bank estimates that 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is flared into the atmosphere annually. Others think it is twice that.

      The argument for GTL is not just can we produce more fuel? It is how much fuel can we extract and use from existing sources. The answer is literally tens of millions of additional barrels annually can be converted to clean burning gasoline.(Synfuels Intl. GTL: <1 ppm sulphur)

      It is hard to imagine anyone that would advocate continuing to flare or vent gas that can be economically and efficiently converted to fuel.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      trolfe
      08/18/2008
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Not Wrong Way
        You said: Synfuels International's GTL is the only GTL technology that can be economically located upstream at the source of associated gas flaring.

        There is at least one other company with cost-effective GTL technology: Gas Reaction Technologies, in Santa Barbara, has been developing a very different route. Check out their web page for a lesson on bromine activated methane. Very interesting...
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ChuckInReno
        08/21/2008
        Posts:19
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • We need and use hydrocarbons
    Ground transportation uses of hydrocarbons are only 42% of our total demand for oil. Even if we can greatly impact gasoline consumption, industry will continue to increase its demand for oil. If all ground transportation oil consumption vanished, we'd still import a large share of our oil needs, and those imports would grow over time.

    We can't live with the idea that oil consumption just disappears because we want a different world. As we move closer to a renewable energy economy, we need to realize that our continued need for hydrocarbons can be significantly met by gas-to-liquids, which promises to exploit stranded domestic natural gas reserves that would not otherwise be used. Gas-to-liquids can provide far more liquid fuels than ethanol much more cheaply.

    Over half the U.S. natural gas reserves are considered to be stranded. Once converted to liquids, such reserves would be much cheaper to transport and would be a more valuable product.

    Global warming is an important issue, but it won't be solved overnight or even in the next several decades. Gas-to-liquids is one of the better alternatives to produce significnt quantities of domestic hydrocarbons from an otherwise ineffective source. If the product is gasoline, then other oil can meet existing industrial needs. Nothing changes the fact that we ought to move quickly to more efficient consumption technologies such as hybrid vehicles.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MakeSense
    08/16/2008
    Posts:93
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.