Global gas-to-liquids growth is dominated by two projects in South Africa and Uzbekistan

[thackney]

Global gas-to-liquids growth is dominated by two projects in South Africa and Uzbekistan
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33192
OCTOBER 4, 2017




EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017) projects that liquids produced at gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants will increase as two large-scale projects are completed in South Africa and Uzbekistan. Most of the new GTL capacity will come from the conversion of Sasol’s coal-to-liquids plant in Secunda, South Africa, to a GTL facility. That conversion is expected to be completed by 2024. A previously delayed GTL facility in Uzbekistan is also expected to come online by 2021.

Gas-to-liquids technologies typically use the Fischer-Tropsch Process to convert natural gas to petroleum products. The resulting products include diesel and gasoline, as well as waxes. EIA estimates global production from GTL facilities currently averages about 230,000 barrels per day (b/d), or about 0.2% of global liquids production. As of the beginning of 2017, more than 90% of this GTL production comes from four projects: two in Qatar, one in South Africa, and one in Nigeria.

In the IEO2017 Reference case, EIA does not expect any other large-scale GTL plants to be built or expanded through 2040. Large GTL plants are capital intensive, and their economics depend on the price of crude oil relative to natural gas. Some countries with GTL facilities lack domestic oil resources but have access to natural gas. GTL plants allow these countries to convert natural gas to petroleum products.

Many previously planned expansions of existing GTL facilities have been put on hold, and additional expansions are not expected under projected market conditions. Aside from the South Africa and Uzbekistan projects, EIA expects the remaining growth in GTL output to come from relatively small facilities, each with a capacity of 5,000 b/d or less.

Small GTL facilities can be modular, with prefabricated process units that are shipped to project sites and linked together instead of being built from the ground up in the field. Modular plants can be shipped and assembled in natural gas-producing regions with insufficient infrastructure to transport natural gas.

Some of these projects may also include microchannel reactors that use small reactors to convert natural gas to liquids more efficiently but limit the overall throughput of a facility. Small-scale GTL projects can reduce flared natural gas from in-field production and emissions from landfills. Production from small-scale GTL plants is not a significant contributor to volumes of petroleum liquids in EIA’s IEO2017 Reference case.

In the IEO2017 High Oil Price case, world crude oil prices are assumed to be much higher than in the IEO2017 Reference case, which provides an incentive to construct new GTL plants or add capacity at existing plants. In the High Oil Price case, global GTL production continues to increase from 2025 through 2040. In the Low Oil Price case, the Uzbekistan project is still assumed to come online, but no other projects (including the South Africa plant) come online after 2021.



- - - - - - - - - -

Note:  GTL is not LNG

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Interesting stuff.

The Sasol coal to liquids plant originated in apartheid days when no one would sell oil to South Africa so they created their own liquids from abundant coal supplies.  Converting it now to a GTL must mean all of the recent offshore natural gas discoveries have yielded considerable fruit.  I wonder if their coal is being exhausted as well.

I believe the EIA is relying upon too much discounting of the likelihood that the US will undertake GTL in their forecast.  Liquid supplies right now are abundant for the near term, but in my estimation will decline over the longer term due to inabilities of the unconventional oil resources to produce at expected levels.  Comparatively speaking, natural gas is expanding at a far greater speed, and it seems logical that a GTL will be considered to capitalize upon that, similar to the rapid expansion of LNG liquefaction and export facilities.

Another logical reason for GTL here is if an administration keen on limiting imports of oil continues, such as exists now, encourages that production from natural gas.

[thackney]

Sasol (South Africa) have been using and improving their GTL technology for a while.  Now it is being used in other countries.  Their first GTL facility outside South Africa was in Qatar in 2007.

http://www.sasol.com/innovation/gas-liquids/overview

Just a few years ago, multiple GTL plants were being discussed in the US, back at $100 oil.

Shell selects Louisiana site for $12.5 billion, world-scale GTL facility
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/09/shell-selects-louisiana-site-for-12-5-billion-world-scale-gtl-facility.html
09/24/2013

California company to build GTL facility in Houston by Q4 2015
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/11/04/california-company-to-build-gtl-facility-in-houston-by-q4-2015/
November 04, 2014

[Taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion, that for US national strategic interests, the US Dept of Energy along with the DOD, should develop a small coal to liquids plant(s).  There should be three basic designs.  Small portable plant capable of being transported by shipping container, a mid-size semi-permanent plant capable of rapid assembly and supporting a small town, and a large permanent plant that serves a large city / county.

Understanding that the cost of the fuel produced is likely to be higher (30% ??) than current petroleum production, I still believe that having a working plant design would enable the replacement of substantial portions of the petrol industry should our national supplies be threatened.  Fuel would be used by the US based military forces to off set market purchases for fuel.

[thackney]

I am of the opinion, that for US national strategic interests, the US Dept of Energy along with the DOD, should develop a small coal to liquids plant(s).  There should be three basic designs.  Small portable plant capable of being transported by shipping container, a mid-size semi-permanent plant capable of rapid assembly and supporting a small town, and a large permanent plant that serves a large city / county.

Understanding that the cost of the fuel produced is likely to be higher (30% ??) than current petroleum production, I still believe that having a working plant design would enable the replacement of substantial portions of the petrol industry should our national supplies be threatened.  Fuel would be used by the US based military forces to off set market purchases for fuel.

I am of the opinion that Coal to Liquid technology has existed for decades and we don't need to spend tax payer dollars for it.  It isn't the tax payer responsibility to protect consumers from occasional price spikes.

[Smokin Joe]

I am of the opinion that Coal to Liquid technology has existed for decades and we don't need to spend tax payer dollars for it.  It isn't the tax payer responsibility to protect consumers from occasional price spikes.

The coal to gas work has already been done: https://www.dakotagas.com/ and the Fischer-Tropsch Process is well known, all that remains is a bit of engineering.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am of the opinion, that for US national strategic interests, the US Dept of Energy along with the DOD, should develop a small coal to liquids plant(s).  There should be three basic designs.  Small portable plant capable of being transported by shipping container, a mid-size semi-permanent plant capable of rapid assembly and supporting a small town, and a large permanent plant that serves a large city / county.

Understanding that the cost of the fuel produced is likely to be higher (30% ??) than current petroleum production, I still believe that having a working plant design would enable the replacement of substantial portions of the petrol industry should our national supplies be threatened.  Fuel would be used by the US based military forces to off set market purchases for fuel.

Can you explain why a coal to liquids plant is the subject of a thread discussing gas to liquids?  I do not follow why this is pertinent, unless you are talking about coal seam gas to LNG such as exists in Australia. @Taxcontrol