Syntroleum-Tyson Synfuel JV Receives Final Approval For $100M Bond Package
22 June 2008
 |
| Dynamic Fuels will initially use Syntroleum’s Bio-Synfining technology (Step 3 in the diagram) produce bio-hydrocarbon fuels from oils, fats and greases. Click to enlarge. Source: Syntroleum. |
Dynamic Fuels LLC, the renewable synthetic fuels 50:50 joint venture between Syntroleum Corporation and Tyson Foods (earlier post), has received final approval from the Louisiana State Bond Commission for $100 million in tax exempt Gulf Opportunity Zone (GO Zone) Bonds to fund the building of the company’s first renewable synthetic fuels facility in Geismar, Louisiana.
Dynamic Fuels will initially use the Syntroleum “Bio-Synfining” process—a biomass-optimized third-stage of Syntroleum’s full Fischer-Tropsch-based synthetic fuels process—to produce renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel. Bio-Synfining in essence treats fats, greases and vegetables oils as a Fischer-Tropsch wax, and upgrades them to renewable diesel (R-2) and renewable jet fuel (R-8).
 |
| Dynamic Fuels plans to add a full biomass-to-liquids (BTL) front end to the Bio-Synfining process at the Geismar plant—i.e. a staged approach to full BTL. Click to enlarge. Source: Syntroleum. |
(Syntroleum calls its upgrade process for Fischer-Tropsch wax derived from coal or natural gas feedstocks Synfining, with the resulting products labelled S-2 diesel and S-8 jet fuel.)
A planned second stage to the plant will add full biomass-to-liquid (BTL) processing to the operating Bio-Synfining plant. In other words, in addition to upgrading oils, fats and greases, Dynamic fuels will also gasify biomass, process the syngas in a Fischer-Tropsch reactor, and flow the resulting FT wax into the third Bio-Synfining stage.
 |
| The Bio-Synfining process. Click to enlarge. |
The Bio-Synfining stage converts the triglyceride molecules in fats and oils to normal paraffin isomers through hydrogenation, thermal depolymerization and isomerization. The result is conversion to a full bio-hydrocarbon molecule.
The Geismar plant will have a production capacity of 75 million gallons per year, with synthetic diesel being the primary product. Dynamic Fuels will invest $150 million in the first plant ($135 million construction capital, $15 million working capital). Construction is due to start this year, with commercial operations targeted for 2010.
The $100 million allocation is the maximum amount that can be granted for a project under policy guidelines adopted by the State Bond Commission earlier this year. This completes the approval process.
The availability of the tax exempt GO Zone bonds is the result of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, which is designed to help rebuild economies devastated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Resources
Syntroleum Investor Presentation (March 2008)
Sounds like a match a made in heaven - win-win for everyone; big profit potential at today's fuel prices.
Posted by: ejj | 22 June 2008 at 09:15 AM
This sounds like another $100 million free gift to an oil company so they can turn coal into diesel with a little bio-mass worked in on the side as a green wash.
Lets get some real numbers on the raw material use for this plant before jumping on the oil truck.
Posted by: John Taylor | 22 June 2008 at 09:34 AM
Biomass... it sound more like The Twilight Zone - first organic scraps like switch grass , wood chips , then animal remains like chicken fat... then dead human remains, and if this is not enough, live human - in sound more and more like famous "Soylent Green"
Now Hitler in his grave thinking "Why I did not thought about that?"
I worry that some of this ideas to produce fuel by any means go way too fare.
Biomass is vital for the soil. If all the biomass will be converter to fuel and then to CO2 the earth will be dead rock.
Any renewal fuel source that will deplete the soil from the nutrients with out replenishing them is bad ideas.
I believe that energy sources from sun, wind , ocean wave, tidal wave , rivers and alga are totally renewal. All theres are very questionable for long run.
Posted by: mki | 22 June 2008 at 10:10 AM
"If all the biomass will be converter to fuel and then to CO2 the earth will be dead rock."
Something like the planet Venus?
Posted by: sulleny | 22 June 2008 at 10:15 AM
They should really add a bit on the contract or whatever they have to sign to get this money that says they have to give most(if not all) the money back if that second stage "full bio-mass - to - liquid" stage doesn't pan out
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | 22 June 2008 at 10:22 AM
mki
It is very clear that the amount of biomass that can be converted to biofuel without compromising the sustainability of soils is still to be assessed. Corn stove are not a good idea for example this you would deplete the soil from a large amount of organic and mineral matter. Biomass taken form perennial plant like sugar cane or switch grass or fast growing tree is ok since the deep root system stay in place and protect the soil from erosion, goes deep in the soil to get nutriement therefore requires little amount fertilizer.
Posted by: Treehugger | 22 June 2008 at 12:02 PM
I am seeing some rather convincing 'new' analysis of coalseam methane extraction that I interpret as so overwhelmingly advantageous, one would have to question the need or desirability for anyone to extract coal to gain a benefit far in excess of its current value.
There is literally 100(s) of years of seam gas (methane) available at minimal cost compared to the current mining practices.
It is obvious that extractive mining releases this seam gas to the atmosphere with a greenhouse legacy 22 * that of burning coal.
Depending on ones viewpoint , this most valuable component of the coal reserve, is disappearing before our very eyes in the process of mining. By the time the coal reaches furnace a very large percentage (?) of its energy is lost. That component is possibly in excess of the residual coal.
Obviously with the deeper deposits the problem is compounded.
When there was no market for this gas, there was no interest. We now know better and can find (have) ways of utilising it that are commercially viable.
The present way of mining this resource is the equivalent to killing sturgeon for caviar or killing shark for their fin.
If I am even close in my analysis, coal mining per say needs to cease on economic grounds alone and will very soon be seen as both the economic and environmental vandalism that it is.
Posted by: arnold | 22 June 2008 at 02:45 PM
This sounds like a ruse to do things the bad old ways but under new packaging. Hydrocracking of fat eg from chickens fed on corn requires both external hydrogen (from natural gas most likely) plus diversion of some food production. Then they say they will move on to Fischer-Tropsch of non-food biomass. Having hoodwinked gullible legislators I guess it will then be easy to use a tad of biomass and a heap of coal. If that's how it works out it will be another form of bait-and-switch like 'capture ready' coal plants.
Posted by: Aussie | 22 June 2008 at 03:52 PM
All the bio-fuel fuss is just a way for the oil and gas corporations to the delay the the switch from fossil fuel. They know it is a dead end, so they encourage and fund research. This keeps the general public's attention and they'll keep using fossil until bio-fuel comes and saves the world. With the other hand the corporations fund campains that ridicule electric cars and mongers fear for nuclear energy.
Posted by: Chase | 22 June 2008 at 04:23 PM
Just when some big corporations convert waste to fuel, some dark green people complain. Waste that are more readily converted to fuel might be another source of complaint from another group of environmentalists if fed back to soil and which came from the very chicken they eat.
Posted by: | 23 June 2008 at 12:29 AM
I don't understand why people have a problem with the idea of turning waste products (essentially, grease, chicken parts, chicken poop, etc) into fuel. It isn't like they are killing these birds to make the fuel--the poultry industry feeds the nation, and it generates a huge amount of disgusting waste. Why not use this waste for creating fuel which is far more pure than standard diesel, with much less pollution? I have some reservations about Syntroleum's ability to come through and get this plant built & have it accomplish all they say--but I think the concept is great.
Posted by: RI'er | 23 June 2008 at 07:04 AM
The biggest problem with turning waste fats into fuels is that there just isn't enough waste fat to make any significant difference in the global supply for liquid fuels. Unless they can make fuel from high volume primary biomass it's all at best a distraction, albeit perhaps a profitable one for the people doing it. And even primary biomass has supply issues, given the enormous global liquid fuel demand.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | 23 June 2008 at 07:20 AM
Does this mean I can run my TDI on chicken McNuggets?
Posted by: sulleny | 23 June 2008 at 05:30 PM
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, are now the principal source of pollution in twenty-nine states; they produce an estimated 200 million tons of waste nationwide each year. And the Arkansas-based Tyson is among the country's most toxic offenders: In 2003 the company pled guilty to more than twenty violations of the Clean Water Act and was fined over more than $7 million by the EPA.
It’s not the fuel, it’s the fines from the pollution that is motivating Tyson.
Posted by: Axil | 23 June 2008 at 07:43 PM
If you are not happy with what Tyson is doing, then waste not want not. Eat the live, heart, intestines, brains and the other innards, the saturated fat and cholesterol. Or become a vegetarian.
Posted by: thomas | 23 June 2008 at 11:18 PM