Franklin Mining and Synfuels International Sign Agreement for Non-FT Gas-to-Liquids Plant in Argentina
11 July 2008
 |
| The four main steps of the Synfuels GTL process. This flow assumes a methane cracking method that also yields a commercially worthwhile syngas stream. Click to enlarge. Source: Synfuels International. |
Franklin Mining, Inc. and Synfuels International, Inc. signed a letter of agreement addressing the environment and steps to be taken prior to finalizing the design of a Phase I gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant to be constructed in the Province of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina.
Synfuels International, Inc. holds exclusive licensing rights for a non-Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquids technology developed at Texas A&M University: ECLAIRS (Ethylene from Concentrated Liquid-phase Acetylene - Integrated, Rapid and Safe). The key differentiating aspect of the process is the liquid-phase conversion of acetylene to ethylene. A demonstration plant built by Synfuels International has proven to operate efficiently and economically in the production of 95-octane gasoline fuel, according to the company.
Conventional Fischer-Tropsch GTL processing consists of three steps:
Natural gas, oxygen and steam are combined in a catalytic reforming reaction to form a syngas.
The syngas is reacted in a catalytic F-T reactor to form paraffinic hydrocarbons.
The paraffinic mix is hydrotreated and processed to convert, separate and purify the final synthetic petroleum products, including diesel fuel, kerosene, naphtha, and even waxes.
The Synfuels GTL process to produce a gasoline product from a natural gas feed consists of four main steps:
Conversion. The conversion step cracks methane (CH4) into useful amounts of acetylene (C2H2). The cracking process is well-known, having been used by the acetylene industry for decades. The most prevalent method is partial oxidation (POX), in which methane and oxygen are co-fed into a reactor in a sub-stoichiometric ratio.
Part of the gas is burned, primarily via incomplete combustion to carbon monoxide, to provide the heat necessary to crack the remaining gas. In addition to the intended olefins, the POX outgas typically contains hydrogen and carbon oxides in such proportion that a standard, saleable syngas stream can easily be separated.
The process with a pyrolysis cracker. Click to enlarge. Another cracking method is high-temperature pyrolysis, in which a fuel stream and an oxygen source are co-fed into a reactor and burned, preferably completely, to carbon dioxide and water. A natural gas feed stream is introduced into the reactor separately and is mixed with the hot combustion products to induce thermolytic cracking.
Due to the proportion of hydrogen and carbon oxides in the reactor outlet, a syngas stream suitable for uses other than as fuel is not readily generated.
Temperatures inside a cracking reactor can reach in excess of 4000°F before the endothermic reaction and its subsequent quenching cool the gases to about 1000°F or less. Pressures are low, usually less than 15 psig, though some designs operate closer to 50 psig.
Absorption. Absorption of the acetylene from the cracked gas using a solvent selective to acetylene is also a well-known process in the acetylene industry. Gas flows upward in a counter-current against the solvent flow. Acetylene-rich solvent exits the column bottom. The remaining gases comprise the column overhead, which can be a viable syngas, depending upon the cracking method.
There are a number of acetylene absorption processes in use, and temperatures range widely and are dependent on the cooling media available. Many contractors operate between about 70°F to about 120°F. However, to maximize absorption efficiency, it is not an uncommon practice to use refrigeration to lower the operating temperature to the 40°F to 60°F range. Column pressures typically range from 100 psig to 250 psig.
Hydrogenation. This is the core of the Synfuels ECLAIRS technology. Gas-phase hydrogenation of acetylene into ethylene (C2H4) is commonplace, particularly in ethylene production units. Synfuels’ novel invention is conducting the reaction in the liquid-phase.
In the liquid-phase process, acetylene-rich solvent from the absorption step is fed into a catalytic reactor along with hydrogen. With the appropriate catalyst, the acetylene can be converted with 98% selectivity to ethylene. The reactor typically operates between 100 psig and 300 psig at temperatures between 200°F and 350°F. The liquid is easily separated from the product gases, cooled, and recycled to the absorption column. The resultant product gas comprises mostly ethylene with non-condensables and a small amount of higher olefins as the balance.
Because acetylene hydrogenation produces substantial heat, typical gas phase hydrogenation limits acetylene concentration in order to keep reaction and temperature under control. This results in processing a large volume of gas to yield a small amount of ethylene at high temperatures that can lead to a run-away reaction. It also tends toward over-conversion to ethane.
To address this, the ECLAIRS process selectively absorbs the acetylene from the cracked gas product stream, thereby rejecting unwanted gases and greatly reducing reaction volume. As a result, the process can use a smaller reactor and less catalyst. Operating in a liquid phase has the benefit of the absorbent being the heat transfer and dispersion medium, thereby eliminating the possibility of a thermal “run-away” reaction and allowing for much higher acetylene concentrations to be used, according to the company.
Oligomerization. The oligomerization conversion reaction has been researched and developed since at least the early 1970s, but it has not found notable commercial application. One likely reason, according to Synfuels, is that those possessing ethylene are not interested in making gasoline. However, for a stranded gas field, making a transportable liquid is a prime goal.
The ethylene product gas from hydrogenation is fed to a catalytic reactor in which the ethylene is converted into primarily C6 to C11 hydrocarbons with a minor fraction of C4s and C5s also being produced. The reaction is highly exothermic. Fixed bed and fluidized bed reactors have been used. The final stabilized gasoline product is typically 95+% octane and contains 25-40% aromatics.
The temperature, pressure, catalyst, reactor type and configuration, and residence time all affect the exact product composition. Each of these parameters can be either designed or adjusted to obtain a desired product. Reaction temperatures are typically 600°F to 800°F. Operating pressures can vary widely, from less than 25 psig to upwards of 500 psig.
The Synfuels process can be altered to produce a variety of products or to maximize the production of a certain product, the company says. Recycling the non-product gas in the process leads to increased gasoline production. A few minor changes to the oligomerization section, including increasing the reactor pressure to approximately the 500 psig range, would result in a predominantly diesel fuel product rather than gasoline.
The proposed GTL plant will process 1.5 million cubic meters of gas per day, with an initial minimal daily production of 5,000 barrels of liquids per day.
In January, Synfuels announced a partnership with AREF Energy Holding Co. a listed shareholding company on the Kuwait Stock Exchange. AREF Energy acquired a major equity stake in Synfuels and has been awarded exclusive marketing rights in the Arabian Gulf region and several countries outside the region.
Franklin Mining, Inc. has mining and energy interests in the United States and Bolivia as well as energy interests in Argentina. Franklin Mining, Bolivia is a wholly owned subsidiary. Franklin Mining, Inc. holds 51% ownership in both Franklin Oil & Gas, Bolivia S.A. and Franklin Oil & Gas International S.A.
Resources
While the conventional methods of getting gasoline out of crude oil are no less complicated and sometimes more complicated, it is no wonder that many corn to ethanol plants are built and that only one plant of this process is being proposed. Ethanol is a great fuel, but there remains a fondness for mixes of conventional hydocarbons. If at any time you have ethylene, the step to ethanol is very easy with several known and rather ancient processes.
It is doubtfull that this proposed process produces any less total CO2 release to the air by the time that the fuel is burnt than does the processing of oil sands or shale oil. While there may be legitimate concerns about CO2 releases, the coastal flooding and other resulting problems tend to eliminate humans, the cause of the problem, with some degree of selectivity.
The use of nuclear electricity is the most cost effective way of reducing green house gases. The nations that can build and use nuclear electricity with the greatest speed and ease, insist upon worrying about its relatively minor problems that have more than adequate solutions, and they put vast amounts of CO2 in the air by bidding for crude oil at extortionary prices and use it while letting the people of less influential nations starve and freeze by the thousands. In one of these nations an international prize was won for inventing a process of converting waste sugar cane leaves to charcoal briquettes and a similar prize for a method of producing methane, from waste fruits and vegetables, rapidly at home for cooking.
The tragedy of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is to be found in South Africa and Zimbawe and nearby nations where the daily death tolls are greater than any estimate of the possible 20 year cancer death tolls added to the known deaths of 31. Starvation, impure water and cold caused by the lack of electricity or other energy are far more reliable producers of death(shortened lifespan) than is the radio-activity from an exploded nuclear power plant.
Exploding chemical plants are known to have caused more death as have conventional and fire bombings. But no one mentions Bhopal and Tokyo when Chernobyl and Hiroshima are commemerated permanently. The reactor at Chernobyl was not unsafe; its safe operation and safety mechanisms were willfully violated. A Three Mile Island type reactor would have released less radio-activity upon failure, but the use of cell phones in automobiles causes more death and injury each year than Chernobyl will in 50 years.
The worries about the safety of the disposal of nuclear waste are mere superstitions, no more real than the one that the earth is flat, fomented by people who do not know and refuse to learn that all life forms and the earth itself have always been radio-active and must always be. The radio-active waste products of the oil and coal industries are not at all controlled and contain far more radio-active atoms than all the nuclear reactors combined. People regularly put uranium containing fertilizer on their lawns and farms that would have to go to permament long term storage if it were removed from a nuclear power facility.
The proposed nuclear reactor at the oil sands area of Canada is a step forward. The CO2 releases required to build a nuclear power plant and process the uranium are made up in the first few months of operation. Some solar cells require two or more years. Any new government supported corn ethanol facility should be located next to a nuclear power plant for its process heat. Nuclear heat is the cheapest heat available. The sun proves it, but it is so dilute by the time it gets to the earth it is expensive to concetrate it into electricity. Nuclear power plants release energy from the waste products of long ago exploded suns; it is also solar energy.
Nature has itself, without the help of humans, killed off more species. Very few of the plant species that went into making coal are still alive.
It is the energy from fossil fuels that has allowed the population of the earth to expand to its current levels. England denuded itself of most forests when it tried to exist on biomass.
Global warming is much to be reccomended if it has the result of getting rid of the human species which would allow other species to survive and develop.
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 11 July 2008 at 07:22 AM
@Henry Gibson
I think the US ethanol import tax is the motivation for the development of this and other non ethanol processes; there is no tariff on the import of gasoline.
The nuclear power problem is a political one that is easily solvable. No one wants all that power within there general vicinity, but the local nature of the current electric grid forces these nuclear plants close to the electric consumer.
With a GEN IV nuclear plant design and a national grid implemented using High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) these nuclear plants could be centralized in the Nevada dessert out of sight and mind of the electric user, co-located with a nuclear waist depository, and in the middle of an military reservation for security.
It only takes political leadership with an national energy plan, Then there is no more global warming, no more extinction of the human race, no more loss of other species; just some common sense.
Posted by: Axil | 11 July 2008 at 08:43 AM
You're right Axil. Why not use the Nellis Air Force Range (west of Area 51; where all the nukes were tested in the 50's and 60's) - we could build 10 new next generation, massive nuclear power plants or more. Clean energy security for decades.
I think ultimately things are going to have to get real bad before the electorate gets galvanized enough to push our elected representatives to make aggressive changes.
Posted by: ejj | 11 July 2008 at 10:24 AM
@ Henry,
I haven't seen this many lame rationalizations since, well, ever.
Bluntly put, you are right that there are many destructive activities worldwide based on our demand for energy. However, none of them, except nuclear, carry the potential for loss of the productive power of entire regions of the planet.
You minimize Chernobyl (including lies about hte number of deaths) and ignore how it impacted one of the most productive areas of Ukraine for generations. The problem with nuclear is not how much radiation compared to coal, it is the toxicity and long life of the CONCENTRATION of radiation represented by the nuclear plants, and the industry's proven failure to protect populations. What would have been the impact of a full meltdown of 3 mile island? That close to the Northeast Corridor of the US?
So let's support nuclear in the oil sands. But let's not pretend it can solve our problems. It can't.
None of the benefits of nuclear compare to the benefits of conservation, wind and solar to help us out of this mess. 20% of all our energy use is needless waste (5000 lb family vehicles, no factory cogenerationin the US, incandescent light bulbs, and weak, lossy grid), another 20% could be cut through technological advance.
What we should be doing is a ten year crash program to 1)cut the first 20% out entirely 2) make progress on the second 20%, and 3) fully support wave, wind, geothermal and solar to achieve 25% reduction in consumption (measured against normal growth curves) and achieve 10% participation of renewables.
Do that, and you've cut the need for carbon-based fuels (measured against normal growth curves) by 35% - in ten years. Repeat in a second ten years, with greater gains in technology and renewables and lesser gains in conservation, and you've cut carbon demand by 50% - in 20 years. In other words, beginning in two years, you're retiring coal plants every year, rather than adding nuclear.
This plan is simpler, safer, more predictable and more healthy in every respect. Moreover, it focuses R&D on renewables and conservation, where the returns are the largest over the longest period.
But if you really love nuclear.....carry on with your rationalizations....
Posted by: dollared | 11 July 2008 at 10:50 AM
Axil: You are right. Nuclear is a political problem that can be easily solved.
You are wrong to believe that locating the plants further away from populations will solve it. There is no distance that will satisfy those opposed to nuclear power plants. Reactors on Pluto would be too close and too dangerous.
Political problems must be solved by politicians with the guts to make decisions and accept the consequences.
And they must have an ego that permits them to calmly weigh facts, change positions, and admit mistakes even when it may lose them an election.
Does that sound like Washington to you?
Posted by: K | 11 July 2008 at 01:15 PM
@K
I think that a change in position can be framed in the framework of the “better deal”.
For example, if even the most anti-nuclear opponent is give a deal that consolidates all nuclear electric production to the middle of nowhere, out of his immediate neighborhood; where all existing local plants are gradually decommissioned; that’s a deal that is hard to beat.
Posted by: Axil | 11 July 2008 at 03:33 PM
Since when RBMK (Chernobyl type) nuclear reactor become safe? Having combustible graphite neutron moderator with positive reactivity and military grade plutonium generating neutron adsorption panels?
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 11 July 2008 at 07:23 PM
axil,
I would say that our research reactor in the outer Sydney area is located there only because the scientists and other workers prefer to live in an urban environment with all the benifits including academic community.
There may be some who are happy to live in the middle of nowhere, ie the antarctic base but the likelyhood is they go quite mad after a year or three.
In this respect K is correct.
The only better deal that would interest many nuclear critics would begin with demilitarisation of the nuclear cycle, as we have been promised for decades -almost as often as the same powers have reneeged.
That would leave the waste issues, concentration of
energy assets and infrastructure vulnerability to downtime and outages, limited reserves, poor industry record of cost, reliability - just about everything really.
The rest was well said in dollar red's comments.
Posted by: arnold | 11 July 2008 at 07:39 PM
@arnold
As per our discussion, China is implementing the Gen IV reactor cluster near Weihai city.
Reference:
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/03/chinas-second-pebble-bed-reactor-steam-plant-worlds-third-commercial-htgr/
Excerpt:
The Shidaowan project received environmental clearance in March 2008 for construction start in 2009 and commissioning by 2013. The 200 MWe (two reactor modules, each of 250 MWt) plant will drive a single steam turbine at about 40 percent thermal efficiency. The reactor module, which was originally planned for 458 MWt, was reduced to 250 MWt in order to retain the same core configuration as the prototype HTR-10.
The HTR-10 is powered by graphite balls about the size of standard billiard balls packed with tiny flecks of uranium, rather than with the conventional white-hot fuel rods used in existing nuclear reactors. Instead of water, the core is bathed in inert helium, which can reach much higher temperatures. The HTR-10 reached full power in 2003 and has an outlet temperature of 700 C to 950 C.
“First and foremost, this generator will be the safest nuclear power plant ever designed and built,” said Wu. The major safety issue regarding nuclear reactors lies in how to cool them efficiently, as they continue to produce residual heat even after shutdown. Gas-cooled reactors discharge surplus heat and don’t need additional safety systems like water-cooled reactors do. The HTR-10 was subject to a test of its intrinsic safety in September 2004 when, as an experiment, it was shut down with no cooling. Fuel temperature reached less than 1600 C and there was no failure.
Reference:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/worlds-first-commercial-high.html
Excerpt:
The HTR-PM will pave the way for 18 (3x6) further 200 MWe units at the same site in Weihai city - total 3800 MWe - also with steam cycle. INET is in charge of R&D, and is aiming to increase the size of the 250 MWt module and also utilise thorium in the fuel. Eventually a series of HTRs, possibly with Brayton cycle directly driving the gas turbines, will be factory-built and widely installed throughout China.
Posted by: Axil | 11 July 2008 at 10:52 PM
@ Henry Gibson
Hey, I'm from South Africa. Don't lump us with Zimbabwe. On a clear day I can see Koeberg nuclear power station across Table Bay. Its electricity is keeping me warm right now.
OK, we have the odd power shortage because they haven't built any power stations recently, but we're not the only ones.
Incidentally, many exhortations to the public to save power have resulted in a 4% saving. People who throw around numbers like 10% or 20% easily attainable, fuhgeddaboutit. 10% poer saving is HARD.
Posted by: | 12 July 2008 at 02:51 AM
10% POWER saving is hard.
Damn non-editable comments *grumbles*
Posted by: martinb | 12 July 2008 at 02:55 AM
which is harder? conservation, or staring at the barrel of a middle eastern gun pointed at your nads?
its about perspective.
While Henry Gibson sounds a bit too extreme, I tihnk thepoint that the planet has suffered many and more aggregious ills before us, is worth making. Question is, can we survive through it?
Thats why we dont poo where we sleep, normally.
Posted by: | 14 July 2008 at 08:41 AM
I repeat:
Since life on earth began, people (and animals and plants) must ingest radio-active potassium to survive and exist.
Non radioactive potassium can exist and would work as well, but the entire budget of the US would not allow for the cost of feeding a single person with food that had no radio-active potassium in it. It would not be worth the effort because that person would also be exposed to radio-activity from space and the earth and would also likely expose itself to areas of high natural radio-activity.
No human is ever going to be free of radioactive exposure. The people around Chernobyl are better off than the ones around Bhopal. Far fewer were killed and far fewer have continuing illnesses. There are places in the world where the natural radio-activity is higher than all areas besides the reactor itself.
Nuclear radio-active atoms are not made by the pound in fission reactors, but the net weight of Uranium and the net weight of radioactive atoms is decreased. The few tons, less than 25 per reactor, of radioactive materials that come out of nuclear reactors per year have fewer pounds of radioactive atoms than went in. Since at least 95 percent of the energy available in the fuel remains and so do the fission products, there is not an easily measurable decrease in the weight of the fuel. Reactors and systems are in operation that can use all of the remaining 90 percent of fuel in "spent" rods. They are only nuclear "waste" because Carter said that they were.
There have never been and there will never be people that do not carry radio-activity with them. Human caused radioactivity is no more dangerous than natural radio-activity. Dissolve and dilute all radio-active materials under the control of man in one cubic mile of the pacific ocean and they would never be measurable.
Chernobyl did not contaminate many square miles of land so that they are useless, and no US built reactor could do as bad even in the worst case. If you want to prevent deaths from radiation, stop smoking not reactors. If you want to stop CO2 build reactors. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 19 August 2008 at 10:18 PM