Aviation Summit calls for global framework on emissions reductions
Department of Interior seeking industry input on interest in potential oil and gas lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet

Toyo and MODEC commit several million dollars more to Oxford Catalysts to accelerate commercial readiness for offshore GTL

Toyo Engineering Corporation and MODEC, Inc. have committed several millions dollars of additional funds to Oxford Catalysts Group PLC, which is focused on the emerging market for distributed smaller scale production of synthetic oil via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. (Earlier post.)

Oxford Catalysts’ partnership with Toyo and MODEC was established in 2007 to jointly exploit the Group’s technology in the offshore GTL market, with Toyo and MODEC fully funding the development and demonstration of the technology.

In 2008, Kobe Steel Ltd. was added to the partnership as a preferred manufacturer, and in 2010 an agreement was announced with Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras) to host and cover the running costs of the first integrated demonstration of the Group’s offshore GTL technology at its Fortaleza refinery in Brazil.

The additional funds from Toyo and MODEC will be used by the Group to accelerate commercial readiness ahead of orders in the offshore GTL market.

Comments

Engineer-Poet

Offshore GTL = gas that would otherwise be flared, and is worth more as a liquid stream which can be shipped in the same tankers as crude than trying to convert to LNG.

Doesn't work with N. American economics.

SJC

The GTL installations may produce quite a bit of product, it seems like there are more and more of them every day.

Less than $1 for feed stock and $1 for plant costs sounds economical to me and others. I know you are trying to bait me into an argument, but it will not work. Let's just watch and see what happens.

HarveyD

The following fires should be considered illegal and should have appropriate penalties for emissions created:

1: to flare NG at wells or refineries.
2.  to burn forests and forest residues in open spaces.
3. to burn agriculture residues such as sugar cane etc.
4. to burn coal without capturing emissions.
5. to burn wood without capturing emissions.
6. to burn liquid fuels in ICE and furnaces without capturing emissions.
7. to burn garbage without capturing emissions.
8. to burn your house and/or work place for financial benefits.
9. etc

Nick Lyons

GTL on the Alaska North Slope makes a lot of sense to me. Put the output into the existing pipeline. Huge gas reserves are currently stranded up there.

Engineer-Poet

I'm not trying to bait you into anything, SJC.  I'm trying to get you to recognize that GTL works great if you have NG as essentially a waste product (as it is on offshore rigs beyond pipeline range, and on Alaska's North Slope), but not as a national strategy for the USA.

It doesn't even work in Qatar, which finds it better to export LNG than to pay for GTL.

SJC

You claim to be an expert in these things. What if synthetic fuels start to happen in the U.S.? I guess you will claim that you never said any of this.

SJC

Rather, you will claim that things changed and that you were perfectly right all along.

Engineer-Poet

How could I claim I never said any of this, when it's all indexed in Google and accessible via my profile?  You make no sense.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to answer basic questions on GTL economics here, and on your example of Shell's GTL kerosene here.

So far, what I've seen is that you can't even do basic arithmetic in support of your claims.  Impressive handwaving, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.