Rosneft GTL demo plant to use Oxford Catalysts microchannel FT reactors; targeting use of associated gas
11 May 2012
Rosneft, an integrated oil company majority-owned by the Russian government, has selected technology from Oxford Catalysts Group PLC for a small-scale Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) facility designed to convert associated gas—i.e., natural gas associated with oil production—into synthetic crude or high-quality downstream products, including synthetic diesel, waxes and naphtha (an important petrochemical feedstock).
Rosneft is partnering with technology commercialization firm Gazohim Techno to design and construct a GTL demonstration plant using Oxford Catalysts’ microchannel Fischer-Tropsch technology. (Earlier post.) This plant will have a capacity of some 10 million cubic meters per year of natural gas, equivalent to approximately 100 barrels per day of synthetic crude.
Oxford Catalysts enables modular GTL plants to convert unconventional, remote and problem gas into valuable liquid fuels. Systems based on the Group’s technology (marketed under the brand name Velocys) are significantly smaller than those using conventional technology, enabling modular plants that can be deployed cost effectively in remote locations and on smaller fields than is possible with competing systems.
The demo plant will be located at Rosneft’s Angarsk Petrochemical Complex in Irkutsk Oblast, Russia, and is targeted to be complete by the end of 2014.
Rosneft has a stated objective and budget to reduce flaring and make better use of associated gas. This facility is envisioned as the first of many commercial GTL plants that will make use of associated gas.
After an extensive review of alternative Fischer-Tropsch offerings we decided to move forward with Oxford Catalysts’ technology. We found it to be the most attractive in combination with our POx process for the mini-GTL market we’re targeting. The potential in Russia for processing associated gas is over 30 billion cubic metres a year.
—Sergey Dolinskiy, CEO of Gazohim Techno
GTL is going to be big--gas is cheap and oil is dear and nothing on the horizon is likely to change that dynamic.
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 11 May 2012 at 09:25 AM
The EU is complaining about the high carbon value of Canadian tar sand bitumen, but they are not complaining about this flaring and spills and transportation which make other crude oils high carbon.
If the EU anti-carbon promoters were really interested in reducing carbon production they would stop all products imported from Japan which has many shut down nuclear reactors that can all produce almost zero carbon electricity at far higher amounts than all of the combined active wind turbines and solar cells of the world and at far lower costs than any replacement source of electricity.
This is the county of the KYOTO agreements which they are violating because of totally false fears of radiation damage. Most of the population of Japan as well as any other part of the world does not know that natural ancient nuclear radioactive elements are added to their body every time they eat any food and that they always were and still are radioactive them selves and expose other people to radio-activity, but also nuclear radiations come from the earth and sky in even larger mostly unavoidable amounts. The fact that life still exists on the earth is proof that all plants and animals can tolerate some radio activity. Oxygen is poisonous and human and other living cells are repairing the damage that it causes continuously. These cells know how to repair limited exposures to nuclear rays from self, earth and space.
Many people, perhaps thousands, have already died prematurely because of shortages of power, due to many functioning reactors being turned off, have made their immune systems just barely not able to cope with disease organisms or just simple hypothermia alone or combined with weak heart function. Not one person there has died of radiation destruction by over exposure to gamma rays from the failed nuclear reactors nor could they with only the amounts released by the recent massive earthquake. Unreasonable fear of the effects of nuclear exposure prevented greater efforts to limit the damage and prevent the spread of radioactive materials.
All earth contains ancient naturally radio-active uranium, potassium, thorium and other elements; and the radiation from artificial sources is not different than from these natural elements. The ocean alone is filled with enough Uranium to supply the present earth population with electricity for tens of billions of years. You will find areas in the world where human inhabitants have lived for thousands of years with higher natural radioactivity than exists in the Japanese exclusion zones or the abandoned towns near Chernobyl. People worked at operating the remaining three Chernobyl reactors for many years.
Chernobyl remains, by far, the worst nuclear reactor failure because the reactor elements were blasted into the air by a steam explosion and the reactor moderator carbon burning.
Perhaps Japan can learn to install emergency power sources and fuel supplies that are both redundant and not destroyed with a high wall of water. Capstone Micro turbines inside the buildings with inside propane tanks would have done very well.
Has Japan removed the population from all areas where a Tsunami of the same magnitude might kill people or from areas where an earthquake of the same magnitude might kill people. Why be more careful about nuclear power plants which have not killed anybody with radiation. The most dangerous radiation is that which comes to cell phones and invites people to talk whilst driving.
Tepco engineers invented a way many years ago to operate the reactor cooling system without any electricity or mechanical pumps. You might be able to find the papers on the internet still. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 11 May 2012 at 08:16 PM
Nuclear assurances span decades, yet Chernobyl and Fukushima happen.
It's said that 3% of Japan is radiated uninhabitable, of course you may be free to relocate there.
After nuclear bombs and reactor fallout, perhaps the Japanese have a solid distinct view of nuclear power.
That some then advocate boycotting their products seems unconscionable.
Posted by: kelly | 13 May 2012 at 07:34 AM