E. SALEHI, W. NEL and S. SAVE, Hatch Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada Viability of GTL for the North American gas market New developments in horizontal drilling, in combination with hydraulic fracturing, have greatly expanded producers ability to recover natural gas and oil from shale plays in North America. High shale gas activity has increased dry shale gas production in the US by around five timesfrom 1 trillion cu- bic feet (Tcf ) in 2006 to 4.8 Tcf in 2010which is over 20% of the dry natural gas production volume in the US. 1,2 Considering that there are 750 Tcf of technically recover- able shale gas resources in the Lower 48 states, the shale gas portion of the US overall dry gas production is forecast to rise to 40%50% over the next two decades. 1,2,3 Likewise, in Can- ada, the technically recoverable shale gas total of 355 Tcf pro- vides a promising resource, as it is more than five times the 62 Tcf of proven reserves of conventional natural gas in Canada. 4
Projections show that total US and Canadian shale gas produc- tion will increase from about 9 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) in 2010 to over 25 Bcfd in 2025. 5 Shale gas: A game-changer for North America. Shale gas has caused the Henry Hub spot price to drop from above $12 per thousand standard cubic feet (Mscf ) in June 2008 to less than $4/Mscf since January 2012. Gas was traded below $3/Mscf in the first half of 2012. The low gas price is not only a result of cheap production methods developed during the last few years, but also of general oversupply in an isolated North American market. 6 Associated gas production from liquids-rich shale plays and the large number of wells drilled in the last several years are major contributors to the present supply and demand situation for gas and, consequently, to the collapse in gas prices. 7 Howev- er, as expected, price correction has been occurring since early autumn 2012 due to production cutbacks, switches from coal- fired to gas-fired power generation, and higher demand during the cold season. Most references claim $3/Mscf to $4/Mscf as the breakeven price for dry shale gas production, which means that a profitable price range of $4/Mscf to $6/Mscf is forecast for natural gas in the foreseeable future. 8,9 Gas transport options. The main challenge of monetizing gas resources is logistical. Natural gas reserves close to gas mar- kets are usually transported via pipeline. Where this is not fea- sible, the gas can be transported with alternative methods, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and gas-to-liquids (GTL), which all address this challenge by densifying gas and reducing transportation costs. The latter option converts natural gas through Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis into liquid hydrocarbons, such as diesel and naphtha. Therefore, GTL does not need to compete in the limited gas market, unlike CNG and LNG. A significant reduction in gas prices over the last few years and an escalation in oil prices have led to a high spread between oil and gas prices. This has improved economics for GTL and made it the most promising alternative for adding value to natural gas assets in North America. The lower states of the US and the western provinces of Canada (Alberta and British Columbia) have their own drivers to encourage investment in GTL plants. Gas-to-liquids process. The GTL process (FIG. 1) has three main steps: Feedstock preparation and gasification FT synthesis Product upgrading. Feedstock preparation and syngas generation. The first step, synthesis gas production, is the most expensive of the three processes, accounting for up to 50% of the CAPEX. Therefore, there is significant incentive for developing new technologies to decrease the capital cost of syngas production. Syngas [hydrogen + carbon monoxide (H 2 + CO)] is pro- duced through three main commercial technologies: Steam methane reforming (SMR) and autothermal reforming (ATR), which are both catalytic processes; and partial oxida- tion (POX), which is a non-catalytic process. SMR does not need an air separation unit (ASU), and the H 2 :CO ratio is about 3, which represents an advantage for SMR in H 2 pro- duction applications. Sometimes, a combination of two technologies (ATR and SMR, or POX and SMR) is used, depending on the down- stream FT technology requirement. The main reactions in- volved in these processes are shown in TABLE 1. 10,11,12 Unlike SMR, in POX, natural gas and oxygen from an ASU produce syngas at an H 2 :CO ratio of about 1.6:1.9. 13 Shell de- veloped POX technology to produce syngas at its two GTL fa- cilities in Malaysia and Qatar. Some drawbacks of POX are the LPG Naphtha Diesel Natural gas from pipeline O 2 Steam FT tail gas NG preparation and syngas production FT synthesis Product upgrading FIG. 1. The GTL process. Originally appeared in: January 2013, pgs 41-48. Used with permission. HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 high outlet temperature from the reactor, which leads to soot formation, and the high cost of the reactor materials. FT synthesis requires syngas with an H 2 :CO ratio of about 2, a value higher than that obtained using POX and lower than that achievable with SMR. 14 ATR technology uses both POX and SMR reactions. Natural gas, steam and oxygen are reacted in a sub-stoichiometric flame (with a steam-to-carbon ratio close to 1 and an oxygen-to-carbon ratio of 0.500.65), and then converted further along the catalytic bed to produce syn- gas with an H 2 :CO ratio of around 2. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. FT synthesis is the catalytic hydrogenation of CO, which is highly exothermici.e., 165 kJ per mole of enthalpy change per mole of CO conversion, as shown in Eq. 1. 15 CO + 2 H 2 j CH 2 + H 2 O H = 165 kJ/mol (1) Eq. 1 shows that not all the energy in the reactants is trans- ferred to the products; a portion is released as heat, and the re- action is exothermic. However, some heat can be recovered to produce medium-pressure steam, and then to generate power. TABLE 2 illustrates the main reactions of FT synthesis. 11,15 Due to the exothermic nature of FT reactions, heat removal is the main challenge for the FT reactor design. Improper de- sign results in an increased catalyst deactivation rate and de- creased selectivity of the preferred products. Aside from heat-removal considerations, the reactor design is influenced by the FT products desired. There are two ver- sions of FT technology that work at different tem- perature ranges, depending on the required products: low-temperature FT (LTFT) and high-temperature FT (HTFT). LTFT, with an operating temperature of 200C 250C, produces a mixture of gas and liquid hydro- carbons, with a large fraction of heavy paraffinic waxy compounds, that aims to maximize molecules in the diesel range. HTFT operates at temperatures of 300C350C. This produces lower-molecular-weight paraffins and olefins in the gaseous phase, which maximizes gasoline production. A low chain-growth probability (alpha) of around 0.65 is intentionally chosen for HTFT to avoid hydrocarbon deposition on the cata- lysts, whereas this value is 0.9 or higher for LTFT. Both LTFT and HTFT technologies operate at pressures of 18 bar45 bar. Since the HTFT product slate is complex, it requires significant refining to make it suitable for use as transportation fuel. HTFT is also more favorable for chemical applications. 15 HTFT reactors are either fluidized bed or circulating fluid- ized bed, whereas LTFT reactors are designed as either multi- tubular fixed bed or slurry bed. Since the formation of a liquid phase in the fluidized-bed reactors will disable the fluidization, no liquid phase is present outside of the catalyst particles in HTFT reactors. 16 Both slurry-bed and fixed-bed configurations have advan- tages and disadvantages. Slurry reactors are more efficient in heat transfer compared to multi-tubular fixed-bed reactors. Higher heat transfer in slurry beds leads to improved tempera- ture control, which limits methane production and increases output of heavier hydrocarbons. In contrast, fixed-bed reactors are less efficient in heat re- moval. A significant task for slurry reactors is removing catalyst particles from the FT wax. 17 Fine particles can be produced as a result of catalyst attrition in the slurry phase, which is not a concern for fixed-bed reactors since the catalyst is stationary. Fixed-bed reactors are easier to scale up, whereas there is more uncertainty in scaling up slurry-bed reactors. Also, fixed- bed reactors are more expensive to build than slurry reactors. However, slurry reactors require more catalyst handling and other auxiliary equipment. To capture the main benefits of slurry reactors (improved heat removal) and fixed-bed reactors (simpler catalyst-han- dling systems and lower technology risk), extensive work was conducted by emerging technology licensors to enhance both heat and mass transfer in fixed-bed reactors by reducing the size of the tubes. This achievement has led to the development of microchannel fixed-bed reactors. The microchannel FT reactors are significantly smaller in diameter and length com- pared to traditional fixed-bed reactors, and they can utilize more efficient FT catalysts with a higher heat-release rate and higher productivity. Upgrading. FT product upgrading applies the same basic technologies and catalysts as those used in a crude oil refinery. Upgrading unit design depends on the feed to be processed. 11 TABLE 1. Main synthetic gas reactions Reactor Process technology Reaction SMR Steam methane reforming (SMR) CH 4 + H 2 O } CO + 3H 2 Water-gas shift (WGS) CO + H 2 O } CO 2 + H 2 POX Partial oxidation CH 4 + 1/2O 2 } CO + 2H 2 ATR Partial oxidation CH 4 + 3/2O 2 } CO + 2H 2 O SMR CH 4 + H 2 O } CO + 3H 2 WGS CO + H 2 O } CO 2 + H 2 TABLE 2. Main FT reactions Factor Reaction Parafn formation nCO + (2n+1)H 2 } C n H 2n+2 + nH 2 O Olen formation nCO + 2nH 2 } C n H 2n + nH 2 O Alcohol formation nCO + 2nH 2 } C n H 2n+1 OH + (n1)H 2 O WGS reaction CO + H 2 O } CO 2 + H 2 Boudouard reaction 2CO } C + CO 2 Carbon deposition CO + H 2 } C + H 2 O Heat removal is the main challenge for the FT reactor design. Improper design results in an increased catalyst deactivation rate and decreased selectivity of the preferred products. HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 LNG/Gas Processing Developments For HTFT, the FT products contain considerable amounts of olefins that are removed for chemical applications, whereas the FT products from LTFT lack sufficient olefins content to justify their extraction. 16 The FT products, after stabilization, are hydroisomerized/ hydrocracked to produce more distillates at mild conditions. Very severe hydroprocessing improves the weak cold proper- ties of produced distillates (i.e., decreasing diesel cloudpoint), but at the expense of lowering the diesel output and increasing the yield of lighter hydrocarbons. GTL products market. These products are unique; they are clean, sulfur-free, paraffinic hydrocarbons. Although a broad range of specialty products can be obtained through the GTL process, the focus is on three main products: diesel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The diesel markets in North America and worldwide are steadily growing. Particularly in Europe, rising demand is driv- en by the road freight sector and by passenger vehicles switch- ing from gasoline to diesel. 15 In the US, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that diesel consumption will reach 4.5 million barrels per day (MMbpd) by 2035which means an increase of over 40%. 18 Likewise, the National En- ergy Board of Canada forecasts that domestic diesel consump- tion will increase by about 50% by 2035. 19 FT diesel can be used directly or blended with crude oil- derived diesel and burned in existing vehicle engines. FT diesel has zero sulfur, contains low aromatics, and is mostly comprised of linear products with a cetane number above 70, compared to a typical cetane number of 40 for crude oil-derived diesel. Due to these properties, FT diesel has the potential to be sold as a premium diesel blendstock. In addition, FT diesel can be blended with lower-cetane, lower-quality diesels to achieve commercial diesel specifications. Aside from the listed advan- tages, the lower emissions levels of hydrocarbons, CO, NO x and particulate matter (PM) make FT diesel a more promising fuel vs. conventional diesel. 20 FT naphtha is not suitable for gasoline production because of its low octane number and linear paraffinic nature. However, it can be utilized as a bitumen diluent in specific markets, such as the oil sands market in Canada. Canadian producers prefer to export their heavy oil for processing at US refineries, for which diluent is required. To meet pipeline specifications, one third of a barrel of dilu- ent is required for every barrel of bitumen that is to be pumped. The growing oil sands business in Alberta, Canada has resulted in a corresponding growing market for FT naphtha. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) fore- cast, total oil sands production will reach 3.7 MMbpd by 2025, representing an increase of more than double the current level. 21 The other potential market for FT naphtha is feedstock for steam crackers to produce petrochemicals. FT naphthas paraf- finic nature makes it is an ideal feedstock for naphtha crackers, and it gives a higher yield of cracker products (ethylene and pro- pylene), compared to crude oil-derived naphtha. Most naphtha steam crackers are located in Japan and South Korea. In North America, steam crackers mainly use gas feedstocks. There are also various industrial uses for LPG, primarily as fuel or as petrochemical feedstock. New in-situ oil sands tech- nologies create an alternative use for LPG, potentially aiding in the extraction of bitumen from oil sands. GTL economics. The oil-to-gas price spread is the main driver affecting the viability of GTL. In fact, GTL products, such as FT diesel and naphtha, will compete directly with crude oil-derived products. The Henry Hub natural gas and West Texas Interme- diate (WTI) crude oil price benchmarks are used as the basis for the current study. FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 show the EIAs 20112035 projections for natural gas and crude oil prices, respectively. The average prices for WTI oil and Henry Hub gas in the forseeable future are $110/bbl and $5.60/MMBtu, respec- tively. This translates into an oil-to-gas price ratio of about 20, compared to a forecast average of less than 10, as estimated in the previous 21 years (FIG. 4). However, the EIAs 2012 projections show a $20/bbl high- er average oil price and a $0.30/MMBtu lower average natural gas price, which leads to a higher spread between crude oil and natural gas prices. A higher spread means increased profit- ability for GTL. On average, 10 MMBtu of natural gas is required to produce 1 bbl of GTL product, of which about half is consumed to pro- vide the energy needed for GTL processing and for generating 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 $ / M M b t u Year FIG. 2. Natural gas (Henry Hub) price projection. 18 80 90 100 110 120 130 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 $ / b b l Year FIG. 3. Crude oil (WTI) price projection. 18 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 LNG/Gas Processing Developments some power for export. The differential is the energy content of the liquid product. It means that the average feedstock cost is about $56/bbl, utilizing an average gas price of $5.60/MM- Btu for the lifetime of the plant. A significant portion of operating expenditure (OPEX) for a GTL facility (e.g., labor, maintenance and insurance) is size- and location-specific, whereas chemicals, catalysts and utilities are not. A rough OPEX estimate of $15/bbl to $20/ bbl may be used. 15, 23 In addition, $3/bbl is assumed for the transportation cost of the productsan assumption that is also location-specific. As with any process in the oil and gas industry, GTL is cap- ital-intensive; therefore, economy of scale is important. Oryx GTL, with $1.2 billion (B) to $1.5 B in capital expenditure (CAPEX) and a capacity of 34,000 bpd, has a specific CAPEX in the range of $35,000 to $44,000 per bpd. Pearl GTL, which is an integrated upstream and downstream project with $20 B in CAPEX and capacities of 140,000 bpd of GTL and 120,000 bpd of NGL, translates to a specific CA- PEX of $77,000 per bpd. The higher CAPEX for Pearl GTL is due to the cost escalation of engineering and materials from 20062007, when Pearl GTL started construction. Oryx GTL benefited from a lump-sum engineering, procurement and con- struction (EPC) contract, which had been sealed prior to 2006, hence avoiding this period of cost escalation. 20 Sasol of South Africa, which is the technology provider as well as a major stakeholder of the Oryx GTL plant in Qatar, seeks to build GTL facilities in North America. In the US, the cost estimate for Sasols proposed, 96,000-bpd GTL plant in Louisiana is $8 B to $9 B (approximately $88,000 per bpd). 24
For this analysis, a specific CAPEX of $100,000 per bpd was as- sumed, which is higher than the Pearl GTL CAPEX and Sasols estimated CAPEX for the US Gulf Coast. The $100,000 per bpd translates to an estimated cost of $10/bbl of GTL products for a GTL plant running for 30 years. The breakdown for GTL product cost in FIG. 5 shows that gas feedstock cost is the highest contributing factor to the total cost of 1 bbl of GTL product. However, where the stranded gas alternatives are to leave the gas alone or to flare it, the ne- gotiated gas price has little relationship to the market price. Therefore, stranded-gas GTL economics are primarily driven by product price and CAPEX. The breakeven point for GTL lies between $50/bbl and $100/bbl of the crude oil price, depending mainly on the CA- PEX and the natural gas price. 25 To evaluate the viability of a generic GTL plant in North America, GTL product prices were forecast based on the EIAs 2011 projection of the WTI price, utilizing the historical relationships between diesel, naphtha and LPG prices and the price of WTI. The analysis of historical prices shows a relationship between US Gulf Coast ultra-low-sulfur diesel price and WTI price, as seen in FIG. 6. Likewise, FIG. 7 demonstrates the historical LPG price as a function of WTI. The Mont Belvieu, Texas historical propane spot price was assumed for the LPG price, and naphtha was assumed to be sold at the WTI price projected by the EIA. Assuming a GTL plant with the capacity of Oryx GTL, the product slate would be 24,000 bpd of diesel, 9,000 bpd of naph- tha and 1,000 bpd of LPG (although Oryx GTL announced an even higher diesel production at the XTL Summit in London in May 2012). The internal rate of return (IRR), which is graphed against CAPEX in FIG. 8, considers the following items: The assumptions made for gas price projection (FIG. 2) GTL product price projections (FIGS. 3, 6 and 7) OPEX Transportation cost A plant availability of 93%. As shown in FIG. 8, by increasing CAPEX from $80,000 per bpd to $200,000 per bpd, the IRR will decrease from above 20% to below 10%. FIG. 9 also shows IRR as a function of the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Feedstock CAPEX OPEX Shipping $ / b b l FIG. 5. GTL product cost breakdowns. WTI price, $/bbl U S
G u l f
C o a s t
u l t r a - l o w - s u l f u r
d i e s e l
p r i c e ,
$ / b b l y = 1.2198x + 0.249 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 FIG. 6. Historical price relationship between diesel and WTI. 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 C r u d e
o i l
t o
n a t u r a l
g a s
p r i c e
r a t i o
Year 10 Average EIA: 20 Historical ratio EIA forecast Current ratio FIG. 4. Crude oil (WTI) to natural gas (Henry Hub) price ratio. 22 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 LNG/Gas Processing Developments LNG/Gas Processing Developments average natural gas price and the average WTI price for the ser- vice life of the plant, at various CAPEXs. As expected, gas and WTI pricings have a significant ef- fect on the total economics of GTL. The economic evaluation shows that, at a gas price of up to $8/MMBtu, assuming a CA- PEX of $80,000 per bpd (FIG. 9), GTL could still be economical with an average WTI price of above $120/bbl. However, most scenarios forecast a gas price of $4/MMBtu to $6/MMBtu for the foreseeable future. Conversely, at a CAPEX of $200,000 per bpd, GTL would be viable only at higher crude oil and lower gas prices. Associ- ated gas, as the byproduct of US wet shale plays, could be a good example for low-value, or sometimes zero-value, feedstock. In addition, electricity as the byproduct of a GTL plant could be exported to improve the IRR; however, it is not included in this economic evaluation. Furthermore, production of higher-value byproducts, such as lube oils, paraffins and waxes, has not been considered in this evaluation. Note: this economic evaluation has been conservative regarding the pricing for feedstock and GTL products. Selecting the right location with accessibility to less-expensive gas feed- stock significantly improves economics. Potential locations for GTL installation in North America. Shale gas development has significantly changed natural gas pricing in North America and gas trade between Canada and the US. Historically, Canada has been a main gas supplier to the US, which now produces enough gas to be in oversupply. The two main alternatives for monetizing natural gas in both Canada and the US are LNG and GTL. Canada has been plan- ning to install LNG plants in British Columbia, on Canadas West Coast, to supply Asian marketsparticularly Japan. In the US, most planned installations are located along the Gulf Coast and target European markets. Although higher thermal efficiency and proven technology make LNG an attractive alternative, the product is still sold in the limited natural gas market. Furthermore, LNG exports likely will not aid in reducing oil imports, of which 70% are con- sumed by the transportation sector. GTL, on the other hand, provides clean transportation fuels and also significantly im- proves US energy security. Western Canada and the US Gulf Coast each have unique advantages and disadvantages for hosting GTL plants. Canada is witnessing higher labor and construction costs (CAPEX and OPEX) than the US. Conversely, Canadas huge gas resources are landlocked, with no readily available market, which will keep the Canadian gas price below the US gas price. The benefit of a lower specific CAPEX in the US is mainly due to accessibility to a lower-cost labor force. The US Gulf Coast, in particular, benefits from proximity to a skilled labor force and access to the coast. The large products market in the US also supports the implementation of larger-scale GTL plants. Canada, with the advantage of a lower gas price and growing naphtha and diesel markets in Alberta, could be a good alterna- tive location, especially for small- to medium-sized GTL plants. Takeaway. New technological achievements in shale gas recov- ery have led to an oversupply of natural gas in an isolated North American market. This has caused an unprecedented disconnect between oil and gas prices. Economic evaluations have shown that the wide spread between oil and gas prices is making GTL viable at a broad range of CAPEX values. GTL installations are 0 5 10 15 20 25 80,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 I R R ,
% CAPEX, $/bpd FIG. 8. Plant IRR vs. CAPEX. IRR (%): 0%10% 10%20% 20%30% 30%40% 40%50% CAPEX: $80,000/bpd CAPEX: $100,000/bpd 80 100 120 140 2 4 6 8 A v e r a g e
W T I
p r i c e ,
$ / b b l Average gas price, $/MMBtu 80 100 120 140 2 4 6 8 A v e r a g e
W T I
p r i c e ,
$ / b b l Average gas price, $/MMBtu CAPEX: $150,000/bpd CAPEX: $200,000/bpd 100 120 140 2 4 6 8 A v e r a g e
W T I
p r i c e ,
$ / b b l Average gas price, $/MMBtu 80 100 120 140 2 4 6 8 A v e r a g e
W T I
p r i c e ,
$ / b b l Average gas price, $/MMBtu FIG. 9. IRR vs. average natural gas and WTI prices at various CAPEXs. y = 0.589x + 3.6856 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 M o n t
B e l v i e u ,
T e x a s
p r o p a n e
s p o t
p r i c e ( f r e e
o n
b o a r d ) ,
$ / b b l WTI price, $/bbl FIG. 7. Historical price relationship between LPG and WTI. 26 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2013 economically feasible at low natural gas prices and high forecast oil prices, even at lofty CAPEX values of around $200,000/bpd. New developments in FT technology will enable economi- cally viable GTL facilities at a smaller scale, compared to ex- isting industrial facilities. However, one must be careful to understand the various challenges in implementing new FT technology related to gas-loop optimization, total process in- tegration to meet a suitable product slate, catalyst handling, efficient startup, commissioning and operations, and a pro- cess design to support a zero-holdup system. A holistic view is required to consider and integrate these factors in a practical manner. An efficient gas-loop design, along with the appropriate level of modularization and an ef- fective project delivery strategy, is known to impact the IRR by 3%5%. This gives a significant boost to overall project viability. Conversely, negating some of the practical aspects of commercializing technology might lead to schedule and startup delays, thereby having the opposite effect on IRR. LITERATURE CITED 1 Review of emerging resources: US shale gas and shale oil plays, US Energy Information Administration, July 2011. 2 Butler, N., Shale gas and global energy security, Energy Economist, 2011. 3 Fueling North Americas energy future, IHS CERA, 2010. 4 Country overview: Canada, US Energy Information Administration, October 16, 2012. 5 Canadas shale gas, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, February 5, 2010. 6 Shale fueling a looming energy credit crunch, Petroleum Economist, May 10, 2012. 7 After the gold rush: A perspective on future US natural gas supply and price, The Oil Drum, February 8, 2012. 8 Brown, D., What is the cost of shale gas play? AAPG Explorer, April 2011. 9 Shell has learned from its Pearl GTL project and costs can be cut: Voser, Platts, March 7, 2012. 10 Aasberg-Petersen, K., J. H. Bak Hansen, T. S. Christensen and I. Dybkjaer, Technologies for large-scale gas conversion, Applied Catalysis A: General, Vol. 221, 2001. 11 Velasco, J. A., Gas to liquids: A technology for natural gas industrialization in Bolivia, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol. 2, 2010. 12 Liu, J. A., Kinetics, catalysis and mechanism of methane steam reforming, MSc thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Chemical Engineering Department, 2006. 13 Vosloo, A. C., Fischer-Tropsch: A futuristic view, Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 71, 2001. 14 Wilhelm, D. J., D. R. Simbeck, A. D. Karp and R. L. Dickenson, Syngas pro- duction for gas-to-liquids applications: Technologies, issues and outlook, Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 71, 2001. 15 Tijm, P., Gas-to-Liquids, Fischer-Tropsch, Advanced Energy Technology, Futures Pathway, Bookland Direct, 2010. 16 Steynberg, A. P., Introduction to Fischer-Tropsch technology, Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Vol. 152, 2004. 17 De Klerk, A., Fischer-Tropsch Refining, Wiley-VCH, 2011. 18 Annual projections to 2035, US Energy Information Administration, April 2011. 19 Canadas energy future: Energy supply and demand projections to 2035Energy market assessment, National Energy Board of Canada, October 17, 2012. 20 Rahmim, I., Special report: GTL, CTL finding roles in global energy, Oil & Gas Journal, March 24, 2008. 21 Crude oil, markets and pipelines, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, June 2011. 22 Natural gas and crude oil prices in AEO2009, US Energy Information Administration. 23 Gas-to-liquids: A reserve ready to be tapped, IHS CERA, July 14, 2011. 24 Sasol eyes growth in North America, exit from Iran, Hydrocarbon Processing, September 10, 2012. 25 McCracken, R., Prostrate before Pearl, Energy Economist, July 2011. 26 Spot prices for crude oil and petroleum products, US Energy Information Administration. EBRAHIM SALEHI is a process engineer with more than nine years of experience with operating and EPC companies, including four years of PhD research in biofuels and two years of field experience in a petrochemical complex in southern Iran. His industry experience has taken place mainly in natural gas, including conceptual and pre-feasibility studies on GTL in western Canada and study opportunities for developing compressed natural gas (CNG) and adsorbed natural gas (ANG) in Iran. Mr. Salehis recent work experience involves the gasification and Fischer-Tropsch areas of a GTL pre-feasibility study with Hatch, and he has developed an in-depth understanding of gasification, Fischer-Tropsch, and upgrading technologies. Mr. Salehi received the Industrial R&D Fellowship (IRDF) award for Hatch from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. WESSEL NEL is a senior process engineer at Hatch with more than 14 years of experience. Of these 14 years, 12 were dedicated to Fischer-Tropsch-related projects, including 10 years at Sasol. Mr. Nel has been the lead Fischer-Tropsch engineer on a number of Hatchs CTL, GTL and biomass-to- liquids (BTL) studies in recent years, and the project manager for recent GTL studies. He has developed an extensive understanding of established and upcoming GTL technologies from a broad range of licensors. Mr. Nels skills include conceptual to detailed process design, process simulation, flowsheet optimization, economic evaluation, and project and engineering management. SANJIV SAVE is the director of oil and gas (hydrocarbon processing) with Hatchs oil and gas business unit. He has over 20 years of professional experience with both operating and consulting companies, in the areas of project and business management for multidisciplinary engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) projects in the energy sector. Mr. Saves specific areas of technical expertise include heavy oil upgrading and non-conventional fossil fuelsnamely oil sands, oil shale, gas-to- liquids (GTL), coal-to-liquids (CTL), and carbon capture and sequestration. His solid technical qualifications, organizational and management skills, and ability to transcend cultural barriers have led to the successful execution of several projects. Also, his strong research and development background has contributed to the publication of several articles, chapters and patents. Article copyright 2013 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder. Hatch is an employee-owned, multidisciplinary professional EPCM services firm that delivers a comprehensive array of technical and strategic services, including consulting, technology, and operations services to the Mining, Metallurgical, Energy, and Infrastructure sectors. Hatch is internationally known for its anything-to-liquids (XTL) and LNG experience and is currently involved with one of the worlds largest LNG projects, the Gorgon Project. Hatch has served clients for over 80 years and has project experience in more than 150 countries around the world. With 11,000 people in over 65 offices, the firm currently has more than $35 billion projects currently under management. Ebrahim Salehi esalehi@hatch.ca Wessel Nel wnel@hatch.ca Sanjiv Save ssave@hatch.ca LNG/Gas Processing Developments