Technoeconomic Assessment of An Australian Indirect Coal Liquefaction Process

UQ Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology

THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
Bachelor of Engineering Thesis

Techno-Economic Assessment of an Australian Indirect Coal
Liquefaction Process

Student Name: Declan SCOTT
Course Code: CHEE4060
Supervisors: Dr. Simon Smart, Dr. David Harris
Submission date: 16 J une 2014

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering
degree in Chemical Engineering

Techno-Economic Assessment of an Australian
Indirect Coal Liquefaction Process
Abstract
Technology for the production of syngas from coal and its subsequent conversion to synthetic
crude oil has existed for a number of years with somewhat limited commercial
implementation. This indirect coal liquefaction process was analysed to provide a preliminary
assessment of its economic feasibility in Australia. Analysis was enabled through Aspen Plus
simulation of coal preparation, gasification, syngas conditioning, Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
synthesis and syncrude refining processes. This model was run with four Australian thermal
coals as feedstock, specifically selected as their individual characteristics represent a wide
range of coal types and because they have previously been subject to pilot scale gasification
trials. Simulation results showed that coal type significantly affects the volume of FT liquid
fuels produced, with production ranging from 21,000bbl/day to 43,000bbl/day. High carbon
content coals yielded the highest fuel volumes and lowest relative CO
2
production, although
this is still significant at 3.9 kg CO
2
/kg fuel produced.
Economic analysis of the modelled process was facilitated by simulation data, commodity
price predictions and capital cost estimates for a reference CTL plant of similar size. Analysis
showed that, for all the scenarios considered, the project offered a large, negative net present
value and low internal rate of return ranging from 2.3% to 7.4%. This indicates that the
process under consideration is not viable under the current market conditions in Australia.
Breakeven prices required for crude oil to yield a viable process varied between $120-
$160/bbl depending on the coal feedstock. Process economics were shown to be most
sensitive to product prices received, therefore crude oil prices would significantly affect the
project viability. Results also showed that high carbon content coals offer the lowest
breakeven fuel prices and highest returns, as the price premium for their higher heating value
is more than offset by the additional fuel production achieved. However, none of the coals
trialled offered a viable Australian CTL process and this appears to remain the case unless
sustained increases in crude oil prices are experienced.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. David Harris and his team at CSIROs Queensland Centre for
Advanced Technology (QCAT) for their valuable advice and assistance. Especially in
selecting suitable coals to assess in this study and for sharing their extensive knowledge from
previous coal gasification trials.
Thanks also go to Dr. Nikolai Kinaev and Dr. Chris Greig from the UQ Energy Initiative for
their practical advice from a wealth of industry experience.
I would also like to thank Dr. Thomas Kreutz from Princeton Universitys Environmental
Institute for his guidance in developing an effective process model of the coal to liquids
process based on his past experience in the area.
Last but certainly not least, thanks go to my supervisor Dr. Simon Smart for giving me
direction and keeping me on track throughout this project.

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background: ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Goal ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Project Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Coal Liquefaction Pathways: ............................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Direct Coal Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Indirect Coal Liquefaction.............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Gasification Technology ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 Moving-Bed Gasifiers: ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Circulated Fluidized-Bed Gasifiers: ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Entrained Flow Gasifiers ................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2.4 Gasifier Applications: ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Syngas Conversion Technology .......................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Methanol to Gasoline ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: ........................................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Additional Unit Operations: ................................................................................................................. 9
2.4.1 Coal Preparation ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.4.2 Air Separation Unit ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.3 Water Gas Shift ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.4.4 Acid Gas Removal............................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.4.5 Syncrude Refining .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Commercial Operations ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Previous Techno-economic Studies ................................................................................................ 12
2.7 Summary & Research Gaps ................................................................................................................ 13
3 Model Development ..................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Reference Case ........................................................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Model Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Model Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Coal Feedstock: ................................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.3.2 Coal Preparation: ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.3.3 Gasification: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.4 Syngas Quench: ................................................................................................................................................................ 16
3.3.5 Water Gas Shift: ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.6 Acid Gas Removal: .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.7 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: ........................................................................................................................................ 18
3.3.8 Syncrude Refinery: ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

4 Model Verification ........................................................................................................................ 20
4.1 Gasification: ............................................................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: ................................................................................................................ 21
4.3 Overall Model: ......................................................................................................................................... 22
5 Results: ............................................................................................................................................. 23
6 Cost Estimation .............................................................................................................................. 24
6.1 Capital Cost Estimation: ...................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.1 Direct Cost Estimates: ................................................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.2 Indirect Cost Estimates: ............................................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.3 Exclusions: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25
6.1.4 Capital Cost Conversion: .............................................................................................................................................. 25
6.2 Operating Costs: ..................................................................................................................................... 26
6.2.1 Fixed Operating Costs: .................................................................................................................................................. 26
6.2.2 Variable Operating Costs: ............................................................................................................................................ 26
7 Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 30
7.1 Sensitivity Analysis: .............................................................................................................................. 33
7.2 Coal Selection: ......................................................................................................................................... 34
8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 35
9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 36
10 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 39
10.1 Appendix A: Aspen Plus Model Components: ............................................................................ 39
10.2 Appendix B: Model Development Details: ................................................................................... 40
10.3 Appendix C: FT Synthesis Product Distribution: ....................................................................... 49
10.4 Appendix D: Fixed Operating Costs: ............................................................................................... 50
10.5 Appendix E: Price Estimations: ........................................................................................................ 51
10.6 Appendix F: Example Economic Calculations CRC701 Scenario: .................................... 53
10.7 Appendix G: Sensitivity Analysis Results: .................................................................................... 54

List of Tables:
Table 1: Breakeven Crude Oil Prices from Previous Technoeconomic ICL Studies ..................... 12
Table 2: Composition of Five Coal Feedstocks Used .................................................................... 15
Table 3: Average operating conditions from pilot scale gasification studies (Roberts, 2011) ....... 16
Table 4: Comparison of Model Gasifier with Reference Data ....................................................... 20
Table 5: Key Results from CTL Model run with 5 different coals................................................. 23
Table 6: Capital Cost Estimates for Five Operating Scenarios ...................................................... 25
Table 7: Key results from Economic Analysis of 5 Scenarios ....................................................... 31
Table 8: Cost of Oxygen Supply for Each Scenario ....................................................................... 52

List of Figures:
Figure 1: Commercial examples of different gasifier types (NETL, 2014) ..................................... 5
Figure 2: Gasifier suitability for different coal ranks (Kinaev, 2014) .............................................. 6
Figure 3: Potential Syngas Upgrading Pathways. Reprinted from Spath, 2003 .............................. 7
Figure 4: Fischer-Tropsch Reactor Designs (Spath and Dayton, 2008) ........................................... 9
Figure 5: Block Flow Diagram of 20,000bbl/day ICL Reference Case (Drover, 2008) ................ 14
Figure 6: Comparison of Syncrude Compositon - Model Data vs Typical Co-LTFT Process ....... 21
Figure 7: Modelled Syncrude Composition vs ASF Distributions ................................................. 22
Figure 8: Dated Brent, Gasoline & Diesel Prices over the past 10 years (AIP, 2014) ................... 28
Figure 9: Average Refined Product Price vs Crude Oil Price since 2009 ...................................... 29
Figure 10: Contribution of Plant Costs towards Breakeven FT Product Prices ............................. 32
Figure 11: Effect of Percentage Change in Key Prices on Projects Internal Rate of Return ......... 33
Figure 12: Breakeven FT Product Price vs Effective Carbon Content of Coal.............................. 34

1

1 Introduction
1.1 Background:
Technologies for the conversion of coal and natural gas to liquid petroleum fuels have been
available for over 80 years. However, the availability of relatively cheap crude oil supplies
has resulted in these technologies remaining economically unattractive under most conditions.
Implementation has therefore been limited except in extreme cases, often involving the
prospect of oil sanctions (Lowenberg, 1992). However, significant increases in the price of
crude oil of over 400% over the past 20 years have revived interest in liquid fuel production
from alternative feed stocks and there are currently a number of projects under development
worldwide (The World Bank, 2014).
At this point in time, none of these projects under development are located within Australia.
This is despite Australia being the worlds 4
th
largest coal producer with the 5
th
largest proven
reserves, whilst having only the 38
th
largest oil reserves in comparison. Australias relatively
small oil reserves, high cost of manufacturing, relatively small domestic market and the
availability of low cost imports have led to the closure of 4 of the existing 8 domestic
refinerys over the past decade. This situation has no negative consequences under normal
conditions however; it does place a high reliance on imports of refined products from Asian
refiners. Any disruptions to this supply chain resulting from political issues or even severe
weather events could have a significant impact on Australias transport sector. In addition to
this, the inability to produce sufficient volumes of jet fuel domestically raises concerns over
national security.
Combination of these factors presents potentially favourable economic and political drivers
for the production of liquid fuels from alternative feed stocks. Considering predicted volatility
in future natural gas prices as a number of large export projects come online, and Australias
large coal resources, a coal feedstock could be an attractive option (Wood and Carter, 2013).
However, projects of this type generally exhibit significant economies of scale and the
downside of this is the requirement for significant capital expenditure to build a large plant of
economically viable capacity. Recent cost pressures on resource and industrial projects within
Australia place significant risk on undertaking a project of this magnitude (BCA, 2013).
To address these issues it is necessary to determine under what conditions a Coal to Liquid
Fuels (CTL) plant might be economically viable within Australia. This study is the first step
in conducting a robust techno-economic assessment of CTL plant viability in Australia, and
involves the construction of a high-level tehno-economic model of an indirect coal
liquefaction (ICL) process based on existing and accepted technology. This model is then used
to evaluate the process for a number of different Australian coals, which have been subject to
previous coal gasification trials (Roberts et al., 2011). The economic viability of the process is
assessed under various conditions and the sensitivity of this to a number of factors is
investigated.
2

1.2 Research Goal
The aim of this study is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the economic viability of jet
fuel production through currently available indirect coal liquefaction technology for a number
of different Australian coals.
1.3 Project Scope
Scope of the project includes development of a high-level simulation of an indirect coal
liquefaction process, based on a generic plant configuration that has been considered in
several commercial studies (Drover, 2008). Modelling covers production of refined
transportation fuels from a raw coal feedstock and focuses on the key unit operations of coal
gasification, syngas cleaning, Fischer-Tropsch conversion and syncrude refining.
Analysis of the process for various coal feedstocks, which are relevant in an Australian
context, is also included in the project scope. The specific coals were selected with assistance
from CSIROs Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology to represent broader categories
of coal available within Australia.
Finally, a preliminary economic assessment of the process for each coal type will be
presented. Detailed capital cost estimates are excluded from the scope as these are estimated
from the capital cost of the reference case upon which the model was based. However,
preliminary estimation of operating costs based on plant data as well as predicted fuel and
feedstock prices are included. Analysis of the sensitivity of the process to future prices and
capital cost assumptions is also presented.
2 Literature Review
Although alternatives are briefly discussed, this literature review focuses on indirect coal
liquefaction processes involving coal gasification and syngas upgrading. A number of
available gasification technologies are compared and two key syngas upgrading pathways for
liquid fuels production are presented. Additional unit operations required for an indirect coal
liquefaction process are also identified and alternative technologies discussed. Finally, the
state of existing ICL facilities is assessed and a brief summary of previous techno-economic
studies is presented.
2.1 Coal Liquefaction Pathways:
Coal liquefaction is a broad term describing the conversion of solid coal to liquid fuels or
chemicals. More specifically, it involves the production of liquids by chemically altering the
coal structure to increase the hydrogen to carbon ratio (Kaneko et al., 2000). There are two
main pathways that are used to achieve this conversion industrially; direct coal liquefaction
and indirect coal liquefaction.

3

2.1.1 Direct Coal Liquefaction
Direct coal liquefaction reacts coal under elevated temperature and pressure with a solvent to
rupture the bonds within high molecular weight organic molecules in the coal structure (Li
and Fan, 2008). This produces a liquid product with a molecular weight similar to that of the
fuels being produced that is highly aromatic, indicating a high composition of benzene
derivatives (Dadyburjor et al., 2000). The solvent is usually a coal-derived, heavy aromatic
material that dissolves the coals organic structure and provides the hydrogen required for the
reactions taking place. The first of these reactions is the thermal cracking of large organic
molecules to smaller free-radical fragment molecules. Hydrogenation of these free-radical
molecules is then required to produce liquid products through the addition of hydrogen to
eliminate the free radical (Dadyburjor et al., 2000). By definition, the free radical fragments
contain an unpaired valence electron making them highly reactive and able to react with other
fragments to form solid coke if insufficient hydrogen is provided (Liu et al., 2010). This basic
understanding of the DCL process is generally accepted, although the exact reaction
mechanisms are highly complex and not yet fully understood.
Liquids produced from the DCL process are then separated according to their solubility,
distilled into the desired fractions and then hydrotreated to produce the final liquid fuel
products (Kaneko et al., 2000). There are a number of commercially available processes
including the Exxon Donor Solvent Process, the H-Coal Process, the Shenhua and the
NEDOL process, which was operated in the Latrobe Valley, Australia in the 1980s (Han and
Chang, 2008). Direct coal liquefaction processes have been improved significantly since
research interest intensified in the 1970s, with oil yields increasing from 44% to 70% (Liu et
al., 2010). They currently offer the highest efficiency coal conversion process and a number of
plants are being developed in China and worldwide.
However, there are a number of disadvantages to the DCL process that limit its application.
Although a high aromatic content is beneficial for octane properties, there are a number of
potent mutagenic and carcinogenic aromatic liquids produced that pose significant health
concerns and complicate waste disposal (Williams and Larson, 2003). Waste disposal is
further complicated by high concentrations of salts in wastewater, which would require a
different treatment strategy to the organic compounds (Kinaev, 2014). The high aromatic
content also means that the fuel produced has a very low cetane rating and the production of
diesel or jet fuel is not feasible from DCL products (Williams and Larson, 2003). Most DCL
processes also require an external hydrogen source that is usually obtained from natural gas,
thus making them undesirable if gas prices were to increase significantly in the future. Finally,
DCL processes are also very cost-intensive and the modern, more efficient technologies are
only just being proven on a commercial scale. As such, DCL processes were not considered
any further for this study.

4

2.1.2 Indirect Coal Liquefaction
Indirect coal liquefaction involves the gasification of coal to a mixture of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide, known as synthesis gas or syngas, which is then catalytically converted to
liquid products (Kaneko et al., 2000). Coal gasification is the partial oxidation of coal in a
reducing environment to produce syngas, which retains a large percentage of the coals heating
value (Higman, 2008). Gasification occurs through a number of stages as the coal is heated
within the gasifier. Drying occurs when the coal first enters the gasifier and moisture is driven
out at temperatures of approximately 105 C. Devolatilisation or pyrolysis then occurs from
500-900 C where bonds between aromatic clusters in the coal structure are broken to form
low molecular weight particles which vapourise and escape the coal structure (Shadle et al.,
2000). The remaining highly porous solid product is known as char and would usually be
combusted in an oxygen atmosphere. However, as the oxygen feed is restricted, carbon within
the coal is only partially combusted according to the Reaction 1 below:
R1) (1+)C + O
2
2 CO + (1-)CO
2

298
= 172.5 393.5 /
The variable varies from 0 to 1 depending on gasifier conditions and determines whether
carbon is fully oxidised to CO
2
or partially oxidised to CO. This exothermic reaction occurs in
the combustion zone at the coal feed point and rapidly consumes the available oxygen whilst
also providing the heat required for the endothermic, reversible gasification (R2-3) and
methanation (R4) reactions below:
R2) C + CO
2
2CO
298
= 172.5 /
R3) C + H
2
O CO + H
2

298
= 131.3 /
R4) C + 2H
2
CH
4

298
= 74.8 /
In addition to this, the water-gas shift reaction also occurs within the gasifier as shown below:
R5) CO + H
2
O CO
2
+ H
2

298
= 41.2 /
Reactions 1 to 5 describe the main reactions occurring within the gasifier. In addition to this,
inorganic components within the coal (heteroatoms) also react under the reducing gasifier
conditions. Sulphur reacts to form hydrogen sulphide (H
2
S) and carbonyl sulphide (COS),
nitrogen reacts to form ammonia (NH
3
) and this can then react further to form hydrogen
cyanide (HCN) (Kunze and Spliethoff, 2011). These pollutants must be removed in
downstream syngas clean-up steps before further processing. Numerous commercial
technologies have been developed for coal gasification and the main categories are discussed
below.
2.2 Gasification Technology
Although a large number of commercial gasifiers are available, these all fall into three general
categories; Moving-bed (aka Fixed-bed) gasifiers, Fluidized-bed gasifiers and Entrained-flow
gasifiers (Simbeck, 1993). Commercial examples of each of these gasifier types are shown in
Figure 1 on the following page.
5

Fixed Bed Circulating Fluidised Bed Entrained Flow
e.g. British Gas
Lurgi
e.g. KBR Trig Slurry Fed (e.g. GE) Dry Fed (e.g. Shell)

Figure 1: Commercial examples of different gasifier types (NETL, 2014)
2.2.1 Moving-Bed Gasiers:
Moving-bed gasifiers contain a bed of coal which moves slowly downward under gravity
whilst it is gasified by a counter current oxidant blast (Drover, 2008). Coal enters at the top of
the reactor where it is dried and cools the exiting syngas. It then moves through the
devolatisation and combustion zones, forming syngas whilst dry ash exits at the bottom of the
reactor (Simbeck, 1993). Although the oxygen consumption is low and the Cold Gas
Efficiency (CGE) of these reactors is relatively high, the product syngas contains methane as
well as tars and oils which must be removed before further processing, reducing the overall
efficiency (Drover, 2008). Commercially available moving-bed gasifiers include the Sasol-
Lurgi dry bottom gasifier and the BGL slagging gasifier (Higman, 2008)
2.2.2 Circulated Fluidized-Bed Gasiers:
Coal is generally fed in the side of a fluidised-bed gasifier whilst a counter-current oxidant
flow from below ensures good back-mixing of the feed coal particles with those already
undergoing gasification (Simbeck, 1993). This back-mixing means that some partially reacted
coal is inevitably removed with the ash, reducing the carbon conversion (Higman, 2008).
Syngas leaving the top of the reactor contains some entrained coal particles which are
recovered via cyclone and returned to the reactor (Drover, 2008). The bed remains at a fairly
uniform temperature which must remain below the ash fusion temperature of the coal, as
melting ash will impact on the fluidisation ability. Fluidised bed reactors are characterised by
moderate temperature and oxygen demands as well as low carbon conversion (Bell et al.,
2011). Commercially available fluidised-bed gasifiers include the High-Temperature Winkler
(HTW) and KBR TRIG processes (Kaneko et al., 2000).
6

2.2.3 Entrained Flow Gasiers
Entrained-flow gasifiers operate with small feed particles below 100 microns in co-current
flow with the oxidant blast (Drover, 2008). High temperatures above 1200C, and therefore
high oxidant flow, are required in order to achieve sufficient conversion during the short
residence time in the reactor. This high temperature results in a slagging operation for gasifier
of this type, meaning that ash from coal is melted to form slag (Rezaiyan, 2005). These
gasifiers have high oxidant requirements but produce a relatively clean syngas with a high
sensible heat content. In addition to this, they are available in significantly larger capacitys
then other gasifiers and are the most common choice for applications downstream fuel
production (Drover, 2008).
2.2.4 Gasier Applications:
Selection of a particular gasifier is also largely influenced by the coal feedstock to be
processed. As shown in Figure 2, different gasifier types are more suited to certain coal ranks
than others.

Figure 2: Gasifier suitability for different coal ranks (Kinaev, 2014)
Figure 2 indicates that dry fed entrained flow gasifiers are suited to a wide range of coal
types, from sub-bituminous through to anthracitic coals. As such, selection of an entrained
flow gasifier may be beneficial for a study aiming to compare a wide range of coal types.
2.3 Syngas Conversion Technology
Once the raw syngas product from the selected gasifier has been cleaned of contaminants it
can be converted into a wide range of products through a number of different pathways. This
includes the production of synthetic natural gas, ethanol production through fermentation,
liquid hydrocarbon fuel production through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and the production of a
wide variety of fuels and chemicals through a methanol intermediate (Talmadge, 2013). The
two most relevant pathways for liquid fuel production, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and
methanol to gasoline (MTG), are indicated in Figure 3 and discussed in the following section.
7


Figure 3: Potential Syngas Upgrading Pathways. Reprinted from Spath, 2003
2.3.1 Methanol to Gasoline
The first step in the Methanol to Gasoline (MTG) process is the production of methanol from
clean syngas. This is achieved through the hydrogenation of CO and CO
2
as shown below:
R6) CO + 2H
2
CH
3
OH
298
= 90.8 /
R7) CO
2
+ 3H
2
CH
3
OH + H
2
O
298
= 49.6 /
This process was commercialised in 1923, operating at 340C, 30-50MPa with a zinc
chromium oxide catalyst (Pletcher, 1982). Since then various improvements have been made
to lower the reactor pressure and improve conversion through the ICI and Lurgi processes.
Methanol can be used as a standalone fuel however, in response to crude oil price rises in the
1970s, Mobil developed the methanol to gasoline process to produce conventional
transportation fuel (Dadyburjor et al., 2000). In this process, methanol is dehydrated over a
zeolite ZSM-5 catalyst to dimethyl ether and then further dehydrated to hydrocarbons in the
C
2
C
10
range as shown below (Kaneko et al., 2000).
R8) 2CH
3
OH CH
3
OCH
3
+ H
2
O
R9) CH
3
OCH
3
(CH
2
)
2
+ H
2
O
R10) Light Alkenes Heavier Alkenes
The overall heat of reaction for this complex sequence of reaction ranges from 1.5-1.75 kJ /g
methanol depending on the specific product distribution. This process was implemented in
New Zealand in 1980 with a natural gas feed for syngas generation and subsequent production
of 2700m
3
/d of gasoline. However, the gasoline producing section of the plant was shut down
when crude oil prices dropped and it became more attractive to produce methanol (Spivey,
2014).
As the name suggests, the MTG process is used for the production of gasoline not low octane
fuels such as diesel or jet fuel. As this study focuses on the production of jet fuel, the MTG is
not considered any further here.
8

2.3.2 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis:
Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch first reported the use of iron catalysts to produce liquid
hydrocarbons from synthesis gas in Germany, 1923. Originally termed the Synthol process,
this is now widely known as the Fischer-Tropsch process after its founders (Spath, 2003). The
mechanism for this process is a polymerisation reaction where chemisorbed methyl species
are formed by the dissociation of CO and the stepwise addition of H
2
, which is summarised
below.
R11) CO + 2H
2
--(CH
2
)-- + H
2
O
227
= 165 /
In addition to this, the formation of alcohols, carbonyls, carboxylic acids and water-gas shift
reactions also occurs during FT Synthesis (de Klerk, 2011). FT synthesis is characterized by
the large amount of heat released from the exothermic polymerization reactions as well as the
production of a very wide range of hydrocarbon products (C
1
C
100+
) (Spath, 2003).
However, as the probability of chain growth and chain termination is independent of chain
length, the selectivity of hydrocarbon products can be predicted according to the Anderson-
Schulz-Flory (ASF) statistical distribution as follows (Dry, 2002):
W
n
=n.(1- )
2
.
n-1
Where W
n
is the weight fraction of hydrocarbons containing n carbon atoms and is the chain
growth probability, which can be determined experimentally. Although the ASF provides a
reasonably accurate description of FT products, there are two main deviations that should be
accounted for, these are a higher than predicted methane selectivity and a higher than
predicted C
2
selectivity (de Klerk, 2011).
Chain growth probabilities, and therefore product distributions, are very temperature
dependent. The production of gasoline and light olefins is facilitated through high temperature
FT processes operating between 330-350 C. Low temperature processes operating between
220 250 C are employed for the production of waxes and diesel (Kaneko et al., 2000). Heat
removal and temperature control is one of the primary considerations in FT reactor design.
This has led to a number of different designs, with the four main reactor designs that have
been used commercially in the past depicted in Figure 4 on the following page.
9


Figure 4: Fischer-Tropsch Reactor Designs (Spath and Dayton, 2008)
The circulating (CFB) and fixed (SAS) fluidized bed reactors, shown in Figure 4a and 4b, are
both high-temperature reactors which have been used commercially by SASOL (Kaneko et
al., 2000). The multi-tubular fixed bed and fixed slurry bed are both low temperature reactors.
In the slurry bed reactor, syngas is bubbled through a suspension of catalyst particles in a FT
wax product, providing excellent catalyst contact. This design offers better temperature
control, lower catalyst loading, and significantly lower catalyst attrition rates compared to
fluidized bed reactors. Slurry beds also cost 75% less than the more complex, multi-tubular
beds but have only recently been commercialized. If maximum diesel and jet fuel production
is desired, slurry bed reactors with a cobalt catalyst are the optimum technology (Kreutz et al.,
2008).
2.4 Additional Unit Operations:
2.4.1 Coal Preparation
Coal preparation requirements are dependent on the coal feedstock and the gasifier
technology implemented. Coal is generally stockpiled to allow for supply disruptions to rail
transportation or mining activities. This run-of-mine coal is then fed to a crusher to reduce the
maximum size to 5cm (Austin, 1991). If an entrained flow gasifier is to be used, particle
diameter must be further reduced to below 100 microns with a ball mill, rod mill or similar
(Wills, 2006). Dry fed gasifiers require coal moisture content between 2 and 12%, which can
be achieved by heating the coal slightly with a mixture of air, nitrogen and combustion gases.
Slurry fed gasifiers do not require coal drying, with crushed coal instead being mixed with
treated water and fine slag particles before being fed into a wet rod mill for grinding (Drover,
2008).
2.4.2 Air Separation Unit
Entrained flow gasifiers almost exclusively use oxygen instead of air as their oxidant for the
gasification process. This necessitates the provision of an air separation unit (ASU) unless an
alternative arrangement can be made to source oxygen from a supplier. Costs associated with
this unit are significant, with the ASU estimated to account for 10-15% of total capital costs
and significant power requirements for indirect coal liquefaction processes (Higman, 2008).
a) b) c) d)
10

Cryogenic ASUs are the dominant technology for air separation and involve air compression,
pre-purification and drying, liquefaction and then distillation into O
2
and N
2
fractions. This is
recognized as a reliable process, an important factor for gasification plants which are severely
impacted by disruptions to oxygen supply. Cryogenic ASUs exhibit significant economies of
scale, making them most cost-effective technology for producing large volumes of oxygen,
and can also achieve an oxygen purity over 99% (Smith and Klosek, 2001).
Pressure swing adsorption (PSA) offers an alternative for oxygen production and relies on the
ability of some materials, such as zeolites, to preferentially adsorb nitrogen. Oxygen purity is
approximately 93-95% and capital costs increase more rapidly with scale up than cryogenic
plants, making PSA units uneconomic for large volumes (Ruthven et al., 1993).
Membrane technologies can also be used for oxygen production and are classified into two
distinct areas. Conventional polymeric membranes separate oxygen through a partial pressure
driving force over a selective material. Unit capacities are limited to 20 TPD and provide an
oxygen purity of only 40%. Ion transport membranes (ITMs) are solid inorganic crystal
structures that allow the selective transport of oxygen ions at high temperatures (Higman,
2008). This is still a developing process but the need for high temperature operation offers
significant potential for integration with gasification processes.
2.4.3 Water Gas Shift
Syngas from gasification must be treated in order to obtain the correct H
2
:CO ratio required
by the chosen Fischer-Tropsch reactor. This is achieved through the water-gas shift reaction
(R5), which can be conducted downstream of syngas cleaning or directly after the gasifier.
Water gas shift of raw syngas, also known as a sour shift, is enabled through the use of a
cobalt-molybdenum catalyst, which not only tolerates sulphur in the feed but requires it to
remain active (Higman, 2008). Sour shifts are generally conducted after a water quench of the
syngas in a scrubber, which supplies syngas with sufficient water to conduct the shift reaction
and negates the need for steam addition. As the shift reaction results in an equilibrium H
2
to
CO ratio exceeding that required for FT synthesis, a portion of the syngas bypasses the reactor
to control this ratio to the desired level (Drover, 2008).
Conventional water gas shift processes can be used for de-sulphurised syngas and may be
applied at high temperature (300-500C) with an iron oxide catalyst or low temperature (200-
270C) with a copper-zinc catalyst (Drover, 2008). The exothermic nature of the shift reaction
means that the equilibrium conversion to hydrogen is favoured at low temperatures. Reactors
are often run in series, with an initial high temperature process to promote reaction kinetics
and a subsequent low temperature process to improve conversion.
2.4.4 Acid Gas Removal
Acid gas removal refers to the removal of sulphur compounds and other contaminants from
the syngas to prevent catalyst poisoning in the downstream FT reactor. Potential separation
processes include selective absorption in a physical or chemical solvent, adsorption on a solid
or diffusion through a semi-permeable membrane (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). Solid adsorbents
11

are not cost-effective for removing the high percentage of impurities in syngas from
gasification and liquid solvents, which can be more easily regenerated, are preferred (de
Klerk, 2011). Physical solvents incur a higher upfront capital cost but lower ongoing
operating costs than chemical solvents, which require significant energy for solvent
regeneration. As such, the vast majority of coal to liquid plants utilise physical solvents for
syngas cleaning, in particular the Rectisol process. This process uses a pure refrigerated
methanol solvent to selectively absorb and remove H
2
S, CO
2
and other contaminants in a
series of absorption and regeneration columns.
Products from the Rectisol process are a clean syngas stream, concentrated CO
2
stream and an
H
2
S rich stream. This H
2
S stream cannot be discharged but can be used to recover elemental
sulphur through the Claus process. This involves the partial combustion of H
2
S to SO
2

followed by the reaction of this with remaining H
2
S to form water and elemental sulphur,
which can be sold as a by-product (Higman, 2008). A portion of the high-purity CO
2
can be
recycled to the coal preparation plant for drying and coal transportation purposes whilst the
remainder can be compressed and transported to a CO
2
sequestration site if this is available
(Drover, 2008)
2.4.5 Syncrude Rening
Syncrude produced from FT synthesis differs from conventional crude oil in a number of
ways, thus requiring a unique refinery design. Distinguishing characteristics of syncrude
include high alcohol content, high alkene (olefin) content, low concentration of aromatic or
cyclic compounds and the absence of contaminant compounds containing nitrogen or sulphur
(de Klerk, 2011). Conventional refining technologies can be adapted to match these
characteristics and allow for efficient upgrading of syncrude from FT synthesis. Syncrude is
typically fractionated via distillation with C
9
and heavier components then fed to a
hydrotreater to convert alcohols and alkenes to alkane hydrocarbons. Long-chain waxes
greater than C
15
are typically fed to a hydrocracker to reduce the carbon chain to a length
more desirable for final products. A wide variety of technologies exist to upgrade lighter
hydrocarbon fractions including alkylation, oligomerisation and aromatisation (Furimsky,
2010). Product blending from different units is required to ensure that the final products meet
the wide range of specifications imposed on transport fuels. Individual refinery designs can
vary greatly according to the syncrude composition from different synthesis reactors and the
final products being targeted. Various commercial designs, as well as proposed designs for
different synthesis reactors and target products are outside the scope of this report but the
reader is referred to the detailed discussion by de Klerk, 2011 for further information if
required.
2.5 Commercial Operations
South African Synthetic Oil Ltd (SASOL) has operated commercial coal-to-liquids plants in
South Africa since 1956. The original plant has since been converted to exclusively produce
chemicals however an additional two plants have been built since then. In addition to this
SASOL have a gas to liquids (GTL) demonstration plant in Oryx, Qatar (Kaneko et al., 2000).
12

Through their operations SASOL have made significant improvements to FT reactor
technology, specifically through scale-up of the conventional fluidised bed reactor and
development of the SAS fixed bed reactor.
Shell is another major oil company that has made significant developments in FT technology,
mainly through their GTL operations. They currently operate the commercial Pearl GTL plant
in Qatar and a demonstration plant in Bintulu, Malaysia (Drover, 2008). Developments made
at these plants are still applicable to CTL operations as once the syngas has been produced
and conditioned to the required specifications, the same FT synthesis technology can be used
in both GTL and CTL operations.
In addition to these existing operations, there are also a number of CTL plants currently under
development or coming online in China. These include the Yinchuan and Yankunag Yulin
CTL plants which are currently under construction (Higman, 2013)
2.6 Previous Techno-economic Studies
Although not in an Australian context, a number of recent techno-economic studies of fuel
production from indirect coal liquefaction have been undertaken. Table 1 summarises the
breakeven crude oil prices found by these studies to make the ICL process viable. All
breakeven prices are based on a 12% discount rate and have been converted to 2014 AUD
based on U.S. CPI data and the Q1 2014 exchange rate. It should be noted that some studies
refer to the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices whilst others refer to Dated
Brent crude prices.
Table 1: Breakeven Crude Oil Prices from Previous Technoeconomic ICL Studies
Study Location
Breakeven Crude
Pri ce (USD/bbl)
Breakeven Crude
Pri ce (14 AUD/bbl)
DOE (2007a) Illinois, USA $43.00 $54.00
Mei (2004) Virginia, USA $47.00 $64.00
Baker & O'Brien (2007) USA $55.00 $69.00
DOE (2007b) Alaska, USA $64.00 $80.00
Vliet et al. (2009) Europe $88.00 $117.00
Hatch (2008) Alaska, USA $138.00 $166.00
From Table 1 it can be seen that there is a very wide range of predicted crude prices, from $54
to $166/bbl, required to make the ICL process viable. This can be explained in part by the
time when the study was conducted, the difference in location for each study and the different
assumptions made during analysis. A serious cost escalation for power and process plants also
occurred between 2004 and 2009 (IHS, 2013). It should also be noted that some of the studies
are commercial engineering studies such as the Hatch Fairbanks report whilst others are
academic papers (Mei, 2004). It is likely that predicted prices from academic papers might
fail to account for the full range of costs involved with the project. The large disparity
between the various estimates means that there is no one price that can be used as an
indication of whether the process might be viable within Australia. It is necessary to develop
independent estimates which are more applicable under Australian market conditions in order
to determine what circumstances might make the process economically viable.
13

2.7 Summary & Research Gaps
Indirect coal liquefaction processes are comprised of a number of different well-established
technologies. Although these technologies have existed for a number of years, there are
relatively few commercial scale ICL processes due to economic constraints and uncertainty.
As a result, there is limited information on the integration of gasification, Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis and related units into a full-scale facility. Research continues to address various
separate issues related to individual technologies; however some of the main research gaps are
related to the process as a whole. This includes analysis of the market conditions required for
a CTL process to be economically viable on a long-term basis. Recent work has addressed this
in various studies however limited work has been done on this area in an Australian context.
As such, this study looks to address this research gap through the preliminary assessment of
an Australian indirect CTL project
14

3 Model Development
3.1 Reference Case
To assess the viability of an indirect CTL plant, a model was developed using Aspen Plus

process simulation software based on a reference case. The reference case used was an
indirect liquefaction process design developed in a conceptual study by engineering
consultant Hatch. This design incorporated the production of 20,000bbl/day of liquid fuels
with additional power generation through an indirect coal gasification and FT synthesis
process. The study was conducted in 2008 for a proposed development in Fairbanks, Alaska
(Drover, 2008). This was selected as the reference case as it presented well-established and
commercially available technologies in a widely accepted process configuration. A simplified
overview of this process is shown in the block flow diagram below.
Coal
Preparation
AGR
Water-Gas
Shift
Gasification
LTFT
Synthesis
Power
Generation
Syncrude
Refinery
Cryogenic
ASU
Coal
Feed
Dried
Coal
Raw
Syngas Clean
Syngas
Syncrude
FT
Products
Steam
Fuel Gas
Air
N
2
O
2
Sulfur CO
2
Power
Slag Syngas Bypass

Figure 5: Block Flow Diagram of 20,000bbl/day ICL Reference Case (Drover, 2008)
3.2 Model Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made to enable the simulation of the process depicted in
Figure 5. From the outset, the cryogenic ASU and power generation units were excluded from
the model, as they were not the main focus of this study. It was assumed that oxygen and
electric power was supplied over the fence from a third party supplier, which is a common
commercial arrangement for many plants. Modelling the conversion of H
2
S to elemental
sulphur through the Claus process was also excluded from the scope. Detailed heat integration
of the process was not conducted and it was assumed that the significant heat generation from
gasification and FT synthesis reactions was sufficient to meet the heating requirements in the
refinery and around the plant. Previous studies indicate that the plant is likely to require
additional cooling capacity (Drover, 2008).
3.3 Model Summary
A steady-state model of the process depicted in Figure 1, adjusted for the exclusions listed
above, was developed in Aspen Plus
. Boundary conditions for the model were inputs of run-

of-mine (ROM) coal with varying characteristics and pre-separated oxygen and nitrogen, with
outputs of refined FT liquid fuels (J et Fuel and Gasoline), CH
4
as a by-product, concentrated
CO
2
and H
2
S streams and untreated water. The Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state (EOS)
was used throughout the model, with the exception of solids handling applications, as this is
15

recommended by Aspen Plus
for gas processing and refining applications. A detailed

description of model implementation and unit operating conditions can be found in Appendix
B. A brief summary of the modelling approach for key unit operations is given below.
3.3.1 Coal Feedstock:
The model CTL process was run with five different coal feedstocks to compare the impact of
coal type on operation. These coals included the sub-bituminous Healy coal upon which the
proposed Hatch CTL plant was based and four different Australian thermal coals. These four
coals have previously undergone extensive laboratory analysis and pilot scale testing in an
entrained flow gasifier (Roberts et al., 2011). They vary in rank from sub-bituminous to semi-
anthracite and were selected for this initial work to cover a wide range of coal types. As such,
they are also well suited to this study as experimental gasification data is available and they
provide a good range of Australian coals over which the CTL process can be assessed. The
characteristics of these four coals and the sub-bituminous Healy coal are detailed in Table 2.
Table 2: Composition of Five Coal Feedstocks Used
Coal Code CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 Healy
Proximate Analysis (wt%, dry)
Moisture 17.4 2.4 1.3 10.3 28.3
Fixed Carbon 53.8 53.2 82.8 44.4 37.3
Volatile Matter 41.3 35.8 8.1 44.7 43.3
Ash 5.0 11.1 9.1 10.9 19.3
Ultimate Analysis (wt. % dry)

Ash 5.0 11.1 9.1 10.9 19.3
C 70.2 74.1 76.9 70.2 58.1
H 4.5 4.8 3.0 5.2 4.2
N 1.4 1.7 8.1 0.9 0.7
Cl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S 1.1 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.3
O 17.8 6.8 2.2 12.5 17.3
Ash fusion temperatures (C) 1310 1310 >1600 1440 -
3.3.2 Coal Preparation:
A ROM coal feed rate of 650 TPH for all scenarios was specified based on the Hatch
reference case for a 20,000 bbl/day plant (Drover, 2008). Coal was specified as a non-
conventional solid with particle size distribution and individual coals were characterised
through the specification of proximate and ultimate analysis data listed in Table 2. This data is
used by Aspen to calculate the coal enthalpy and density according to the respective
HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT property models. ROM coal was fed through a single roll
crusher and generic grinding model with screen and internal recycle to reduce the maximum
particle diameter to 100 microns. Coal was combined with nitrogen upstream of a
stoichiometric (RStoic) reactor and Separator, which were used to model the drying of coal by
altering the proximate analysis moisture content to 5%. This dry, ground coal was then
suitable for gasification.
16

3.3.3 Gasication:
Dried coal is still specified as a non-conventional solid and must first be decomposed into its
individual components, as specified by the ultimate analysis data. This is achieved through an
RStoic reactor, which converts coal into conventional components recognised by Aspen for
phase and chemical equilibria calculations. Decomposed coal components, in addition to a
99.5% pure O
2
stream and high-pressure steam are then fed into the gasifier. No specific
technology provider was selected for the gasifier and it is instead modelled as a generic
entrained flow gasifier with gas quench. This is achieved through an RGibbs equilibrium
reactor model, which minimises the Gibbs Free Energy of the products formed. Modelling on
the basis of thermodynamic equilibrium is acceptable due to the high operating temperature of
entrained flow gasifiers (Higman, 2008). This equilibrium model implements the gasification
reactions (R1- R5) listed in Section 2.1.2 to convert coal components into a mixture of
syngas, CO
2
and other contaminants.
Close control of oxidant feed to the gasifier is essential to reach the temperatures required for
operation whilst at the same time avoiding over-oxidation of coal. Required operating
temperatures for entrained flow gasifiers typically range from 1400-1600 C and the lower
temperature limits are constrained by the ash fusion temperature of the coal, which must be
exceeded to ensure proper slagging operation. Optimum operating temperature involves a
compromise between minimising oxygen consumption and maximising carbon conversion,
whilst at the same time satisfying slagging requirements. The specific operating temperature
required for each coal was based off the pilot scale studies conducted by CSIRO (Roberts et
al., 2011). A number of trials were run for each of the four coals and average operating
temperature, carbon conversion, O:C ratio and cold gas efficiency (CGE) from these trials are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Average operating conditions from pilot scale gasification studies (Roberts, 2011)
Coal
Temperature
(C)
Conversion
(%)
O:C Ratio
(mol:mol)
CGE
(%)
CRC701 1558 97.3 1.2 73.4
CRC702 1479 99.0 1.4 71.0
CRC703 1441 95.1 1.3 71.2
CRC704 1707 95.4 1.4 62.0
Based off the data in Table 3, a design specification was implemented to achieve the required
operating temperature for each coal by varying the oxygen flow rate. The carbon conversion
for each coal type was specified in the initial RStoic reactor, where coal is decomposed into
conventional components recognised by Aspen. The heat duty of the gasifier was set at 3% of
the higher heating value (HHV) of the input coal, as this is typical of commercial entrained
flow gasifiers (Higman, 2008).
3.3.4 Syngas Quench:
Rawhot syngas cannot be used directly for heat recovery due to the presence of entrained
molten ash. Therefore, a direct gas quench system is employed, where cool syngas is recycled
17

and injected into the raw syngas stream to solidify the molten ash. Aspen Plus
does not
model the melting and solidification of ash however, the quench recycle is implemented and
its rate varied until a syngas temperature of 900C, required to ensure ash solidification, is
achieved. Quenched syngas is then further cooled to 250C for heat recovery in a simplified
heat exchanger. Ash and unconverted coal are removed through a simple separator model
before splitting the syngas into a product stream and a recycle stream, which is compressed
and combined with the incoming hot syngas. This specific quench configuration is similar to
that employed in the Shell SCGP process, although many variations exist depending on the
technology provider.
3.3.5 Water Gas Shift:
A sour water gas shift reactor, required to increase the H
2
:CO ratio, is implemented directly
after the syngas quench in keeping with the reference case design. As a cobalt catalyst is to be
used for FT synthesis, a final H
2
:CO ratio of 1.9-2.1 is required (Drover, 2008). This is
achieved by first splitting the incoming cool syngas stream, with a certain fraction bypassing
the reactor entirely whilst the remainder is fed into a pre-heater. This counter-current heat
exchanger model utilises heat contained in the shifted syngas from the exothermic shift
reaction to preheat the incoming syngas to the 277C temperature required for reactor
operation (Drover, 2008). Preheated syngas is then fed into the WGS reactor along with
additional steam, which is required to ensure equilibrium is reached and to prevent carbon
formation on the catalyst. Above reaction temperatures of 230C, solid carbon formation on
catalysts will be minimised by keeping the H
2
O/CO ratio in the feed above 2 (Abdulhamid,
2007). Based on the H
2
O and CO content in the syngas feed, a calculator block is used to
determine the steam feed rate required to achieve a ratio of 2.1, thus incorporating an
operating safety margin.
The WGS reactor is simulated with an REquil reactor model, which calculates the equilibrium
condition for the water gas shift reaction (R5) according to the temperature approach method.
It is not sufficient to simply achieve the required H
2
:CO ratio for FT synthesis at the WGS
reactor outlet, as this will be impacted by the downstream acid gas removal and pressure
swing adsorption processes. Therefore, a design specification is implemented that varies the
bypass rate around the WGS reactor to achieve the required H
2
:CO ratio of 2 in the FT reactor
feed stream.
3.3.6 Acid Gas Removal:
A detailed model of the Rectisol process for acid gas removal was not developed, as this is a
well-established process and simulating it was not the main objective of this study. Instead,
separation efficiencies were based off those achieved in previous detailed simulations of the
process obtained through correspondence with Princeton University. This gave a CO
2
removal
of 93.4%, 100% H
2
S removal to the sulphur-rich stream and recovery in the clean syngas of
96.8% of CO and 99.7% of H
2.
This was simulated using a simple component separator model
in Aspen Plus
. Future improvements to the model when detailed heat integration is

18

performed would include consideration of the power requirements to be expected from the
Rectisol process based on literature values.
Pressure swing adsorption is required to separate a small percentage of hydrogen from the
clean syngas for use in hydrotreating and hydrocracking refinery units. Again, a simple
component separator has been use to model the PSA process. The amount of hydrogen
removed is set by a design specification, which ensures that there is a very low concentration
of hydrogen in the hydrocracker effluent to prevent excess H
2
removal from the syngas.
3.3.7 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis:
A low temperature Fischer-Tropsch reactor with cobalt catalyst (Co-LTFT) is implemented, as
this is the optimum technology for targeting diesel and jet fuel production. As described in
Section 2.3.2, the product yields from Fischer-Tropsch reactors can be described by an ASF
distribution. Bertoncini et al, 2009 characterised this distribution for low temperature cobalt-
based reactors by analysing the product composition from a FT pilot plant through gas
chromatography. This work provides all necessary parameters to characterise the product
distribution, including chain growth probabilities () for alkanes, alkenes and alcohols, overall
weight fractions for each hydrocarbon family and individual selectivitys for methane and
ethane. Based off this data the Fischer-Tropsch reaction was simulated using an RYield
reactor model. A FORTRAN code routine was required to calculate the mass fraction of each
component in the product based on the ASF distribution parameters and from this, determine
the fractional yields that must be specified for each component in the RYield reactor.
Syncrude product was fed into a flash drum model to simulate the phase separation between
FT wax and hot vapour, which would occur within the reactor in reality. This hot vapour of
unconverted syngas and lighter syncrude compounds is cooled by preheating the incoming
syngas and then fed into a 3-phase separator model to produce a hot condensate, lighter
vapour stream and reaction water stream containing traces of syncrude. These syncrude traces
are stripped from the aqueous product and combined with the light vapour stream. This
combined vapour stream is further separated into a cold condensate syncrude product, tail gas
stream and additional reaction water stream. The wax stream, hot condensate and cold
condensate are the three sources of syncrude for the refinery.
3.3.8 Syncrude Renery:
A detailed refinery model was not developed and product yields were instead based on a
refinery design for jet fuel production from Co-LTFT syncrude proposed by de Klerk, 2011.
Product distribution between jet fuel, gasoline and fuel gas was based on this design however,
in order for product fuels to have appropriate composition, simulation of certain refinery units
was required.
Syncrude contains a significant percentage of alcohols and alkenes, which are not suitable for
final fuel products. Hydrotreating of heavier syncrude components (C
9+
) is required to
saturate these hydrocarbons with hydrogen and produce alkanes. This process was simulated
with an RStoic reactor model, which implemented the reactions R12 an R13 as shown.
19

12)
2
+
2

2+2

13)
21
+
2

2+2
+
2

In addition to this, LTFT syncrude contains a large amount of long-chain hydrocarbon waxes
that must be cracked to produce hydrocarbons of a more suitable length for transportation
fuels. Simulation of this process was based off data on Shells severe hydrocracking
technology developed specifically for the treatment of heavy syncrude components (Eilers,
1990). Results from this work included the mass fraction distribution for different carbon
length chains in the product from a hydrocracking reactor. This information was used in
Aspen Plus
to calculate the various yields for each hydrocarbon chain required to achieve the
specified mass fraction. FORTRAN code to achieve this was adapted from that provided by
Princeton University, allowing hydrocracking to be simulated with an RYield reactor model.
Carbon chains heavier than C
15
in the product are recycled to the reactor to undergo additional
hydrocracking. In reality, hydrotreating and hydrocracking reactions can be accomplished in a
single reactor by feeding the lighter components lower down in the reactor to allow
hydrotreating but avoid cracking.
Lighter hydrocarbon components in syncrude are upgraded through oligomerisation
processes. Propane and propene can be combined through a catalytic polymerisation process
to form longer chain hydrocarbons more suitable for transport fuels. Butene and iso-butane
can also be reacted through an alkylation process to form heavier hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon
isomers were not included in the simulation so, for the purposes of this model, normal butane
represents the iso-butane in this reaction. The polymerisation and alkylation reactions
implemented are shown below (R14 and R15 respectively) and were both simulated with
RStoic reactor models.
14)
3
8
+
3
6

6
14

298
= 82.7 /
15)
4
10
+
4
8

8
18

298
= 82.8 /
Average chain length hydrocarbons from hydrotreating, hydrocracking and straight run
syncrude would typically be fed to an aromatisation process to produce an aromatic liquid.
This has good octane properties for gasoline blending, whilst unconverted material is blended
for jet fuel or sent to fuel gas. Again, to prevent the number of specified components from
becoming excessive, aromatic compounds such as benzene and toluene are not included in the
model and the aromatisation reactions are not modelled. Instead, recognising that the products
from this process are distributed between fuel gas, jet fuel and gasoline, the exact split for
each product is varied to achieve the final product yields specified in the LTFT refinery design
by de Klerk, 2011. In this way, although not all refining processes have been modelled in
detail, the distribution between the final products is accurate which is the main requirement
for further economic evaluation.
20

4 Model Verification
Basic model verification is required to confirm the validity of the results before undertaking
any further analysis. Accurate modelling of the gasifier is of paramount importance as
operating in an over or under-oxidised zone will significantly impact on syngas composition
and affect all downstream units.
4.1 Gasification:
To verify gasifier operation, results were compared with reference data for the performance of
a typical Australian bituminous coal in a dry-feed, entrained flow gasifier given in Higman,
2008. The model was run with CRC702, a typical bituminous coal, as feedstock and a
comparison of the raw syngas composition and key operational parameters for the modelled
gasifier with the reference data is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Comparison of Model Gasifier with Reference Data
Reference Data Model Data Absolute Error Percent Error
Raw Syngas (Mole %)
H
2

33.0% 31.2% -1.8% -5%
CO
62.0% 65.3% 3.3% 5%
CO
2

2.0% 2.1% 0.1% 3%
N
2

1.0% 0.7% -0.3% -32%
Ar
1.0% 0.1% -0.9% -87%
H
2
S
0.50% 0.47% -0.03% -6%
Nm
3
CO+H
2
/t coal
2100 2116 16.17 1%
Nm
3
O
2
/ Nm
3
CO+H
2

0.26 0.31 0.05 18%
kg steam/Nm
3
CO +H
2

0.07 0.05 -0.02 -28%
As shown in Table 4, the syngas composition from the model closely matches the reference
data with only a slightly lower H
2
to CO ratio. As in the reference case the CO
2
fraction in the
syngas is low, indicating that the gasifier is not operating in an over-oxidised zone. Nitrogen
and argon fractions are significantly lower for the model data, which would be due to a higher
assumed purity for the oxidant used. However, the 99.5% pure O
2
used is obtainable through a
cryogenic ASU system and the lower inert gas compositions in the modelled syngas will not
have any significant effect on downstream operations.
Oxidant feed is higher and steam feed lower for the modelled gasifier, indicating that a greater
proportion of the required oxygen is being sourced from oxidant rather than steam. The lower
steam feed can also explain the slightly lower H
2
:CO ratio in the model syngas. Steam feed
was set as a constant percentage of coal feed rate according to reported literature values and
oxidant feed has been varied to achieve the required operating temperature (Kunze and
Spliethoff, 2011). Optimisation of the H
2
:CO ratio by varying both O
2
and steam feed rates is
possible but is outside the scope of this study. Although improvements to the gasifier model
are possible, its correlation with reference data is satisfactory for the preliminary study being
undertaken here.
21

4.2 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis:
Confirmation that the model accurately describes the syncrude product distribution expected
from FT synthesis is also important for model verification. Typical syncrude compositions
from industrial low temperature FT reactors with cobalt catalysts (Co-LTFT) are provided in
de Klerk, 2011. Comparison of this data with the modelled syncrude composition is shown in
Figure 6.

Figure 6: Comparison of Syncrude Compositon - Model Data vs Typical Co-LTFT Process
It should be noted that syncrude composition is reported as weight percent of FT products
only, excluding inert gases and water gas shift products. Figure 6 shows that the model
produces a lighter syncrude compared to the reference data, where a higher percentage of
waxy hydrocarbons (C
22+
) are produced. The differences are significant enough to warrant
further investigation.
FT synthesis was modelled based on the experimental data of Bertoncini et al, 2009 which
determined ASF distributions to describe syncrude composition based on product distribution
from a pilot scale Co-LTFT reactor. As seen in Appendix C, the ASF distributions obtained
were shown to accurately describe the syncrude composition obtained from the Co-LTFT
reactor used. To confirm that these distributions had been successfully implemented in the
Aspen Plus
model, the model syncrude composition obtained was plotted against the original
ASF distributions for the three hydrocarbon families as shown in Figure 7 on the following
page.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
C1 C2 C3-4 C5-10 C11-22 C22+ C2 C3-4 C5-10 C11-22
S
y
n
c
r
u
d
e

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
W
t
%
)
1
Alkanes
Reference
Model
Alkenes
22


Figure 7: Modelled Syncrude Composition vs ASF Distributions
As expected, the syncrude composition from the model exactly matches the ASF distributions,
with the notable exceptions of C
2
H
4
and CH
4
. These are well known not to follow an ASF
distribution and have been modelled based on the individual component selectivitys.
Confirming that the model follows the respective ASF distributions indicates that the
discrepancy shown in Figure 6 is not due to an error in model implementation and can instead
be attributed to a difference in operation between the pilot scale FT reactor and the reference
case given in de Klerk, 2011. Although both are Co-LTFT processes, syncrude composition
can still be significantly affected by reactor technology, operation and level of catalyst
deactivation. Experimental work by Bertoncini et al was conducted with a CSTR slurry
reactor at 230 C and 20 bar pressure whilst no reactor technology or operating conditions
were specified in de Klerk, 2011. Different reactor types or operating conditions may be a
significant factor in the different product distributions. It is also possible that the ASF
distributions obtained from the pilot scale reactor are not directly applicable when scaled up
to a commercial scale reactor. Future improvements to the FT synthesis model can be made
by implementing ASF distributions that have been derived from the syncrude composition of
commercial scale FT reactors.
4.3 Overall Model:
As a high-level check on the overall CTL model, the Healy coal upon which the Hatch
Fairbanks CTL study was based was run as feedstock. Production of refined FT liquids from
the model was 21,076 bbl/day compared to a total production of 20,021 bbl/day for the Hatch
reference case, a 5% discrepancy. Product distribution was not comparable as the CTL model
targeted the production of jet fuel and gasoline only whilst the Hatch reference plant produced
diesel in addition to these. The different refinery designs may be a small factor leading to the
discrepancy in total production between the two cases. Once it had been established that the
model described the process with reasonable accuracy, further analysis could be undertaken
on the results obtained.
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
S
y
n
c
r
u
d
e

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
W
t
%
)
Carbon Number
ASF (alkane)
ASF (alkene)
ASF (alcohol)
Alkane wt%
Alcohol wt%
Alkene wt%
23

5 Results:
The verified model was run with the five different coals listed in Table 2 and the key results
from each case are shown in Table 5. Model operating conditions were kept constant in each
case except for the coal properties (composition and grindability) and gasification conditions.
Gasifier temperature was specified based on the CSIRO pilot studies and varies for each coal
based on their specific slagging requirements as shown in Table 3. The carbon conversion for
each coal type that was obtained at these temperatures also varies for each case. The oxidant
flow to the gasifier is varied to obtain the required temperature and the steam flow is set based
on the carbon content of the incoming coal, therefore these parameters both change between
the cases. Expected carbon conversion of the Healy coal was not known and was assumed
equal to the conversion of the most similar coal from the pilot studies, CRC701.
Table 5: Key Results from CTL Model run with 5 different coals
Parameter Units Scenario
C
o
a
l

P
r
e
p

Coal Code - CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 Healy
Coal Feed tonne/hr 651 651 651 651 651
Grindability HGI 27 45 74 76 45
Crusher/Mill Power MW 24.8 15.7 10.0 9.8 15.7
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

Carbon Conversion % 97.3 99 95.1 95.4 97
Gasifier Temperature C 1550 1480 1440 1710 1550
Gasifier Heat Duty MW 121 148 148 132 74
O:C Ratio mol/mol 1.14 1.02 0.98 1.19 1.22
Oxidant Flow tonne/hr 424 524 479 504 320
Steam Flow tonne/hr 50 61 115 53 36
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

Syncrude tonne/hr 157 212 207 170 111
Jet Fuel bbl/day 19,484 26,373 25,792 21,109 13,787
Gasoline bbl/day 10,301 13,942 13,635 11,160 7,289
Total FT Product bbl/day 29,785 40,315 39,427 32,269 21,076
Fuel Gas tonne/hr 5.19 7.02 6.87 5.62 3.67
CH
4
Produced GJ/hr 762 1039 1037 824 538
CO
2
Emitted tonne/hr 711 814 827 749 516
As seen in Table 5, the volume of refined FT liquids produced varies significantly between
each case, ranging from 21,076 to 40,315 bbl/day. This can be explained by different
feedstock characteristics, with a wide variety of coal ranks used. The Healy coal is a sub-
bituminous coal characterised by high moisture and ash content, and as such results in the
lowest production of FT liquids. CRC702 and CRC703 are both high carbon, low moisture
and ash content coals and as such produce significantly higher volumes of refined FT liquids.
The O:C ratio required for the gasification of these coals is lower than the other cases
however, the total amount of oxidant required is higher due to the higher carbon content.
It should be noted that a significant amount of concentrated CO
2
from the AGR process is
produced for each case. The majority of this CO
2
is produced in the WGS process, where CO
is shifted to CO
2
and H
2
to obtain the required H
2
:CO ratio. This CO
2
production is a
24

significant environmental concern for the process; however the fact that it is a concentrated
stream (96 mol%) is beneficial if CO
2
sequestration or enhanced oil recovery options were to
be pursued. Given the current political uncertainty in Australia regarding the taxation of CO
2
emissions and the regulatory challenges facing the introduction of carbon sequestration, these
options have not been investigated further in this study. However, appropriate handling of
CO
2
emissions would be required for the development of a sustainable coal to liquids project.
The model results listed in Table 5 formed the basis for estimation of operating costs and
revenue for the process. This was required as part of the economic analysis conducted to
determine the rate of return and breakeven product prices for the CTL plant under each
scenario.
6 Cost Estimation
An economic analysis of the modelled CTL process was conducted to provide preliminary
estimates of the viability of this process within Australia. This required estimation of plant
capital costs for each scenario as well as operational costs based on the model data.
6.1 Capital Cost Estimation:
Capital cost estimates for the process were based off the order-of-magnitude estimate
developed in the Hatch Fairbanks study for the 20,000 bbl/day reference plant. This was
prepared using a combination of quoted, estimated and factored costs for various equipment
items and as such the accuracy for the overall estimate is quoted as 40% (Drover, 2008). The
estimate includes both direct and indirect costs, with the basis of the estimates for these two
areas listed below:
6.1.1 Direct Cost Estimates:
Direct costs for each plant area include:
1. The design, procurement, delivery, installation and commissioning of all main process
units, utilities and civil works.
2. The design, procurement and erection of a control room and all plant buildings.
3. Site fencing and security during construction.
6.1.2 Indirect Cost Estimates:
Indirect cost estimates for the project include:
1. Engineering, Procurement & Construction Management (EPCM) fees at 9% of direct
costs.
2. License fees to all licensors.
3. Project contingency of 15%
4. Location factor of 15% over Gulf Coast priced equipment due to Alaskan location.

25

6.1.3 Exclusions:
The capital cost estimate for the plant excluded the following items:
1. Cost of acquiring land on which to build the plant.
2. Any roads, railways or pipelines required outside the plant boundaries.
3. Financing costs, working capital allowance and insurance.
6.1.4 Capital Cost Conversion:
The total capital cost estimate for the 20,00 bbl/day plant, including direct and indirect costs
and excluding items listed above was $4,146 million in 2008 US dollars. This was converted
to a capital cost estimate for each of the five scenarios analysed in this study through the
following process.
1. Removal of direct costs for the air separation unit and integrated power plant as these
are both excluded from the developed model.
2. Application of a capacity factor to direct costs for all units downstream of the gasifier
based on the relative amount of FT liquids produced compared to the reference case.
3. Re-calculation of EPCM and contingency costs at the same level of 9% and 15% of
Total Direct Costs respectively. Conversion to Feb. 2014 USD based on the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).
4. Conversion to AUD based on the average Q1 2014 exchange rate.

The resulting capital cost estimates for the five different scenarios are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Capital Cost Estimates for Five Operating Scenarios
Reference CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 Healy
Capacity Factor
1.0 1.41 1.91 1.87 1.53 1.0
DIRECT COSTS (Million USD)

Feedstock Preparation
$61 $61 $61 $61 $61 $61
Air Separation Island
$386 - - - - -
Gasifier Island
$1,131 $1,131 $1,131 $1,131 $1,131 $1,131
Gas-Shift Island
*

$112 $158 $213 $209 $171 $112
Gas Purification Island
*

$308 $436 $590 $577 $472 $308
FT Synthesis & Refinery
*

$372 $526 $712 $697 $570 $372
Power Plant
$352 - - - - -
Utilities
*

$368 $519 $703 $688 $563 $368
Offsites
$81 $81 $81 $81 $81 $81
Total Direct Costs
$3,170 $2,911 $3,491 $3,442 $3,048 $2,432
INDIRECT COSTS (Million USD)

Engineering & Supervision
$285 $262 $314 $310 $274 $219
License Fees
$150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150
Project Contingency
$541 $499 $593 $585 $521 $420
Total Indirect Costs
$976 $911 $1,057 $1,045 $945 $789
26

Total (Million '08 USD) $4,146 $3,822 $4,548 $4,487 $3,993 $3,221
CEPCI (2008 Ave.)
575.4 575.4 575.4 575.4 575.4 575.4
CEPCI (Feb 2014)
575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0
CEPCI Ratio
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
Q1 '14 Exchange Rate
1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
PLANT COST (Million '14 AUD)
$4,527 $4,173 $4,966 $4,899 $4,360 $3,517
Note: Items marked with * are the units which have been adjusted according to the capacity factor.
Table 6 shows that removal of the air separation and power generation units significantly
reduces the direct costs of the project. However, this is partly offset and in some case
exceeded by the increase in direct costs resulting from the increased capacity required for
downstream units with higher quality coals. Adjustment for the CEPCI has minimal impact on
the capital cost in this case. No location factor has been applied to the capital cost as a 15%
location factor and 40% labour productivity factor was applied in the original cost estimate
from Hatch. Multiple sources list a location factor for Fairbanks, Alaska that is higher than for
Australia (Richardson, 2010, DOD, 2014). However, the location factors listed in these
sources for Alaska relative to the Gulf Coast are well in excess of the 15% implemented by
Hatch. It is not the objective of this study to try and improve the initial capital cost estimates
and they are taken as correct for an Alaskan location, hence a location factor for Australia is
not applied. However, it appears that the location factor of 15% applied for the initial estimate
may have been optimistic. As such, the capital cost estimates presented here are considered
conceptual and likely to have an accuracy range of at least -10% / +50% (Greig, 2014).
6.2 Operating Costs:
Operating cost estimates for the different scenarios are comprised of fixed operating
expenditure, based on estimates from the Hatch Fairbanks study, and variable operating costs
determined by model data and predicted commodity prices.
6.2.1 Fixed Operating Costs:
An order-of-magnitude estimate for the fixed operating expenditure associated with the
20,000 bbl/day reference case is provided in the Hatch Fairbanks report (Drover, 2008). This
includes maintenance, chemical and catalyst costs for individual plant areas as well as sales,
general, administrative and labour expenses for the facility as a whole. A similar procedure to
that used for capital expenditure was used to determine fixed operating cost estimates for each
scenario based on the reference case data. Costs associated with the air separation and power
generation units were removed, downstream unit costs were adjusted according to the relevant
capacity factor and all costs were converted from USD to AUD. This process is summarised
in Appendix D, which gives the resulting fixed operating cost estimates for each scenario.
6.2.2 Variable Operating Costs:
Model results provided the coal and utility feed rates and associated production rates of liquid
fuels for each scenario, thus allowing expected variable operating costs and sales revenue to
be determined. As the process would not be operating at modelled rates throughout the year, a
27

capacity factor, defined as the fraction of maximum operation per year, is applied. A capacity
factor of 0.85 is assumed based on a previous techno-economic study of a similar CTL
process (Mantripragada, 2008). This factor is applied to all model input and production rates.
In order to determine the variable costs and revenues expected from the model operating data,
estimated commodity prices are required for the life of the plant. It is recognised that these
prices can be inherently unpredictable however, all efforts were made to source conservative
predictions from reputable sources. In addition to this, a sensitivity analysis was conducted as
discussed in Section 7.1 to determine the impact that a variation in these prices would have on
the process. The basis upon which individual prices were estimated is detailed below. All
estimations are for real prices (exclusive of inflation) in 2014 AUD.
Coal Prices:
Predicted prices for a typical Australian thermal coal were obtained from The World Banks
Commodity Markets Outlook J anuary 2014 report (Baffes and Cosic, 2014). This
provides predicted prices until 2025 in real 2010 U.S. dollars. Predictions were converted to
2014 USD according to the historical U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) and then converted to
AUD according to the average Q1 2014 exchange rate (US BLS, 2014). These prices are for a
standard thermal coal with a higher heating value (HHV) of 26.8 GJ /tonne. As is common
practice when estimating coal prices, this was converted to a price for each of the five coal
feedstocks used based on the relative magnitude of the coals HHV. The higher heating value
of each coal was calculated based on their proximate and ultimate analysis. Calculations can
be seen in Appendix E1 and provided price estimates for each of the 5 coals until 2025. In the
absence of any extended predictions, these prices were assumed to stabilise at the 2025
values.
Electricity Prices:
Through consultation with the University of Queensland Energy Initiative it was determined
that the CTL process being modelled was unlikely to receive wholesale electricity prices as
the power demand of the process was not high enough. However, the plant would be likely to
receive a discount on retail prices and, based on prior experience, the electricity price to be
incurred in 2015 was estimated at $145/MWh under an optimistic scenario. This price is
expected to grow by 0.3% in real terms based on a national economic forecast commissioned
by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) (NIEIR, 2013).
Natural Gas Prices:
Natural gas is produced as a minor by-product of FT synthesis and the revenue from this by-
product must be accounted for. The Australian Energy Regulator lists the average Q1 2014
gas price as $4.38/GJ and it was assumed that this increases throughout the project at a rate of
1% per year as predicted in the NIEIR national economic forecast (NIEIR, 2013).
28

FT Product Prices:
Forecasts of the future prices for the FT fuels produced (jet fuel and gasoline) could not be
sourced for the Australian market. However, predicted prices for Dated Brent Crude Oil,
which is being increasingly used as a pricing benchmark in the Asia-Pacific region, are
available until 2025 (Platts, 2011, Baffes and Cosic, 2014). Although not a perfect
relationship, the retail prices for refined products are closely linked to the price of Dated
Brent Crude. In order to develop predictions for refined product prices, historical prices of
gasoline and diesel were compared with historical prices of Dated Brent crude oil. Prices for
gasoline and diesel are given as terminal gate prices by the Australian Petroleum Institute
(AIP), which include a fuel excise tax and goods & services tax (GST). The current fuel
excise tax on both gasoline and diesel in Australia is $0.38143/L and a GST of 10% is applied
on top of this (ATO, 2014). These tax components were removed to provide an estimate for
the average refinery price received for diesel and gasoline, neglecting the transportation cost
component included in terminal gate prices. Figure 8 shows this average price, as well as
individual TGPs and Dated Brent crude oil prices since 2004.

Figure 8: Dated Brent, Gasoline & Diesel Prices over the past 10 years (AIP, 2014)
In order to develop a relationship for the average refinery price received, this price was
plotted as a function of crude oil prices since 2009. Earlier data was neglected to exclude the
effects of the 2008 oil crisis. A linear regression of average refinery price vs crude oil price
can be seen in Figure 9 on the following page.
40
90
140
190
240
290
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
P
r
i
c
e

(
A
U
D
/
b
b
l
)
Year
Diesel (TGP) Gasoline (TGP)
Dated Brent Ave. TGP (excl. tax)
29


Figure 9: Average Refined Product Price vs Crude Oil Price since 2009
The linear regression in Figure 9 gives the following relationship between refined product
prices excluding taxes and Dated Brent crude oil prices.
= 1.04 +$22.82
The slope of the linear regression is close to 1, indicating a fairly constant refinery margin as
would be expected. This linear relationship was used to develop predictions for average
refined product prices based on predicted Dated Brent Crude prices from the World Bank
(Baffes and Cosic, 2014). These crude oil price predictions, provided until 2025 in real 2010
USD, were adjusted to 2014 USD according to historical U.S. CPI data and converted to AUD
according to the average Q1 2014 exchange rate. Expected refined product prices could then
be calculated according to the relationship developed with all calculations shown in Appendix
E2. It was assumed that all FT products produced by the CTL process received this same
average refinery price. This is a close approximation for diesel and gasoline, as seen in Figure
8 and historical Australian jet fuel prices were not available for comparison in this study. In
the absence of price forecasts beyond 2025, it was assumed that all prices stabilised at the
2025 value going forward.
Oxygen Costs:
The cost of oxygen was based on the usual commercial arrangement indicated by Praxair, a
leading provider of cryogenic ASUs, when operating an external plant for over-the fence
supply The cryogenic ASU would be owned and operated by Praxair whilst the CTL plant
would pay a fixed monthly facility fee and a variable cost depending on the volume of oxygen
produced (Wilcox, 2005). The fixed fee is in the range of 2.75% of the ASU capital cost per
month, which covers maintenance, repair and back up supply costs. The ASU capital cost is
estimated at $27 million per 1000 short TPD of capacity in 2004 USD. This can then be
scaled to the capacity required for each of the five scenarios according to the following
formula (Wilcox, 2005).
= $27

1000

0.6

y = 1.0367x + 22.82
R = 0.8856
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
R
e
f
i
n
e
d

P
r
o
d
u
c
t

P
r
i
c
e

(
A
U
D
/
b
b
l
)
Crude Oil Price (AUD/bbl)
30

The total ASU capital cost was adjusted to 2014 dollars according to the relative CEPCI
values and then converted into AUD based on the Q1 2014 exchange rate. A location factor of
1.3 was applied to account for construction in Australia compared to a U.S. location
(Richardson, 2010). This capital cost estimate can be used to calculate the fixed fee paid to
the oxygen supplier, which is 2.75% of the total capital cost per month.
The variable price charged for oxygen production is based on the electricity consumption of
the process. For gasifier applications, the power consumption for the ASU is estimated at 16
kWh per 1000 cubic feet (CF) of oxygen produced at normal temperature and pressure (NTP)
(Wilcox, 2005). The oxygen requirements for each scenario are known from the process
model and electricity prices have been predicted over the life of the plant. From this, the
variable costs associated with the ASU can be calculated as follows.
=
16
1000

0.145
1

Where CFY required is the cubic feet per year of oxygen required according to the process
model, adjusted by the assumed plant capacity factor of 85%. Calculations of these variable
costs and fixed facility fees for each scenario can be seen Appendix E3 and allow the total
cost of oxygen for the CTL plant to be determined.
Price predictions for all relevant inputs and products of the CTL allowed variable operating
costs and revenue to be calculated for the process based on model data. This, in conjunction
with capital cost estimates discussed in Section 6.1 allow for a detailed economic analysis of
the process under each of the five scenarios.
7 Economic Analysis
An economic analysis of the modelled CTL process was conducted to determine the
breakeven FT product price and internal rate of return for each of the five scenarios. A number
of assumptions regarding operating and financial conditions were required to achieve this and
these are detailed below.
1. 30 year operating life for the plant.
2. Plant capacity factor of 85%. (Process runs at 85% capacity on average during the
year)
3. Construction is completed over 4 years and all capital expenditure is allocated as
follows over these 4 years: 10%, 20%, 50%, 20%. (Drover, 2008).
4. Double-declining balance depreciation method used to depreciate plant over its 30-
year life. Plant has no salvage value.
5. Corporate tax rate of 30%.
6. Discount rate of 12%.
7. Neglecting all financing costs (eg. interest repayments). These would be significant
for such a large capital expenditure and neglecting these means that total cost
estimates will be optimistic.
31

8. Working capital required is neglected.
9. Sales price (exclusive of GST and fuel excise tax) is equal for jet fuel and gasoline
produced.
10. Future commodity prices are assumed to follow the predictions detailed in section
6.2.2.
Based on these assumptions it was possible to calculate the yearly Earnings Before Interest
and Tax (EBIT) for each scenario, including fixed and variable operating costs, revenue from
fuel and natural gas sales and a depreciation tax shield. Corporate tax of 30% of EBIT was
applied to calculate yearly net profit. Being a non-cash flow, depreciation expenses were
added back to this net profit to determine the yearly free cash flow (FCF) for the project.
These FCFs were discounted back to 2015 dollars using the 12% discount rate for the project.
The sum of these discounted FCFs gave the net present value (NPV) for the project under
each scenario. The discount rate required to achieve zero NPV, also known as the internal rate
of return (IRR) for the project, was then calculated.
In addition to calculating the projects IRR, the breakeven price for FT products was also
calculated. This was done by neglecting the previous price predictions for FT products and
instead assuming a constant price throughout the life of the project. This constant price was
varied to find the breakeven price that gave a NPV of zero with a 12% discount rate. The
Equivalent Crude Oil Price (ECOP) at this breakeven price for FT products was then
calculated according to the relationship developed in Section 6.2.2. These calculations were
performed for each of the five scenarios and example calculations for CRC701 can be seen in
Appendix F. A summary of the key results for each scenario can be seen in Table 7 on the
following page.
Table 7: Key results from Economic Analysis of 5 Scenarios
Scenario Units CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 Healy
2015 Coal Price $/tonne 81.28 109.54 116.03 94.55 59.12
FT Product bbl/day 29,785 40,315 39,427 32,269 21,076
Net Present Value 10
6
$ -$1,670 -$1,393 -$1,435 -$1,747 -$1,816
Internal Rate of Return % 5.0% 7.4% 7.2% 5.0% 2.3%
Breakeven FT Price $/bbl $165 $147 $149 $163 $189
Gasoline Sales Price
*
$/L $1.56 $1.44 $1.45 $1.55 $1.73
Jet Fuel Sales Price
*
$/L $1.25 $1.13 $1.14 $1.24 $1.41
ECOP $/bbl $137 $120 $122 $135 $160
*
Note that gasoline and jet fuel sales price are calculated from the breakeven FT product price with the fuel
excise tax and GST included. Current fuel excise taxes in Australia are $0.38143/L for gasoline and $0.09835/L
for kerosene when used as fuel in an aircraft (i.e. jet fuel) (ATO, 2014). Goods & Services Tax (GST) is an
additional 10% on top of the fuel excise.
Table 7 shows that, for all the scenarios considered, development of the CTL process yields a
large negative net present. As such the internal rate of return (IRR) for each scenario is less
than the required discount rate of 12%. This indicates that the CTL process considered is not
currently viable in Australia at the assumed conditions and future prices. Table 7 also shows
32

the breakeven FT product price that would be required over the life of the project in order to
achieve zero NPV at a discount rate of 12%. These prices can be broken down into their
individual levelised cost categories, as shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10: Contribution of Plant Costs towards Breakeven FT Product Prices
Figure 10 shows that capital expenditure and coal feedstock costs are the main components
making up the breakeven price for FT fuels produced. It is also shows that the relative
contribution of capital costs increases for lower rank coals (CRC701 and Healy) as the same
gasifier and coal preparation equipment is required for lower fuel production.
The equivalent crude oil price required to achieve a market price for FT fuels equal to their
breakeven price for each scenario is also given in Table 7. This ranges from $120-160/bbl
depending on the scenario, and this entire range is above the current Dated Brent crude oil
price of AUD116.12/bbl as at 06/06/2014 (Bloomberg, 2014). The market price for refined
fuels that would be expected from this crude oil price is indicated on Figure 10. Although this
current market price is not far from the breakeven prices at the lower end of the range, the
price would have to remain above this level for the entire life of the plant in order for the
project to remain viable. The effect of changing prices and other key variables on the process
economics was investigated further through a sensitivity analysis.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 Healy
B
r
e
a
k
e
v
e
n

F
T

P
r
o
d
u
c
t

P
r
i
c
e

(
$
/
b
b
l
)
Coal Type
Electricity
Oxygen Cost
Fixed Opex
Coal Cost
Capital Cost
Current Price
33

7.1 Sensitivity Analysis:
A sensitivity analysis was conducted by independently varying key inputs to the economic
model by 30% of their base value and determining the effect on the IRR for each scenario.
The key parameters varied were capital expenditure and fixed operating costs as well as the
prices for coal, FT products, electricity, natural gas and oxygen supply. As discussed in
Section 6.1, capital costs may vary by more than 30%, however all parameters were varied by
the same percentage for consistency. Sensitivity analysis results for the four main scenarios
can be seen in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Effect of Percentage Change in Key Prices on Projects Internal Rate of Return
As seen in Figure 11, the internal rate of return for the project under all four scenarios is
clearly most sensitive to changes in FT product prices over all other variables. Total capital
expenditure and coal prices also have a marked effect on the projects IRR but not of the same
magnitude as FT product prices. The impact of all other variables investigated is largely
insignificant compared to these three major effects. All numerical results from the sensitivity
analysis and graphical results for the Healy coal can be found in Appendix G.
The high sensitivity to FT product prices reinforces the importance that crude oil prices have
on the viability of the CTL process. Although breakeven FT product prices have been
identified and the crude oil prices required to achieve these has been estimated, waiting for
these prices to be reached is not enough to ensure the viability of the process. Their needs to
be a reasonable degree of certainty that crude oil prices will remain above these levels over
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
7%
9%
11%
13%
15%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
I
R
R

(
%
)
% Change
CRC701
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
7%
9%
11%
13%
15%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
I
R
R

(
%
)
% Change
CRC702
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
7%
9%
11%
13%
15%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
I
R
R

(
%
)
% Change
CRC703
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
7%
9%
11%
13%
15%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
I
R
R

(
%
)
% Change
CRC704
34

the life of the project. As seen in Figure 11, small changes to these prices and the resulting
price for refined products will have a very significant impact on the viability of the CTL
process.
7.2 Coal Selection:
If market conditions were to change and improve the viability of the CTL process, selection of
the most appropriate coal feedstock is an important consideration. The coals considered in this
study range from sub-bituminous to semi-anthracite and as such vary widely in carbon
content and higher heating value (HHV). Table 7 shows that running CRC702 or CRC703
coals as feedstock gives the lowest breakeven FT product price and the highest rate of return
for the project. These are both high carbon content, high heating value coals. Figure 12 below
shows the breakeven price for all five coals as a function of their effective carbon content.
Effective carbon content is simply the total carbon content of the coal multiplied by the
gasifier carbon conversion.

Figure 12: Breakeven FT Product Price vs Effective Carbon Content of Coal
Figure 12 shows that as the effective carbon content of the coal feedstock increases, the
process can produce FT products at a lower breakeven price. This is to be expected as higher
carbon content coals will produce a larger volume of liquid products if effective gasification is
achieved. However, these high carbon content coals are also generally more expensive due to
their higher heating value. Figure 8 suggests that for a coal-to-liquids process, it is preferable
to use a more expensive, high carbon content coal as feedstock to produce greater volumes of
fuel rather than a cheaper, lower carbon content coal. Under current market conditions
however, none of the coal feedstocks appear to offer a viable coal-to-liquids process for
Australia. This study suggests that if these conditions were to change, high carbon content
coals should be strongly considered as feedstocks for the CTL process. Appropriate coal
selection can significantly improve the economics of a CTL process and could prove the
difference in ensuring the viability of the process if market conditions were to change in the
future.
y = -127.41x + 239.17
R = 0.9892
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75%
B
r
e
a
k
e
v
e
n

F
T

P
r
i
c
e

(
$
/
b
b
l
)
Effective Carbon Content of Coal (%)
35

8 Conclusions
An indirect coal liquefaction (ICL) process for the production of transportation fuels from
coal was modelled to provide a preliminary assessment of its viability within Australia. This
techno-economic model was based on a commercially proposed coal-to-liquids project in
Fairbanks, Alaska that was produced by engineering consultant Hatch.
Process modelling was conducted with Aspen Plus
simulation software and focuses on the

coal preparation, gasification, syngas conditioning, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and syncrude
refining processes. Once verified, the model was run with four different Australian thermal
coals as feedstock to assess the impact of coal type on the process. These coals range in rank
from sub-bituminous to semi-anthracite and were selected as they represent a wide range of
different coals and have been subject to previous pilot scale gasification trials (Roberts et al.,
2011).
Simulation results showed that coal type has a significant impact on the volume of FT liquids
produced, ranging from 21,000bbl/day to 43,000bbl/day. Under all scenarios considered
significant amounts of CO
2
were produced, ranging from 3.9 - 4.8kg per kg liquid fuel
produced. Higher carbon content coals (CRC702 and 703) yielded the largest volumes of
liquid fuels and had the lowest relative CO
2
production. The high concentration CO
2
stream
produced is well suited for sequestration or enhanced oil recovery applications however these
have not been considered here due to issues surrounding their implementation. Future studies
should focus on determining the impact of these options on the economics of the CTL
process, which can be done by adjusting the model presented here. Without this component,
the process is unlikely to ever receive governmental or community support.
The economics of the current CTL process were assessed here and the project was shown to
yield a large, negative net present value with an internal rate of return ranging from 2.3 to
7.4% for the different scenarios, well below the discount rate of 12%. This indicates that,
under the assumptions made in this study, an indirect coal liquefaction process is not currently
viable within Australia under the current market conditions. The breakeven crude oil price
required for the process to be viable was found to vary from $120-$160/bbl depending on the
scenario. The lower end of this range is not far from the current market price of $116/bbl,
however prices would have to remain elevated throughout the life of the project for it to be
viable. Sensitivity analysis showed that CTL process economics are most sensitive to a
change in product prices and therefore fluctuations in crude oil prices can significantly affect
the viability of the process. If such a change were to improve the prospects for the CTL
process in the future, results showed that high carbon content coals offer the most
economically attractive feedstock. The premium paid for the higher heating value of the coal
is more than offset by the increased liquid fuel production and these coals offer a significantly
lower breakeven sales price. However, at this point in time none of the coals trialled offered a
viable CTL process under current market conditions and it appears this will remain the case
unless crude oil prices were to undergo sustained increases in the future.
36

9 References
ABDULHAMID, H. 2007. Report on Catalytic WGS Reaction Studies. Clean Hydrogen-rich
Synthesis Gas ChrisGas.
AIP 2014. TERMINAL GATE PRICES (WHOLESALE). Canberra: Australian Institute of Petroleum.
ATO. 2014. Excise Tariff Working Pages [Online]. Available:
http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=PAC/BL030002/1 [Accessed May 2014].
AUSTIN, L. 1991. Size Reduction. Coal Preparation. Pennsylvania: SME.
BAFFES, J . & COSIC, D. 2014. Commodity Markets Outlook - J anuary 2014. The World Bank.
BAKER & O'BRIEN 2007. High Quality Competitive Distillate Fuels from Coal-to-Liquids
Processing. NPRA Annual Meeting.
BCA 2013. Securing Investment in Australia's Future. Business Council of Australia.
BELL, D., TOWLER, B. & FAN, M. 2011. Coal Gasification and its Applications, Oxford, Elsevier.
BLOOMBERG. 2014. Energy & Oil Prices [Online]. Available:
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ [Accessed J une 2014].
DADYBURJ OR, D. B., LIU, Z. & DAVIS, B. H. 2000. Coal Liquefaction. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia
of Chemical Technology. J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DE KLERK, A. 2011. Fischer-Tropsch Refining, Germany, Wiley-VCH.
DOD 2014. DOD AREA COST FACTORS (ACF). Department of Defence.
DOE 2007a. Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch
Liquids Facility: Final Report. Department of Energy.
DOE 2007b. Alaska Coal Gasification Feasibility Studies Healy Coal-to-Liquids Plant: Final Report.
Department of Energy.
DROVER, B. 2008. Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation - Coal-to-Liquids FEL1 Study.
Hatch.
DRY, M. 2002. The Fischer-Tropsch Process: 1950 - 2000. Catalysis Today.
FURIMSKY, E. 2010. Catalysis in the Refining of Fischer-Tropsch Syncrude. Royal Society of
Chemistry.
GREIG, C. 11/06/2014 2014. RE: Review of Capital Cost Estimations with UQ Energy Initiative. Type
to SCOTT, D.
HAN, S. & CHANG, C. 2008. Synthetic Liquid Fuels. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology. J ohn Wiley & Sons.
HIGMAN, C. 2008. Gasification, Burlington, Elsevier.
HIGMAN, C. 2013. State of the Gasification Industry The Updated Worldwide Gasification
Database. Schwalbach, Germany: Higman Consulting GmbH.
IHS. 2013. Power Capital Cost Index [Online]. Available:
http://www.ihs.com/info/cera/ihsindexes/index.aspx [Accessed 06/05/2014.
KANEKO, T., DERBYSHIRE, F., MAKINO, E., GRAY, D., TAMURA, M. & LI, K. 2000. Coal
Liquefaction. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &
Co. KGaA.
37

KINAEV, N. 2014. RE: CTL Undergraduate Thesis Meeting.
KOHL, A. & NIELSEN, R. 1997. Gas Purification, Houston, Gulf Publishing Company.
KREUTZ, T., LARSON, E., LIU, G. & WILLIAMS, R. 2008. Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and
Biomass. Pittsburgh: Princeton Environmental Institute.
KUNZE, C. & SPLIETHOFF, H. 2011. Modelling, comparison and operation experiences of entrained
flow gasifier. Energy Conversion and Management, 52, 2135-2141.
LI, F. & FAN, L.-S. 2008. Clean Coal Conversion Processes - Progress and Challenges. Energy &
Environmental Science.
LIU, Z., SHI, S. & LI, Y. 2010. Coal liquefaction technologiesDevelopment in China and challenges
in chemical reaction engineering. Chemical Engineering Science, 65, 12-17.
LOWENBERG, A. 1992. The Origins and Demise of South African Apartheid: A Public Choice
Analysis, Michigan.
MANTRIPRAGADA, H. 2008. CO2 reduction potential of coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants. Department
of Engineering and Public Policy: Carnegie Mellon University.
MEI, H. 2004. Market Risk Analysis of Coal Liquefaction. Master of Science, West Virginia
University.
NETL. 2014. Commercial Gasifiers [Online]. Available:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/types-
gasifiers [Accessed 06/05/2014.
NIEIR 2013. National and state economic forecasts to 2034-35 consistent with AEMO scenarios 2012.
Victoria: National Institute of Economic and Industry Research.
PLATTS 2011. Dated Brent: The Pricing Benchmark for Asia-Pacific Sweet Crude Oil. Market Issues:
Oil.
PLETCHER, D. 1982. Indirect Coal Liquefaction Processes. Environmental Protection Agency.
REZAIYAN, J . 2005. Gasification Technologies: A Primer for Engineers and Scientists, Boca Raton,
Taylor & Francis Group.
RICHARDSON 2010. Richardson International Construction Factors Manual. Nevada: Richardson
Products.
ROBERTS, D., HARRIS, D., TREMEL, A. & ILYUSHECHKIN, A. 2011. Linking laboratory data
with pilot scale entrained flow gasification performance. Fuel Processing Technology.
RUTHVEN, D., FAROOQ, S. & KNAEBEL, K. 1993. Pressure Swing Adsoprtion, VCH New York.
SHADLE, L. J ., BERRY, D. A. & SYAMLAL, M. 2000. Coal Conversion Processes, Gasification.
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SIMBECK, D. 1993. Coal Gasification Guidebook: Status, Application, and Technologies. California:
Electric Power Research Institute.
SMITH, A. R. & KLOSEK, J . 2001. A review of air separation technologies and their integration with
energy conversion processes. Fuel Processing Technology, 70, 115-134.
SPATH, P. 2003. Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with
Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass-Derived Syngas. Springfield: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
SPATH, P. & DAYTON, D. 2008. BIOPPRODUCTS FROM SYNGAS NREL.
38

TALMADGE, M. 2013. Syngas Upgrading to Hydrocarbon Fuels - Technology Pathway
. Denver: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
THE WORLD BANK. 2014. World Databank - Global Economic Monitor (GEM) Commodities
[Online]. Available:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?sourc
e=global-economic-monitor-(gem)-commodities [Accessed May 2014].
US BLS 2014. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. In: UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR (ed.).
VLIET, O. P. R., FAAIJ , A. P. C. & TURKENBURG, W. C. 2009. FischerTropsch diesel production
in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy Conversion
and Management, 50, 855-876.
WILCOX, W. R. 2005. Oxygen Costs [Online]. [Accessed May 2014].
WILLIAMS, R. & LARSON, E. 2003. A comparison of direct and indirect liquefaction technologies
for making fluid fuels from coal. Energy for Sustainable Development.
WILLS, B. 2006. Wills' Mineral Processing Technology, Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
WOOD, T. & CARTER, L. 2013. Getting gas right: Australia's energy challenge. Grattan Institute.

39

10 Appendices
10.1 Appendix A: Aspen Plus Model Components:
Table A1: CTL Aspen Plus Model Components
ID Type Component name ID Type Component name
H2 Conventional HYDROGEN C13H28 Conventional N-TRIDECANE
CO Conventional CARBON-MONOXIDE C14H30 Conventional N-TETRADECANE
CO2 Conventional CARBON-DIOXIDE C15H32 Conventional N-PENTADECANE
H2S Conventional HYDROGEN-SULFIDE C16H34 Conventional N-HEXADECANE
COS Conventional CARBONYL-SULFIDE C17H36 Conventional N-HEPTADECANE
H2O Conventional WATER C18H38 Conventional N-OCTADECANE
O2 Conventional OXYGEN C19H40 Conventional N-NONADECANE
N2 Conventional NITROGEN C20H42 Conventional N-EICOSANE
AR Conventional ARGON C30H62 Conventional N-TRIACONTANE
CH4 Conventional METHANE C2H4 Conventional ETHYLENE
CL2 Conventional CHLORINE C3H6 Conventional PROPYLENE
HCL Conventional HYDROGEN-CHLORIDE C4H8 Conventional 1-BUTENE
HCN Conventional HYDROGEN-CYANIDE C5H10 Conventional 1-PENTENE
NH3 Conventional AMMONIA C6H12 Conventional 1-HEXENE
S Conventional SULFUR C7H14 Conventional 1-HEPTENE
C Solid CARBON-GRAPHITE C8H16 Conventional 1-OCTENE
S-S Solid SULFUR C9H18 Conventional 1-NONENE
COAL Nonconventional COAL C10H20 Conventional 1-DECENE
COALASH Nonconventional COALASH C20H40 Conventional 1-EICOSENE
C2H6 Conventional ETHANE CH3OH Conventional METHANOL
C3H8 Conventional PROPANE C2H5OH Conventional ETHANOL
C4H10 Conventional N-BUTANE C3H7OH Conventional 1-PROPANOL
C5H12 Conventional N-PENTANE C4H9OH Conventional N-BUTANOL
C6H14 Conventional N-HEXANE C5H11OH Conventional 1-PENTANOL
C7H16 Conventional N-HEPTANE C6H13OH Conventional 1-HEXANOL
C8H18 Conventional N-OCTANE C7H15OH Conventional 1-HEPTANOL
C9H20 Conventional N-NONANE C8H17OH Conventional 1-OCTANOL
C10H22 Conventional N-DECANE C9H19OH Conventional 1-NONANOL
C11H24 Conventional N-UNDECANE C10H21OH Conventional 1-DECANOL
C12H26 Conventional N-DODECANE C20H41OH Conventional 1-EICOSANOL

40


10.2 Appendix B: Model Development Details:
10.2.1 B1: Overall Process Flowsheet:

Figure A1: Overall Process Flowsheet for AspenPlus CTL Model
Figure A1 depicts the overall layout of the CTL model developed in AspenPlus. Plant areas are divided into individual hierarchies to simplify the
layout and also allow different stream classes (e.g. Conventional or non-conventional solids) to be used in different plant areas. The layout and model
development for individual plant areas is detailed through the remainder of Appendix A.

41

10.2.2 B2: Coal Preparation Hierarchy:

Figure A2: Coal Preparation Simulation Flowsheet
Table A2: Coal Preparation Model Specifications
Block Name
(Aspen Unit)
Block Parameters Description
COALTYPE (Selector)
Inlet Stream ID: CRC701 Allows the selection of 1 of the 5 coal feedstocks for the process.
COALMULT
(Multiplier)
Multiplication Factor: 180.7 Multiplys mass flowrate of coal by a specified factor. Allows all coals to be specified as 1kg/s
and only the multiplication factor needs to be varied when changing the feed rate.
N2FEED (Calculator)
N
2
=5 x Coal Feed (kg/s) Specifys amount of N
2
fromASU required for coal transportation drying. (AspenTech, 2009)
CRUSHER
(Crusher)
Crusher Type: Single Roll
Max. Particle D. 0.0508m
Models power requirement to reduce particle size of ROM coal to a maximum
diameter of 2 inches (0.0508m) (Drover, 2008)
MIXER Pressure: 0 bar Combines crushed, oversized grinded coal and nitrogen gas for transportation/drying.
B-MILL
(Crusher)
Dist. Function: RRSB
D
63
: 70 microns
Determines power requirement to grind crushed coal and achieve a PSD with 63% of
particles with diameter less than 70 microns.
SCREEN Cut Size: 100 microns Recycles oversize coal particles (>100 microns) for grinding.
DRY-REAC
(RStoic)
Pressure =1atm, Duty =0W
Rxn: Coal ->1/18 H
2
O
Converts some moisture content of coal specified in Proxanal to free water to simulate
the drying process. Coefficient =1/MW
H2O
as Aspen assigns coal a MW of 1g/mol.
WATER (Calculator) H
2
O
DRY
= 5 %, Conv = (H
2
O
IN
-H
2
O
DRY
)/(100-
H
2
O
DRY
)
Calculates conversion required in DRY-REAC to reduce moisture content of outlet coal to 5%.
H2O-SEP (Flash2)
- Separates dried coal from free water and nitrogen transportation gas.
42

10.2.3 B3: Gasier Hierarchy:

Figure A3: Gasifier Simulation Flowsheet
Table A3: Gasification Model Specifications
Block Name Block Parameters Description
NC-CHNG
(ClChng)
None Changes solids Sub-Streamtype fromNon-conventional with Particle Size Distribution (NCPSD) to
Non-Conventional (NC).
DCOMP
(RStoic)
COAL
NC
-> H
2
O +O
2
+N
2
+C
solid
+
Ash
NC
+S-S
solid
+CL
2
+H
2
Conversion =100%
Decomposes coal into conventional components that can be used by Aspen in phase and chemical
equilibria calculations. Conversion overwritten by calculator block
CDCOMP
(Calculator)
DCOMP Conv =0.973
T(DCOMP) =Tin
O
2
=Dry x Ultanal(O)/(100 x MW
O2
)
Calculates stoichiometric coefficients for each of the components coal is decomposed into based on
the ultimate analysis composition of the coal. Calculation for O
2
shown as example. Note: Dry =1
Mass fraction of H
2
O in coal.
GASFR
(RGibbs)
Pressure =30 bar
Products: CO
2
, CO, CH
4
, H
2
O, H
2
, H
2
S,
COS, HCl, NH
3
, HCN, N
2
, O
2
, Ar
Determines the thermodynamic equilibriumfor gasification reactions by minimising the Gibbs Free
Energy of products specified. Heat Duty specified by HHV calculator block and Temperature
achieved by varying O
2
feed with GASFTEMP design-spec.
GAS-FEED
(Calculator)
H
2
O =C x 0.09
O =C x O:C Ratio
O
2
FEED=(O - H
2
O O
coal
x 2)/2
OXIDANT =O
2
FEED / O
2
FRAC
Calculates steamrequirements according to H
2
O:C ratio =0.09 mol/mol (Kunze and Spliethoff,
2011). Calculates O
2
gas required in feed as total oxygen required less oxygen in steamand coal.
Total oxidant required calculated according to the oxygen purity of 99.5%. O:C Ratio is varied by
GASFTEMP design-spec.
GASFTEMP
(Design-Spec)
Temp =1550C
Vary: O:C Ratio from0.6-1.5
Varies O:C ratio to achieve the required temperature in the gasifier. O:C ratio used by GAS-FEED
calculator to determine the flow of oxidant required.
43

10.2.4 B4: Syngas Quench Hierarchy:

Figure A4: Syngas Quench Simulation Flowsheet

Table A4: Syngas Quench Model Specifications
SG-MIX
(Mixer)
Pressure drop =0 bar Combines raw, hot syngas from gasifier with cooled quench syngas stream to reduce
temperature and (in reality) solidify molten ash although this is not modelled.
SG-QUENC
(Design-Spec)
SG-2 Temp =900C
Vary: SG-SPLIT Split Fraction
Varies split fraction of cooled syngas stream to achieve the temperature of 900C which
would be required to solidify molten ash.
HX-1 T =250C, P =0 bar Reduces quenched SG temp to 250C. Would be used for heat recovery in reality.
Filter
(SSplit)
Stream: SLAG
CISOLID & NC Split Fraction =1
Removes all Coal ash and unconverted solid carbon to SLAG waste stream.
SG-SPLIT Pressure drop =0 bar Splits portion of cool syngas for quench stream. Split fraction determined by SG-QUENC.
S-TO-MIX
(ClChng)
None Converts Sub-Stream class from solids to MIXED.
Q-BLOWER
(Compr)
Type: Polytropic
Discharge P =39.6 bar
Polytropic = 0.88
Mechanical = 0.92
Compressed recycled syngas stream to the required pressure ( 39.6 bar) in order to quench
hot incoming syngas stream from gasifier (Kreutz, 2012).

44

10.2.5 B5: Water Gas Shift Hierarchy:

Figure A5: Water Gas Shift Simulation Flowsheet

Table A5: Water Gas Shift Model Specifications
SPLIT
(Splitter)
BYPASS Split =0.5
Pressure drop =0 bar
Splits a portion of incoming syngas to bypass the WGS reactor and achieve the required
H
2
:CO ratio. Split fraction determined by SG-SPLI design-spec found in main flowsheet.
SG-SPLI
(Design Spec)
CLNGAS H
2
:CO ratio =2.0
Vary: Bypass Split Fraction
Varies the split fraction of the bypass stream around the WGS reactor to achieve the
required H
2
:CO ratio in the CLNGAS stream entering the FT reactor.
PREHEAT
(HeatX)
Flow Direction =Counter-current
Cold stream outlet T =277C
Uses heat from shifted syngas to preheat feed stream to a temperature of 277C required for
the WGS reaction (Drover, 2008).
WGSSTEAM
(Calculator)
Steam =2.1CO
HOT-SG
- H
2
O
HOT-SG
Ensures sufficient steam is added to the WGS reactor to avoid carbon formation on catalyst.
Minimum required H
2
O:CO ratio required is 2 (Abdulhamid, 2007)
WGS
(REquil)
RXN: CO +H
2
O ->CO
2
+H
2

Duty =0 MW, Pressure =0 bar.
Calculates the thermodynamic equilibrium for the water-gas shift reaction to simulate the
shift of CO to H
2.
MIX
(Mixer)
Combines syngas which has bypassed the WGS reactor with shifted syngas which has been
cooled by pre-heating the feed stream.

45

10.2.6 B6: AGR Hierarchy:

Figure A6: Acid Gas Removal Simulation Flowsheet

Table A6: Acid Gas Removal Model Specifications
SG-HX
(Heater)
Temperature =95C
Cool syngas down after exothermic shift reaction to required temperature of 95C (Sudiro,
2009). Significant heat available for recovery but heat integration not modelled here.
KNOCKOUT
(Flash2)
Temperature =25C
Knockout drum to separate syngas from entrained water from the WGS reactor as this will
freeze in the Rectisol process.
RECTISOL
(Sep2)
CLNGAS Split Fractions:
H
2
=99.7%, CO =96.7%,
CH
4
=96.8%, H
2
S

=0.01%
CO
2
-Rich Stream Split Fractions:
CO
2
=93.4%, CO =3.2%,
CH
4
=3.2%, H
2
S =0%.
Model Rectisol process as a simple separator with recoveries of H
2
, CO and CH
4
as well as
separation efficiencys of CO
2,
H
2
S and COS estimated from a detailed simulation of the
Rectisol process (Kreutz, 2012)
PSA
(Sep2)
H2 Stream Component Flows:
H
2
=0.17 kmol/s.
All others =0 kmol/s
Models Pressure Swing Adsorption process assuming that hydrogen can be removed from
the syngas stream with no other impurities. Exact amount of hydrogen removed is
overwritten by H2-REQ design spec based on refinery requirements.
H2-REQ
(Design-Spec)
Excess H
2
=0.01 kmol/s
Vary: PSA H
2
Split
Varies the amount of H
2
removed from syngas by PSA in order to get minimal excess H
2
remaining in the outlet from the hydrocracker in the REFINERY hierarchy.

46

10.2.7 B7: LTFT Hierarchy

Figure A7: FT Synthesis Simulation Flowsheet

Table A7: FT Synthesis Model Specifications
PREHEAT
(HeatX)
Flow: Counter-current
Cold Stream Outlet T =164C
Utilises heat in hot recycled syncrude vapours to preheat incoming syngas to 164C
(Drover, 2008).
FT
(RYield)
Temperature =230C.
Models syncrude production from syngas at 230C. Mass yields for all syncrude
components are calculated by C-FT Calculator block.
C-FT
(Calculator)
alkane
= 0.91,
alcohol
= 0.85,
alkene
=0.74
x
alkane
=0.78, x
alkene
=0.12, x
alc
=0.03,
x
CH4
=0.08, x
C2H4
=0.001, Conv =90%
Calculates mass yields of all syncrude components (alkanes, alkenes and alcohols) based on
the individual ASF distributions derived for each hydrocarbon family by Bertoncini et al.
FLASH
(Flash2)
Temperature =230C
Pressure =25 bar
Simulates phase separation of syncrude waxes from hot vapours and unconverted syngas
that would occur within the FT reactor in reality.
FLASH2
(Flash3)
Temperature =140C
Pressure =25 bar
3-phase knockout drum to separate heavy syncrude components (HOT-COND) from
vapours (VAP-2) and aqueous product (RXN-H2O).
H2OSTRIP
(Sep2)
CLN-H2O Split Fractions:
H
2
O =1, All others =0.
Removes syncrude components from aqueous product stream (assuming 100% separation)
and combines them with syncrude vapours.
47

VAP-MIX
(Mixer)
Pressure =25 bar
Phases: Vapour-Liquid
Combines syncrude vapours from FLASH2 with syncrude components stripped from
aqueous product.

SC-FRAC
(Sep)
WATER Split Fractions:
H
2
O =1, All others =0
TAILGAS Split Fractions:
C
1
-C
2
, CO, H
2
& all contaminants
=1, All others =0.
Separates all water and light components (C
1
-C
2
) as well as unconverted CO, H
2
and
contaminants (H
2
S, HCN, NH
3
) from syncrude product. Light components sent to tail gas
and water combined with stripped aqueous product.
H2O-MIX
(Mixer)
Pressure =25 bar
Phases: Vapour-Liquid
Combines clean aqueous product with traces of water removed from syncrude in SC-FRAC.
10.2.8 B8: Renery Hierarchy:

Figure A8: Syncrude Refinery Simulation Flowsheet

48

Table A8: Syncrude Refinery Model Specifications
MAINFRAC
(Sep2)
Stream C3-C5 Split Fractions: C3-C5 =1, All others =0.
Stream C6-C8 Split Fractions: C6-C8 =1, All others =0.
TAILGAS Split Fractions: H
2
, CO, CO
2
, H
2
S, H
2
O, CH
4
=0
Simplified model of the main distillation column to separate
syncrude components into various fractions for further processing
according to a proposed LTFT J et Fuel refinery (de Klerk, 2011).
WAX-MIX Pressure drop: 0 bar Combines MAINFRAC C
9+
material & wax from LTFT FLASH
HT-MIX Pressure: 10 bar Combines Hydrotreater feed with H
2
from PSA unit.
HT
(RStoic)
Temperature =330C, Pressure =25 bar, Conversion =1
Alkenes: C
x
H
2x
+H
2
->C
x
H
2x+2
Alcohols: C
x
H
2x-1
OH +H
2
->C
x
H
2x+2
+H
2
O
Models hydrotreating of all alkenes and alcohols according to
general reactions shown to the left to produce alkanes (and H
2
O
for alcohols). 100% conversion assumed for all.
HT-FRAC
(Sep)
HC-FEED Split Fractions:
H
2
, C
15+
components =1, All others =0
Separates out C
15+
material requiring hydrocracking. In reality H
2

would be in overheads and require recovery with additional units.
HC-REC
(Mixer)
Pressure drop =0 bar Combines bottoms stream from HT-FRAC with recycled C
15+
material exiting HC as this requires further cracking.
HC
(RYield)
Temperature =330C
Pressure drop =0 bar.
Simulates hydrocracking of long-chain hydrocarbons according
to the mass yields calculated by C-HC.
C-HC
(Calculator)
See FORTRAN code in Aspen Plus file. Calculates HC mass yields based off Shells hydrocracking
technology developed for heavy syncrude waxes (Eilers, 1990).
HC-FRAC
(Sep)
C3-C8 Split Fractions: C
9+
C15+Split Fractions: C
15+
Separates C
15+
material from HC product so this can be recycled
for additional hydrocracking. C
9-14
sent to J et Blending.
AROMAT
(Hierarchy)
In proposed refinery design, aromatisation produces aromatic liquid for gasoline blending with unconverted material sent to jet
blending or fuel gas. Process not modelled but distribution between gasoline, jet fuel and fuel gas varied by GAS-SPL & FUEL-
SPL design-specs to achieve the overall product distribution for the refinery specified by de Klerk, 2011.
Refinery Product Distribution (mass %): J et Fuel =64.6%, Gasoline =32.1%, Fuel Gas =3.3%
GAS-SPL
(Design-Spec)
GASOLINE/(FUELGAS +GASOLINE +J ET) =0.321
Vary: AROMAT.SPLIT Gasoline split fraction
Varies the split fraction of gasoline from AROMAT splitter in
order to achieve product distribution for gasoline of 32.1%.
FUEL-SPL
(Design Spec)
FUELGAS/(FUELGAS +GASOLINE +J ET) =0.033
Vary: AROMAT.SPLIT Fuel Gas split fraction
Varies the split fraction of fuel gas from AROMAT splitter in
order to achieve product distribution for fuel gas of 3.3%.
OLIG
(Hierarchy)
Block: POLY (RStoic), T =550C, P =10 bar.
RXN: C
3
H
8
+C
3
H
6
->C
6
H
14
Block: ALKY (RStoic), T =550C, P =10 bar.
RXN: C
4
H
10
+C
4
H
8
->C
8
H
18
Upgrading of light hydrocarbons through polymerisation
(reacting propane and propene) and alkylation (reacting iso-
butane and butane) to form longer chain hydrocarbons more
suitable to fuels. Alkylate sent to gasoline blending and
polygasoline sent to jet fuel blending.
49

10.3 Appendix C: FT Synthesis Product Distribution:
The syncrude product distribution from FT synthesis was modelled on the basis of experimental
results from Bertoncini et al, 2011. These results were obtained by analysing the syncrude
composition from a Co-LTFT reactor and determining an Anderson-Schulz-Flory (ASF)
distribution to characterise the product distribution for each hydrocarbon family. This was done
by plotting Log (W
n
/n) vs n, where W
n
is the weight fraction of a hydrocarbon chain of length n,
as shown in Figure A9.

Figure A9: Determination of ASF distributions for Co-LTFT Products (Bertoncini et al, 2011)
Alpha () values characterising the three ASF distributions were determined through Figure A9.
It can be seen from the high coefficient of determination values that these distributions closely
describe the actual product distribution. These values and additional data from Bertoncini et al,
2011 required to model the FT synthesis process can be seen in Table A9 below.
Table A9: ASF Distribution Parameters
Parameter Value
(alkane) 0.91
(alcohol) 0.85
(alkene) 0.74
Alkane (wt%) 0.78
Alkene wt% 0.12
Alcohol (wt%) 0.027
CH
4
(wt%) 0.082
C
2
H
4
(wt%) 0.001
The weight fraction for an individual component can be calculated from the ASF distribution as
follows. This is then multiplied by the total weight fraction for that hydrocarbon family to get the
weight fraction for that component in the entire syncrude product.
W
n
=n.(1- )
2
.
n-1

50

10.4 Appendix D: Fixed Operating Costs:
Table A10 lists the details of estimated fixed operating expenses for the CTL plant under each of
the 5 scenarios. These were adjusted from original estimates in the Hatch Fairbanks CTL report
and details of this adjustment can be found in Section 6.2.1.
Table A10: Estimated Fixed Operating Expenses for 5 Scenarios
Reference
CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 HATCH
Capacity Factor 1.00 1.41 1.91 1.87 1.53 1.00
Fixed O&M ('000 USD/yr)
Coal Feed 156,950 - - - - -
Coal Drying 1,213 1,213 1,213 1,213 1,213 1,213
Air Separation Unit (ASU) 4,707 - - - - -
Gasifier & Steam Handling 38,202 38,202 38,202 38,202 38,202 38,202
Syngas Shift & Conversion 10,070 14,231 19,263 18,838 15,418 10,070
Syngas Purification 8,221 11,618 15,726 15,379 12,587 8,221
Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis 25,813 36,480 49,377 48,289 39,522 25,813
Upgrading 6,814 9,630 13,034 12,747 10,433 6,814
General Facilities 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300
Power Generation 8,186 - - - - -
Operating Labor 33,850 33,850 33,850 33,850 33,850 33,850
Sales, General & Admin 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,001
Total 329,326 180,524 205,965 203,818 186,526 159,484
Q1 '14 Exchange Rate 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Total ('000 AUD/yr) 359,854 197,258 225,058 222,712 203,816 174,268

51

10.5 Appendix E: Price Estimations:
10.5.1 E1: Predicted Coal Prices:
Future coal prices were predicted from the World Banks prediction for the price of a standard
Australian thermal coal until 2025 (Baffes and Cosic, 2014). This was converted to prices for
each of the 5 coals considered according to the relative heating values (HHV) of the coals.
Additional data to convert from 2010 USD to 2014 AUD was as follows.
US CPI (2010): 218.06
US CPI (Q1 '14): 237.07
AUD:USD (Q1 '14): 1.09
Based of this data predicted coal prices were calculated and can be seen in Table A11.
Table A11: Predicted Coal Prices until 2025 for 5 Coal Types
Coal Type
HHV
(GJ/t)
Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
World Bank 26.4 '10 USD/t
82.6 82.3 82.1 81.7 81.4 80.9 80.5 80.0 79.6 79.1 78.6
World Bank " '14 USD/t
89.8 89.5 89.3 88.8 88.5 88.0 87.5 87.0 86.5 86.0 85.5
World Bank " '14 AUD/t
97.9 97.5 97.3 96.8 96.5 95.9 95.4 94.8 94.3 93.7 93.1
CRC701 22.4 '14 AUD/t
83.1 82.8 82.6 82.2 81.9 81.4 81.0 80.5 80.1 79.6 79.1
CRC702 30.2 '14 AUD/t
95.1 94.7 94.5 94.0 93.7 93.1 92.6 92.1 91.6 91.0 90.5
CRC703 31.9 '14 AUD/t
115.2 114.8 114.5 113.9 113.5 112.8 112.3 111.6 111.0 110.3 109.6
CRC704 26.0 '14 AUD/t
113.7 113.3 113.1 112.5 112.1 111.4 110.8 110.2 109.6 108.9 108.2
Healy 16.3 '14 AUD/t
70.2 70.0 69.8 69.5 69.2 68.8 68.4 68.0 67.7 67.3 66.8

10.5.2 E2: FT Product Prices:
Future FT Product prices were estimated based on World Bank predictions for crude oil prices
and the relationship between the crude oil price and the average refinery price received for liquid
fuels. This relationship was developed from historical prices, as described in section 6.2.2, and is
given as follows:
= 1.04 +$22.82
From this, expected prices until 2012 were calculated and can be seen in Table A 12.
Table A 12: Estimated FT Product Prices based of World Bank Predictions for Crude Oil Prices until 2025
Product Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Dated Brent Crude '10 USD/bbl 91.6 89.3 87.7 86.1 84.6 83.1 81.7 80.2 78.8 77.4 76.0
Dated Brent Crude '14 USD/bbl 99.6 97.1 95.3 93.6 92.0 90.3 88.8 87.2 85.7 84.1 82.6
Dated Brent Crude '14 AUD/bbl 108.6 105.8 103.9 102.0 100.3 98.5 96.8 95.0 93.4 91.7 90.1
FT Product Price '14 AUD/bbl 135.4 132.5 130.6 128.6 126.8 124.9 123.2 121.3 119.6 117.9 116.2

52

10.5.3 E3: Oxygen Supply Costs:
Over-the-fence supply costs were calculated according to the following procedure which is
typical of commercial arrangements implemented by Praxair (Wilcox, 2005).
1. Determine oxygen requirements from process model in short tons per day (TPD) and
cubic feet per year at NTP (CFY).
2. Calculate the ASU capital cost by scaling according to the capacity required, adjusting for
the change in CEPCI and the USD:AUD exchange rate and including a Location Factor
of 1.19 for construction in Australia compared to a US location (Richardson, 2012).
= 27

1000

0.6
2014
2004

1.09
1

3. Calculate the annual facility fee: AFF =12 x 0.0275 x Capital Cost.
4. Calculate the variable cost paid to the oxygen supplier based on estimated power
consumption of the plant.
=
16
1000
(0.85 . )
0.145
1

5. Determine the total annual cost: AFF +Variable Cost.
Results from these calculations are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Cost of Oxygen Supply for Each Scenario
Units
CRC701 CRC702 CRC703 CRC704 HATCH
Oxygen Required stpd 11,221 13,871 10,493 13,327 8,473
Oxygen Required 10
10
ft
3
/yr 49.3 60.9 46.1 58.5 37.2
Capital Cost 10
6
'04 USD $147 $167 $141 $163 $124
Capital Cost 10
6
'14 AUD $175 $199 $168 $194 $148
Annual Fixed Fee 10
6
AUD/yr $63 $72 $61 $70 $53
Electricity Price AUD/kWh 0.145 0.145 0.145 0.145 0.145
Variable Cost 10
6
AUD/yr $106 $131 $99 $126 $80
Total Cost 10
6
AUD/yr $169 $203 $160 $196 $133

53

10.6 Appendix F: Example Economic Calculations CRC701 Scenario:
Time Period Commodity Prices Expenses Revenue Profit & FCF's NPV & IRR
Year
Plant
Year
Coal
Price
($/t)
FT
Product
($/bbl)
Electricity
($/MWh)
Gas
Price
($/GJ)
CapEx ($) Deprec.
Oxygen
Costs
Coal Cost Electricity
Fixed
Opex
Gas
Fuel
Revenue
EBIT ($) Tax ($) Net Profit FCF ($)
Cumulative
FCF
NPV
(r =0.12)
2015 0 83.09 135.35 145.00 4.42 -4.17E+08 - - - - - - - - - - -4.17E+08 -4.17E+08 -4.17E+08
2016 1 82.79 132.53 145.44 4.47 -8.35E+08 - - - - - - - - - - -8.35E+08 -1.25E+09 -7.45E+08
2017 2 82.59 130.56 145.87 4.51 -2.09E+09 - - - - - - - - - - -2.09E+09 -3.34E+09 -1.66E+09
2018 3 82.19 128.60 146.31 4.56 -8.35E+08 - - - - - - - - - - -8.35E+08 -4.17E+09 -5.94E+08
2019 4 81.88 126.76 146.75 4.60 - -2.78E+08 -1.61E+08 -3.98E+08 -2.71E+07 -1.97E+08 2.61E+07 1.17E+09 1.35E+08 -4.06E+07 9.48E+07 3.73E+08 -3.80E+09 2.37E+08
2020 5 81.38 124.91 147.19 4.65 - -2.60E+08 -1.62E+08 -3.97E+08 -2.72E+07 -1.97E+08 2.64E+07 1.15E+09 1.38E+08 -4.15E+07 9.68E+07 3.56E+08 -3.44E+09 2.02E+08
2021 6 80.98 123.19 147.63 4.70 - -2.42E+08 -1.62E+08 -3.94E+08 -2.72E+07 -1.97E+08 2.66E+07 1.14E+09 1.42E+08 -4.26E+07 9.94E+07 3.42E+08 -3.10E+09 1.73E+08
2022 7 80.48 121.35 148.07 4.74 - -2.26E+08 -1.62E+08 -3.92E+08 -2.73E+07 -1.97E+08 2.69E+07 1.12E+09 1.43E+08 -4.29E+07 1.00E+08 3.26E+08 -2.78E+09 1.48E+08
2023 8 80.07 119.63 148.52 4.79 - -2.11E+08 -1.63E+08 -3.90E+08 -2.74E+07 -1.97E+08 2.72E+07 1.11E+09 1.44E+08 -4.33E+07 1.01E+08 3.12E+08 -2.46E+09 1.26E+08
2024 9 79.57 117.91 148.96 4.84 - -1.97E+08 -1.63E+08 -3.88E+08 -2.75E+07 -1.97E+08 2.74E+07 1.09E+09 1.44E+08 -4.33E+07 1.01E+08 2.98E+08 -2.17E+09 1.08E+08
2025 10 79.07 116.19 149.41 4.89 - -1.84E+08 -1.63E+08 -3.85E+08 -2.76E+07 -1.97E+08 2.77E+07 1.07E+09 1.44E+08 -4.32E+07 1.01E+08 2.85E+08 -1.88E+09 9.17E+07
2026 11 79.07 116.19 149.86 4.94 - -1.72E+08 -1.64E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.76E+07 -1.97E+08 2.80E+07 1.07E+09 1.59E+08 -4.76E+07 1.11E+08 2.83E+08 -1.60E+09 8.13E+07
2027 12 79.07 116.19 150.31 4.98 - -1.60E+08 -1.64E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.77E+07 -1.97E+08 2.83E+07 1.07E+09 1.70E+08 -5.10E+07 1.19E+08 2.79E+08 -1.32E+09 7.17E+07
2028 13 79.07 116.19 150.76 5.03 - -1.50E+08 -1.64E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.78E+07 -1.97E+08 2.85E+07 1.07E+09 1.81E+08 -5.42E+07 1.26E+08 2.76E+08 -1.04E+09 6.32E+07
2029 14 79.07 116.19 151.21 5.09 - -1.40E+08 -1.64E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.79E+07 -1.97E+08 2.88E+07 1.07E+09 1.90E+08 -5.71E+07 1.33E+08 2.73E+08 -7.70E+08 5.58E+07
2030 15 79.07 116.19 151.66 5.14 - -1.30E+08 -1.65E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.80E+07 -1.97E+08 2.91E+07 1.07E+09 2.00E+08 -5.99E+07 1.40E+08 2.70E+08 -5.00E+08 4.93E+07
2031 16 79.07 116.19 152.12 5.19 - -1.22E+08 -1.65E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.81E+07 -1.97E+08 2.94E+07 1.07E+09 2.08E+08 -6.25E+07 1.46E+08 2.67E+08 -2.33E+08 4.36E+07
2032 17 79.07 116.19 152.58 5.24 - -1.13E+08 -1.65E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.81E+07 -1.97E+08 2.97E+07 1.07E+09 2.16E+08 -6.49E+07 1.51E+08 2.65E+08 3.20E+07 3.86E+07
2033 18 79.07 116.19 153.03 5.29 - -1.06E+08 -1.66E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.82E+07 -1.97E+08 3.00E+07 1.07E+09 2.24E+08 -6.71E+07 1.57E+08 2.62E+08 2.94E+08 3.41E+07
2034 19 79.07 116.19 153.49 5.34 - -9.88E+07 -1.66E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.83E+07 -1.97E+08 3.03E+07 1.07E+09 2.31E+08 -6.92E+07 1.61E+08 2.60E+08 5.55E+08 3.02E+07
2035 20 79.07 116.19 153.95 5.40 - -9.23E+07 -1.66E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.84E+07 -1.97E+08 3.06E+07 1.07E+09 2.37E+08 -7.11E+07 1.66E+08 2.58E+08 8.13E+08 2.68E+07
2036 21 79.07 116.19 154.41 5.45 - -8.61E+07 -1.67E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.85E+07 -1.97E+08 3.09E+07 1.07E+09 2.43E+08 -7.30E+07 1.70E+08 2.56E+08 1.07E+09 2.37E+07
2037 22 79.07 116.19 154.88 5.51 - -8.04E+07 -1.67E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.86E+07 -1.97E+08 3.12E+07 1.07E+09 2.49E+08 -7.47E+07 1.74E+08 2.55E+08 1.32E+09 2.10E+07
2038 23 79.07 116.19 155.34 5.56 - -7.50E+07 -1.67E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.87E+07 -1.97E+08 3.15E+07 1.07E+09 2.54E+08 -7.62E+07 1.78E+08 2.53E+08 1.58E+09 1.87E+07
2039 24 79.07 116.19 155.81 5.62 - -7.00E+07 -1.68E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.87E+07 -1.97E+08 3.19E+07 1.07E+09 2.59E+08 -7.77E+07 1.81E+08 2.51E+08 1.83E+09 1.66E+07
2040 25 79.07 116.19 156.28 5.67 - -6.53E+07 -1.68E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.88E+07 -1.97E+08 3.22E+07 1.07E+09 2.64E+08 -7.91E+07 1.85E+08 2.50E+08 2.08E+09 1.47E+07
2041 26 79.07 116.19 156.74 5.73 - -6.10E+07 -1.68E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.89E+07 -1.97E+08 3.25E+07 1.07E+09 2.68E+08 -8.04E+07 1.88E+08 2.49E+08 2.33E+09 1.31E+07
2042 27 79.07 116.19 157.21 5.79 - -5.69E+07 -1.68E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.90E+07 -1.97E+08 3.28E+07 1.07E+09 2.72E+08 -8.16E+07 1.90E+08 2.47E+08 2.57E+09 1.16E+07
2043 28 79.07 116.19 157.69 5.85 - -5.31E+07 -1.69E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.91E+07 -1.97E+08 3.31E+07 1.07E+09 2.76E+08 -8.27E+07 1.93E+08 2.46E+08 2.82E+09 1.03E+07
2044 29 79.07 116.19 158.16 5.90 - -4.96E+07 -1.69E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.92E+07 -1.97E+08 3.35E+07 1.07E+09 2.79E+08 -8.37E+07 1.95E+08 2.45E+08 3.06E+09 9.16E+06
2045 30 79.07 116.19 158.63 5.96 - -4.63E+07 -1.69E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.93E+07 -1.97E+08 3.38E+07 1.07E+09 2.82E+08 -8.47E+07 1.98E+08 2.44E+08 3.31E+09 8.14E+06
2046 31 79.07 116.19 159.11 6.02 - -4.32E+07 -1.70E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.93E+07 -1.97E+08 3.41E+07 1.07E+09 2.85E+08 -8.56E+07 2.00E+08 2.43E+08 3.55E+09 7.24E+06
2047 32 79.07 116.19 159.59 6.08 - -4.03E+07 -1.70E+08 -3.83E+08 -2.94E+07 -1.97E+08 3.45E+07 1.07E+09 2.88E+08 -8.64E+07 2.02E+08 2.42E+08 3.79E+09 6.44E+06

NPV = -1.67E+09
54

10.7 Appendix G: Sensitivity Analysis Results:
10.7.1 G1: Numerical Results from Sensitivity Analysis:
Table A13: IRR Sensitivity Analysis - CRC701
Internal Rate of Return
Percent Change Coal Price FT Product Electricity Gas Oxygen Fixed Opex CapEx
-30% 7% -5.8% 5.8% 4.9% 6.0% 6.2% 7.9%
-20% 6.6% -0.6% 5.6% 4.9% 5.7% 5.8% 6.7%
-10% 5.8% 2.6% 5.3% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% 5.8%
0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
10% 4.2% 7.1% 4.8% 5.1% 4.7% 4.6% 4.4%
20% 3.4% 9.0% 4.5% 5.2% 4.3% 4.2% 3.8%
30% 2.4% 10.8% 4.2% 5.2% 4.0% 3.8% 3.3%
-30% 10% -1.7% 8.0% 7.2% 8.3% 8.4% 10.7%
-20% 8.89% 2.2% 7.8% 7.3% 8.0% 8.1% 9.4%
-10% 8.16% 5.0% 7.6% 7.3% 7.7% 7.7% 8.3%
0% 7.40% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4%
10% 6.60% 9.5% 7.2% 7.5% 7.1% 7.1% 6.6%
20% 5.76% 11.4% 7.0% 7.5% 6.8% 6.7% 5.9%
30% 4.88% 13.2% 6.7% 7.6% 6.5% 6.4% 5.4%
Table A15: IRR Sensitivity Analsysis - CRC703
-30% 10% -2.1% 7.6% 7.0% 7.9% 8.2% 10.4%
-20% 8.79% 1.9% 7.5% 7.1% 7.6% 7.8% 9.1%
-10% 8.00% 4.8% 7.3% 7.1% 7.4% 7.5% 8.1%
0% 7.17% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2%
10% 6.30% 9.3% 7.0% 7.2% 6.9% 6.8% 6.4%
20% 5.39% 11.2% 6.8% 7.3% 6.7% 6.5% 5.7%
30% 4.41% 13.0% 6.7% 7.3% 6.4% 6.1% 5.2%
-30% 7% -6.9% 5.8% 4.8% 6.1% 6.2% 7.8%
-20% 6.71% -0.9% 5.5% 4.9% 5.8% 5.8% 6.7%
-10% 5.89% 2.5% 5.3% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% 5.8%
0% 5.03% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
10% 4.11% 7.2% 4.8% 5.1% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4%
20% 3.13% 9.1% 4.5% 5.2% 4.3% 4.2% 3.8%
30% 2.05% 10.9% 4.2% 5.2% 3.9% 3.8% 3.3%

55

10.7.2 Healy Coal IRR Sensivity Results
Table A17: IRR Sensitivity Analysis - Healy Coal
-30% 5% -16.40% 3.2% 2.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.6%
-20% 3.92% -4.2% 2.9% 2.2% 3.1% 3.3% 3.7%
-10% 3.16% -0.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.7% 2.9% 3.0%
0% 2.34% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%
10% 1.45% 4.5% 2.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8%
20% 0.48% 6.3% 1.7% 2.5% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3%
30% -0.61% 8.0% 1.4% 2.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.9%

Figure A10: IRR Sensitivity - Healy Coal
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
I
R
R

(
%
)
% Change
Coal Price FT Product Electricity Gas

Technoeconomic Assessment of An Australian Indirect Coal Liquefaction Process

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Technoeconomic Assessment of An Australian Indirect Coal Liquefaction Process

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UQ Engineering

Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology

. Boundary conditions for the model were inputs of run-

for gas processing and refining applications. A detailed

. Future improvements to the model when detailed heat integration is

simulation software and focuses on the

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen