Originally appeared in

December 2012, pg 47-53. Posted with permission.

Special Report Plant Design and Engineering

B. Anantharaman, D. Chatterjee, S. Ariyapadi
and R. Gualy, KBR, Houston, Texas

Consider coal gasification for liquid fuels production

Recent high prices for crude oil and natural gas (outside Coal reserves are available in almost every country world-
the US) are spurring increased interest in other conversion wide, with recoverable reserves in 70 countries. The largest
technologies, such as coal gasification, to process lower-value reserves are in the US, Russia, China and India. With faster
hydrocarbon feedstocks into higher value end products.1 Fig. 1 depleting reserves of oil and gas, coal presents an attractive
compares the projected prices of crude oil, natural gas and low- alternative option for making liquid fuels. A new proprietary
rank coals.1,2 coal gasification technology uses an advanced design gasifier.a
Liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, naphtha and jet fuel, This article integrates technology for coal gasification with FT
are usually processed by refining crude oil. Due to the direct dis- synthesis and product upgrading units.
tillation, crude oil is the most suited raw material for liquid fuel
production. However, with rising crude oil prices and deplet- Maturity of FT technology. FT technology is a well-proven,
ing reserves, gas-to-liquids (GTLs) and coal-to-liquids (CTLs) mature process, and it is used to convert syngas into clean,
processes are alternative routes used for liquids production. high-quality liquid fuels, including ultra-clean diesel and jet
Natural gas and coal are converted to syngas first, and then the fuels. Depending on coal quality and process technology, the
well-proven Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology is used to con- CTL process can also yield quantities of naphtha and ammo-
vert the syngas to a raw product, which is further upgraded to nia as byproducts. The FT process produces superior quality
produce primarily premium diesel, naphtha and jet fuel. diesel that has virtually no sulfur (< 5 ppm), is very low in aro-
Commercial GTL plants have been operating successfully matic content (< 1%) with a high cetane number (> 70) and
for many years at various parts of the world, as shown in Table 1. good cold-flow characteristics (< 5°C–10°C).4
However, the scarcity and premium prices of natural gas at cer- The FT-derived diesel can be used as blendstock against
tain geographical locations make coal gasification an economi- high-aromatic, low-cetane No. 2 heating oil at a ratio of 1/1
cally viable alternative route. Due to faster depleting natural gas
reserves and more abundant coal reserves, coal gasification and Table 1. FT technology in commercial plants
CTL are solutions to produce liquid fuels over the long term.
Fig. 2 compares the proven reserves of crude oil, coal and Capacity, Start of
Plant name bpd Plant owner production
gas worldwide.3 It has been estimated that there are over 847
billion tons of proven coal reserves. Accordingly, there are Secunda CTL 160,000 Sasol Sasol 2—1980
enough coal supplies to last nearly 118 years at present produc- Sasol 3—1984
tion rates. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equiva- Oryx GTL 34,000 Qatar Petroleum—51% 2007
lent to around 46 to 59 years at present production levels. Sasol—49%
Escravos GTL 34,000 Chevron Nigeria 2013 (forecast)
20 Limited—75%
Nigerian National
16 Petroleum Co.—25%
Ordos, China 24,000 Shenhua December 2008
Forecast prices, $/MMBtu

12 Sasol
Pearl GTL 140,000 Qatar Petroleum 2011
Crude oil
8 Natural gas Shell
Low-rank coal Bintulu GTL 15,000 Shell 1993
4 Mossgas, Mossel 47,000 PetroSA—37.5%
Bay, SA Statoil—37.5%
0 Lurgi—25%
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year Jincheng, China 2,500 Jinmei Operation

Fig. 1. Projected price comparisons for crude oil, natural gas Changzhi, China 4,000 Lu’an Construction
and low-rank coal. Ordos, China 4,000 Yitai Operation

Hydrocarbon Processing | December 2012 47

 Plant Design and Engineering

to make onroad diesel. The produced naphtha is highly paraf- •  Reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through car-
finic with very low-sulfur, naphthenic and aromatic content; it bon capture and storage (CCS)
is suitable as a quality feedstock for conversion into other fuels •  Yielding a coal-derived diesel that can be used as clean
or cracked to produce ethylene for the polymer industry. Fig. 3 transportation fuels
shows the FT process, which has three main processing steps, •  Using low-cost coal that is available domestically in ap-
all of which are commercially proven.5 Table 1 lists successful propriate geographical regions.
applications of FT technologies in existing commercial CTL Fig. 5 illustrates the CO2 emission reductions with CTL die-
and GTL plants. sel through CCS. CO2 emissions are reduced by 5%–12% for
CTL diesel with CCS when compared to diesel produced from
Variety of liquid products from coal. In addition to syn- crude oil.
thetic oil and diesel fuels, numerous additional products can
be derived from coal, as listed in Fig. 4.6 The CTL process can Geographical regions worldwide for CTL. There are nu-
provide several key benefits, such as: merous CTL projects worldwide, and Fig. 6 provides a broad
•  Yielding ultra-clean, sulfur-free and low-particulates overview of these various CTL projects. Blue-coded locations
products denote CTL plants in operation, and green-coded units are
•  Processing at low levels of oxides and nitrogen projects underway. From Fig. 6, it is noted that the majority of
CTL projects are concentrated in Asia-Pacific with a significant
300
presence in China, India and Indonesia. There are five operat-
250 Gas
Coal ing CTL plants in China (Yitai, Lu’An and JMG are semi-com-
200 Oil mercial) and two plants in South Africa. There are three CTL
150 projects in India, five in Australasia (Australia and New Zea-
land), and one in Canada.
100
50 Global liquids production. Fig. 7 shows the projection from
0 2009 to 2035 in liquids supply and demand by region.1 From Fig.
North South EU Former Middle Africa India China Asia-Pacific
America America USSR East 7, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD) includes developed nations, while non-OECD
Fig. 2. Global proven reserves of crude oil, coal and natural gas. includes developing countries. Total use of liquids is similar
in the reference, high-oil-price and low-oil-price cases, rang-
ing from 108 million bpd (MM bpd) to 115 MM bpd in 2035,
Gaseous
Coal FT reactor products respectively. Although total gross domestic product (GDP)
Biomass Solids
gasification Table 2. Coal composition and heating value for low-rank coal
Bio-renewables
Step 3. Hydrocracking Moisture + Ash, C, H, N, S, O, Cl, F, HHV,
Methane,
alcohols Kerosine % % % % % % % % kJ/kg
Step 1. Syngas generation
and diesel
Diesel 45 41.6 2.3 1.1 0.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 16,200
Methane Product
Natural upgrading
Waxy hydrocarbon Naphtha
Steam/oxygen gas
reforming production Table 3. CTL plant production (products and byproducts)
Steam generation and consumption
Slurry phase FT diesel 14,700 bpd Cetane number, min: 74–78
Synthesis gas Cloud point, max: –10°C to 1°C
(H2 and CO)
Step 2. FT conversion Naphtha 5,300 bpd Octane, RON: 40–45
Reid Vapor Pressure: 8 psi
Fig. 3. Main processing steps of FT process.
Power generation 240 MW Onsite STGs
Compressed CO2 12,700 tpd > 96 vol%, P = 155 bara,
Fuel cell T = 60°C
Fuels Diesel fuel LPG Kerosine fuel
Gasifier ash 3,700 tpd

Synthetic Synthetic Plant consumption figures

Chemicals Detergents Plastics fibers rubbers Raw coal 14,400 tpd
Coal Syngas Fischer-
Tropsch HP oxygen 6,000 tpd > 99.5 vol%, P = 46 bara, T = 24°C
Specialty HP nitrogen 2,900 tpd > 95 vol%, P = 46 bara, T = 24°C
Waxes Lube oils waxes
LP nitrogen 125 tpd > 95 vol%, P = 9 bara, T = 24°C
Purchased power 100 MW Imported from OSBL
Steam Electricity
Natural gas 37 GJ/h LHV
Fig. 4. Variety of liquid products from coal gasification. Raw water Normally no flow

48 December 2012 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Design and Engineering

growth is assumed to be the same in all three cases, non-OECD price case is supported by CTL and GTL technologies becom-
GDP growth is lower in the low-oil-price case and higher in the ing more economical. Production levels from unconventional
high-oil-price case, thus changing the shares of global liquids sources such as CTL and GTL are driven largely by price level
consumed by OECD and non-OECD countries among the and the need to compensate for restrictions on economic access
three cases. In the reference case, OECD liquids consumption to conventional liquid resources in other nations. Fig. 9 shows
grows to 47.9 MM bpd, while non-OECD liquids use grows to the projected unconventional liquids production by fuel type.10
62.9 MM bpd, in 2035. Fig. 8 shows the projection in unconven- From Fig. 9, the projections in unconventional liquids pro-
tional liquids as a share of the total global liquids projection.1 duced from coal tremendously increase from 2008 to 2035. Fig.
Global 2009 production of liquid fuels from unconventional 10 shows FT liquid fuels production 1990 (historic) to 2030
resources was 4.1 MM bpd, or about 5% of the total liquids (projected).11 At high oil prices, CTL looks particularly attrac-
production. Production from unconventional sources grows tive in countries possessing abundant coal reserves, large energy
to 10%, 12% and 17% of total world liquids production for the requirements and inadequate reserves of crude oil and natural
low-oil-price, reference and high-oil-price cases, respectively. gas. From Fig. 10, it is expected that CTL liquid fuels production
The increased unconventional production in the high-oil- will be preferred over GTL.
900
Well-to-wheels emissions, grams of CO2 equivalent per mile

120
Supply Demand

World liquids supply and demand by region, MMbpd

800
+63-100%
700
600 -5-12% -4% Non-OECD
Reference: Conventional diesel 80
500
400 Non-OPEC
300
-46% -30% 40
200
Other OPEC
100 OECD
OPEC
0 Middle East
Diesel from CTL diesel CTL diesel CTL diesel CTL diesel CTL diesel 0
crude oil w/o CCS with CCS with 30% CCS and 30% CCS and 15% 2009 Low oil price High oil price
biomass biomass biomass Reference
Source: Idaho National Laboratory (2007) and US DOE (2009) 2035

Fig. 5. Well-to-wheels emissions of CO2 from diesel. Fig. 7. Global liquids supply and demand by region.

Baotou 600,000 tpy

4.3 Mm3/d Great Plains, ND
20,000 bpd Ordos
Fox Creek, Alberta Leuna Irkutsk Yitai 4,000 bpd
Serafimovskiy
Mongolia Lu’An 4,000 bpd

Posco
Assam
JAMG 3,000 bpd
Tata Sasol
Geleximco
Jindal
Philippines

Bumi & Sasol

Waterberg
CTL Mmamabula Arckaringa
Clinton
SNG Sasolburg Secunda Spitfire Oil
Projects 160,000 bpd Monash Latrobe

Operations
L&M Lignite
Source: 14th European Round Table on Coal–May 31, 2011, World CTL

Fig. 6. CTL plants and projects worldwide.

Hydrocarbon Processing | December 2012 49

 Plant Design and Engineering

Most of the announced, commercial-scale CTL projects are in Air separation unit. The proprietary CTL process uses ox-
China, as shown in Fig. 11.11 With completion of these announced ygen (O2 ) provided by a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU)
projects, China will be the world CTL leader within the next as the O2 in the gasifier.
decade. Many projects are designed to coproduce chemicals, in- Coal gasification. Dried, pulverized coal, oxygen and steam
cluding ammonia. The longer-term development of a global CTL are fed to the proprietary gasifier; coal gasification reactions oc-
industry may depend on advancements in CO2 sequestration that cur in the resulting fluidized bed in the high-velocity “transport
allow projects to produce fuels with a lower carbon footprint. regime.” Steam is added to the gasifier, both as a reactant and as
a moderator to control the reaction temperature at about 980°C.
CTL process. Fig. 12 is a block-flow diagram of an advanced Gasifier ash removal system. A proprietary continuous
CTL process. It uses a proprietary gasifier that is integrated with coarse ash depressurization (CCAD) system withdraws the
typical FT synthesis and upgrading units.a The gasifier is com- coarse ash from the gasifier and maintains the solids level within
patible with a wide range of feedstocks, particularly low-rank the desired range. The ash withdrawn is cooled with boiler feed-
coals with high moisture and ash content. This CTL process is water (BFW), depressurized continuously through a number of
briefly summarized here: stages of pressure-letdown devices and routed to an ash silo.
Coal preparation. Dried, pulverized coal is fed to the pres- Syngas cooling. The hot syngas exiting the gasifier is
surized gasifier unit through a system of lock hoppers. The coal cooled in the primary syngas cooler with BFW to produce
feed fluidizes as it enters the gasifier. high-pressure superheated steam.
20
Particulate control device (PCD). The warm syngas con-
taining fine ash from the syngas cooler flows into the PCD,
Unconventional resources as a share of total world liquids production, %

Oil shale
GTL which is a barrier-filter system to remove particulates. The pro-
CTL duced syngas is particulate-free, thus eliminating dirty-water or
15 Biofuel gray-water systems.
Extra-heavy oil Sour shift. Part of the syngas from the PCD is sent to a satu-
Bitumen
ration column, where the syngas is contacted with recycled con-
densate (water) to generate steam. This mixture of steam and
10 syngas is sent to the sour-shift reactors. The fraction of total gas
that is shifted is set by the desired H2:CO ratio at the inlet of the
FT synthesis unit.
5
COS hydrolysis. The remaining (unshifted) syngas stream
is sent through the catalytic carbonyl sulfide (COS) hydrolysis
reactor to convert COS to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The sour-
shift reactor catalyst also promotes hydrolysis of COS to H2S
0 from the syngas, which eliminates the need for a separate COS
2009 Low oil price High oil price
Reference
1,000
2035
FT liquid-fuels production, 1,000 bpd

GTL
800 CTL
Fig. 8. Unconventional liquids as percentage of total world liquids.
600

400
Oil sands/bitumen
200

Biofuels 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Years

CTL Fig. 10. FT liquid-fuels production.

2008 700
FT liquid fuels production via CTL, 1,000 bpd

Extra-heavy oil
2035 600 Asia-Pacific
500 Africa
GTL
400
300
Shale oil 200
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0
Unconventional liquids production by fuel type, MMbpd 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Source: International Energy Outlook 2011 Years

Fig. 9. Projected unconventional liquids production by fuel type. Fig. 11. FT liquid-fuels production from CTL process.

50 December 2012 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Plant Design and Engineering

hydrolysis reactor for the portion of syn- To battery

gas that is being shifted. ASU COS CO2 limit
Water recovery. Syngas streams leav- hydrolysis compressor
ing the sour-shift reactor and the COS re-

Mercury
Coal O2 blown Syngas Water
actor are individually cooled to condense preparation gasifier cooling
PCD Sour shift
recovery
AGRU
water from the sour syngas. The water
dissolves almost all of the nitrogenous Ash Gas cleanup H2 Liquid
compounds, chlorides and fluorides pres- FT FT prod.
synthesis upgrading
ent along with lesser amounts of CO2 , car- Gasification/syngas
bon monoxide (CO), H2S and COS. This generation Offgas H2
aqueous mixture is removed from the syn- treatment
gas and recycled to the saturator system.
Mercury removal. The unshifted FT and product
syngas stream from the COS reactor is upgrading
cooled and combined with the shifted
syngas and sent to the mercury removal Fig. 12. Block-flow diagram of CTL process.
unit. Elemental and any organic mercury
present in the gas are adsorbed by the sulfur-impregnated acti-
vated carbon beds. CAPEX +/- 25%
Acid-gas removal unit. Syngas leaving the mercury remov-
Coal price +/- 50%
al unit enters the acid-gas removal unit (AGRU). The AGR for
the CTL plant is required for: Availability +/- 5%
•  Removing H2S and CO2 from the FT feed syngas from the
gasifiers Corporate tax rate +/-10%
•  Removing CO2 from the reformed FT waste (offgas)
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
•  Removing CO2 from reformed and shifted FT waste (offgas). Change in FT diesel cost, $/bbl
CO2 compressor. The combined acid-gas stream recovered
from the AGRU at a low pressure and slightly above ambient Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis of change in FT diesel cost of production.
temperature is routed through one or more CO2 compression
trains to provide a dense-phase CO2 at about 155 bara. The
compressed CO2 is expected to have a purity of > 96 mol% CO2 CTL plant performance data. Table 2 summarizes the typical
and about 0.5 mol% H2S. coal composition and high heating value for a low-ranked coal
FT synthesis and upgrading. Clean, sulfur-free syngas is sent used in gasification. Table 3 lists production products and con-
to the FT reactors to produce hydrocarbon liquid products and sumption for a typical 20,000-bpd CTL plant.
reaction water. The light hydrocarbon liquids (condensate), along
with liquid hydrocarbon wax removed from the FT reactor, are CTL plant financial data. These assumptions are made in
sent to the product-upgrading unit for further processing. The the economic analysis of a CTL plant:
product-upgrading unit separately treats the hydrocarbon con- •  Liquids production capacity = 20,000 bpd
densate and hydrocarbon waxy liquid. The hydrocarbon conden- o  FT diesel = 14,000 bpd
sate is mildly hydrotreated to eliminate olefins and oxygenates. o  Naphtha = 5,300 bpd
The waxy liquid is sent to an isomerization/dewaxing unit to con- •  Compressed CO2 = 12,700 tpd
vert the paraffins into premium-quality distillates. The FT pro- •  Coal cost = $20/ton = $1.8/MMBtu
cess converts the clean syngas into finished products, including •  Electricity cost = $100/MWh
FT-based diesel, naphtha, kerosine and liquefied petroleum gas. •  Oxygen cost is included in the CAPEX of ASU
Offgas treatment. The offgas from FT synthesis contain- •  Operations and maintenance = 3.5% of CAPEX
ing valuable light hydrocarbons and unreacted H2 and CO is •  Administration = 0.5% of CAPEX
hydrotreated, shifted and sent to a steam-methane reformer to •  Feedstock/product escalation = 5%/yr
recover the syngas/hydrogen value. After CO2 removal, the re- •  Capital structure: Debt-to-equity ratio = 60%:40%
formed gas is sent to a pressure swing absorption (PSA) unit to •  Cost of financing = 8%
recover pure H2 , which is compressed and mixed with the treat- •  Corporate tax rate = 25%
ed synthesis gas entering the FT synthesis section providing •  Plant availability = 330 days per year, 90%
the desired H2:CO ratio. This significantly reduces the amount •  Internal rate of return (IRR) = 20%.
of shifting required for the gasifier outlet gas. Waste gas from FT diesel and naphtha pricing. FT diesel has superior
the PSA unit is fully utilized as fuel for the reformer furnace. qualities with no/very-low-sulfur and low-aromatics content,
The CO2 recovered in the reformed-gas AGRU is completely high-cetane and good cold-flow characteristics; thus, its price
sulfur free. It can be compressed and exported for enhanced-oil is comparable to ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) prices.11 For
recovery (EOR) and/or sequestration. This sulfur-free CO2 can this economic analysis, a 5% premium on present ULSD pric-
also be sold as food grade or sent to urea plants after appropriate ing is assumed to estimate the FT diesel price. The present sell-
treatment steps. ing prices of ULSD and naphtha in Singapore, Europe, US Gulf
Hydrocarbon Processing | December 2012 51
 Plant Design and Engineering

Coast and Mediterranean are listed in Table 4.11 Based on the Sensitivity analysis of CTL production in Asia-Pacific.
ULSD density of 876 kg/m3 and naphtha density of 740 kg/ Since the estimated cost of production of liquid fuels depends
m3, the selling prices of ULSD and naphtha in Europe are calcu- on assumptions, it is important to identify the sensitivities of
lated.12,13 Adding a 5% premium to the ULSD prices yielded the these factors on the liquid-fuel production cost. Fig. 13 shows
FT diesel prices, as summarized in Table 4. such a sensitivity analysis. The blue lines in Fig. 13 indicate the
FT diesel cost of production. Table 5 lists the FT diesel effect of an increase in each factor on FT diesel production cost,
production costs in Asia and the US. The assumed selling prices while yellow lines indicate the effect of a decrease in the factor.
for compressed CO2 and the IRR are also listed in Table 5. The As illustrated in Fig. 13, the FT diesel production cost is
compressed CO2 at pressures of 155 bara are suitable for either most sensitive to CAPEX. Increasing the CAPEX by 25% in-
EOR and/or storage. The plant-gate selling prices of com- creases the FT diesel production cost by 31%, while decreas-
pressed CO2 ranging between $25/ton to $35/ton are reported ing the CAPEX by 25% decreases the FT diesel production
in literature.14 cost by 31%. Typically, the CAPEX in India and China are
70% of the CAPEX on the US Gulf Coast. The cost of coal
Best market for CTL is Asia-Pacific. Table 6 shows the has the second highest impact on the FT diesel production
profitability of CTL projects in Asia-Pacific and the US. The cost. Increasing the coal cost to $30/ton ($2.7/MMBtu) in-
capital cost (CAPEX) for the CTL project in Asia-Pacific is creases the production cost by 13%, while decreasing the coal
only 70% of that for the US Gulf Coast. Thus, a CTL project cost to $10/ton ($0.9/MMBtu) decreases the production
can be extremely profitable in Asian markets such as India, cost by 13%. Oxygen is also a raw material in addition to coal;
China and Indonesia, where the cheap, low-rank coals are the oxygen cost is already included in the CAPEX as part of
abundantly available and natural gas and crude oil reserves are the ASU. It is not explicitly used as a variable for sensitivity
scarce and/or priced at a premium. analysis. Plant availability and corporate tax rates have the
The US market is less attractive than Asia, since the CAPEX least impact on the production cost. Present inflation rates in
for CTL is extremely high and abundant, lower-cost natural gas the US, China and India are 3.6%, 5% and 9%, respectively.7–9
resources make the GTL process more suitable. At an IRR of The inflation rates are varied in the economic analysis to cover
15%, the CTL is economically viable in the US. various geographical regions.
The European market is also not very attractive for CTL due
to high CAPEX. The Middle East/Arab Gulf market is also not What price of crude oil makes CTL more attractive?
attractive for CTL due to extremely abundant resources of crude CTL is estimated to be economically more attractive than refin-
oil, making refining the best option for liquids, and a significant ing when the selling price for crude oil is between $55/bbl and
amount of natural gas, making GTL the second best option. $65/bbl (US 2007 dollars) using a WTI benchmark.15 These
prices include the costs of capturing about 90% of CO2 emis-
Table 4. Present selling prices of ULSD, naphtha and FT diesel sions from the CTL plant, but do not assume any income or
outlays associated with sequestering that CO2 . The FT diesel
Prices, $/bbl
can be produced at $1.7/gal to $2/gal ( January 2007 dollars),
Country/Region ULSD Naphtha FT diesel directly comparable to refinery gate prices of ULSD, which is
Singapore (Asia-Pacific) 130 107 136 $2.41/gal.16 At world crude oil prices of between $60/bbl and
Europe 134 114 141 $100/bbl (2007 dollars), direct economic profits are more
likely.15 Lower world oil prices will likely be the result of any in-
US Gulf Coast 125 131
crease in liquid-fuel production, either domestically or abroad,
Mediterranean 135 113 142 from unconventional resources. Based on examining a broad
range of potential responses by the Organization of the Petro-
Table 5. FT diesel cost of production leum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it is anticipated that world
oil prices will drop by between 0.6% and 1.6% for each million
Compressed FT diesel barrels of unconventional fuel production that would not oth-
CO2 price, Naphtha Assumed production
Region $/ton price, $/bbl IRR, % cost, $/bbl
erwise be on the market. Further, this price decrease should
be close to linear for unconventional-fuel additions of up to 10
Asia-Pacific 0 107 20 80
MMbpd. Looking only at coal-derived liquids, it is possible that
Asia-Pacific 25–35 107 20 65 total world production could reach about 6 MMbpd by 2030.15
US 25–35 107 15 92
US 25–35 107 20 123
Future. Coal-gasification technology for liquid-fuel plants of-
fers an economically attractive option for manufacturing liquid
fuels, especially in Asian countries with large coal reserves and
Table 6. Profitability of CTL limited or high-cost crude oil and natural gas deposits, such as
Selling price, Production Assumed Profit margin, China, India and Indonesia. The prospect for developing an
Region $/bbl cost, $/bbl IRR,% $ MM/yr economically viable CTL in the US looks promising, although
Asia-Pacific 136 65 20 344
important uncertainties in future crude oil prices and the en-
vironmental policies on greenhouse-gas emissions exist. Coal
US 131 123 20 39
gasification technology for liquid fuel plants will ease the pres-
US 131 92 15 189 sures due to increasing global demand of liquid fuels and various
52 December 2012 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com

derivatives. Coal-gasification technology will find increasingly
greater use due to a wide range of coal feedstocks, particularly
the low-rank coals, which are cheap and abundant.
LITERATURE CITED
1 USEIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, With Projections to 2035, April 2011.
2 IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), August 2011.
3 http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/, World Coal Association.
4 Berg, D. R., B. Oakley, S. Parik and A. Paterson, “The Business Case for Coal
Gasification with Co-Production,” Scully Capital, December 2007.
5 FT Solutions LLC, http://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf.
http://www.aidea.org/pdf%20files/belugactloverview9-20-06.pdf.
6 strategy that supports the present offering and technology improvements. Prior
7 US Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 15, 2011.
8 CIA, The World Fact Book, August 2011.
9 Monthly Review of Indian Economy, Economic Affairs and Research Division,
FICCI, April 2011.
10 USEIA, International Energy Outlook 2011, September 2011.
11 Purvin and Gertz Inc., Global Petroleum Market Outlook: Petroleum Balances, Vol.
1, March 2011.
12 http://www.usor.com/files/pdf/5/ULSDspec.pdf.
13 http://www.icis.com/StaticPages/Naphtha_Solvent.htm.
14 DOE/NETL, Storing CO2 with Enhanced Oil Recovery, February 2008.
15 J. T. Bartis, F. Camm, D. S. Ortiz, Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal: Prospects
and Policy Issues.
16 USEIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2008: With Projections to 2030, June 2008.
notes
a
CTL process uses KBR’s proprietary Transport Reactor Integrated Gasifier (TRIG).
Dr. Bharthwaj Anantharaman is a principal process engineer in the
ammonia and syngas technology at Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) in Houston,
Texas. Dr. Anantharaman has authored papers in industry magazines, presented
Article copyright © 2012 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Selectform,
Not to be distributed in electronic or printed 161 atorwww.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
posted on a Website, without express written permission of copyright holder.
Plant Design and Engineering
talks at industrial conferences and published a book entitled, Catalytic Partial
Oxidation Reaction Mechanisms: Commercial Application to Industrial Ethylene
Epoxidation. His work focuses on both the technical and financial aspects of
chemical technologies with practical applications. Dr. Anantharaman holds a BTech
degree in chemical engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, a PhD
in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and
a certificate in financial technology from the Sloan School of Management of MIT.
Ron Gualy is vice president technology, coal monetization with KBR in the US.
He is working in the technology business unit with responsibilities to manage
and to grow the gasification business line. He is responsible for managing the
execution of the projects, coordinating with sales, and defining a technology
to this assignment, he was vice president technology acquisitions within the
KBR’s technology business unit. Mr. Gauly is a chemical engineer graduated from
Texas A&M University with more than 28 years of experience in the industry and
extensive worldwide business exposure. He has over sixteen years of experience
in technology management and licensing activities, and growing and managing
a business line. In his previous experience, he has participated in several new
technology development and commercialization programs.
Debasree Chatterjee is working as process engineer in coal monetization
team in KBR Technology, Delhi. She has worked in the field of coal gasification
for more than five years with different technology licensors. She holds a MS
degree in chemical Engineering from Indian Institute Of Technology, Kanpur and
BS degree from Jadavpur University, Kolkata.
Siva Ariyapadi is technology manager, coal monetization, for KBR (Houston).
In his current role, he supports KBR’s coal gasification product line with
worldwide technology licensing, business development and marketing efforts
related to the Transport Gasification Technology (TRIG). He has 15 years of
industry experience in the energy and chemicals business sector–including
heavy-oil upgrading, LNG process technology, gas monetization, synthesis gas,
coal gasification and carbon capture technologies. He holds a PhD degree in
chemical engineering from the University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Hydrocarbon Processing | December 2012 53