Great- PYB PP PU and now........? any thoughts on the new name?
GTL has arrived
- Thread starter Tom NJ
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
...if we start building these plants we would be in business. We have such a huge supply of NG I can't understand why we are not building these types of refineries.
The same question occurred to me when I read the article.
The answer is that the regulatory hurdles to building new refineries in this country are so high, it's been 35 years since one was built.
This needs to change.
...if we start building these plants we would be in business. We have such a huge supply of NG I can't understand why we are not building these types of refineries.
The same question occurred to me when I read the article.
The answer is that the regulatory hurdles to building new refineries in this country are so high, it's been 35 years since one was built.
This needs to change.
Last edited:
The purpose of GTL plants is to monetize stranded gas reserves where shipping or piping the gas is impractical. The driving output is fuel, and base oils are basically a minor co-product, so the economics are driven by the fuel.
A number of GTL projects have been delayed or abandoned in recent years due to rising cost estimates, and conventional Group IIIs have capitalized on these delays by rapidly increasing production. The greater availability of conventional Group IIIs, along with their time advantage with respect to approvals, puts GTL base oils at an increasing disadvantage, and their future is questionable. Future GTL projects will have to be justified by the fuel sales.
Tom NJ
A number of GTL projects have been delayed or abandoned in recent years due to rising cost estimates, and conventional Group IIIs have capitalized on these delays by rapidly increasing production. The greater availability of conventional Group IIIs, along with their time advantage with respect to approvals, puts GTL base oils at an increasing disadvantage, and their future is questionable. Future GTL projects will have to be justified by the fuel sales.
Tom NJ
But how/why is GTL classified as GroupIII. I'm still not understanding this.
Originally Posted By: GMorg
But how/why is GTL classified as GroupIII. I'm still not understanding this.
Good question. At one time I believe it was discussed as belonging in a new Group VI, but now they seem to have selected Group III. It would really be a Group III+, but the "plus" categories are not official. Group IV is reserved for PAO only. I agree it would seem to fit there best based on process, but it fits better in Group III+ based on properties.
Tom
But how/why is GTL classified as GroupIII. I'm still not understanding this.
Good question. At one time I believe it was discussed as belonging in a new Group VI, but now they seem to have selected Group III. It would really be a Group III+, but the "plus" categories are not official. Group IV is reserved for PAO only. I agree it would seem to fit there best based on process, but it fits better in Group III+ based on properties.
Tom
Originally Posted By: addyguy
... isn't PAO synthetized from the molecules obtained from NG as well?
Yes, but from a much more basic molecule - ethylene - which when oligomerized makes a different product than GTL.
Tom
... isn't PAO synthetized from the molecules obtained from NG as well?
Yes, but from a much more basic molecule - ethylene - which when oligomerized makes a different product than GTL.
Tom
Well, if the definition has changed, then it has changed. However, given the wide range of properties in group V, the historical "everything else" group, I would have thought that GTL would have easily fell into Group V.
If properties alone are to be the new rule, then some Group III+ oils may just as well be put into group IV. I suppose that grouping by properties would actually make things simpler in some respects.
If properties alone are to be the new rule, then some Group III+ oils may just as well be put into group IV. I suppose that grouping by properties would actually make things simpler in some respects.
Since NG is primarily methane, even simpler than ethylene, and the balance is primarily ethane, on par with ethylene's simplicity, I would guess that the real issue is the a larger range of molecules are produced from GTL as opposed to PAO. In that sense, GTL may produce a very similar molecular profile as Group III.
Good point.
So this is Shell's answer to Visom?
Originally Posted By: dparm
So this is Shell's answer to Visom?
You've got that backwards.
So this is Shell's answer to Visom?
You've got that backwards.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Haven't they been doing this at SASOL for ages?
Coal to liquid in 1955 and subsuequently converted to GTL. for petrol and diesel.
Yes Sasol has been making fuel from coal for many years, but I am not aware that they have made base oils from their mixed olefin streams.
Tom NJ
Haven't they been doing this at SASOL for ages?
Coal to liquid in 1955 and subsuequently converted to GTL. for petrol and diesel.
Yes Sasol has been making fuel from coal for many years, but I am not aware that they have made base oils from their mixed olefin streams.
Tom NJ
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked