GTL Conference Report Hemendra Khakhar

Gas‐to‐Liquids spotlight shifts
from Middle East to North
America and Uzbekistan

A report on SMi’s Gas‐to‐Liquids Conference 2013,
held in London, 28th‐30th October
SMi Group Limited
2nd Floor South,
Harling House,
47‐51 Great Suffolk Street,
London SE1 0BS,
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7827 6000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7827 6001
Website: http://www.smi‐online.co.uk
Email: events@smi‐online.co.uk

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Overview – Focus shifts to North America and Uzbekistan 01

2. GTL markets – Product availability is the challenge 09
3. Technologies – Maturing processes multiply 12
4. Project economics – Location matters 19
5. Environmental issues – A good story to tell 23
6. About the writer 25

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report i

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report ii

1. Overview – Focus shifts to North America and Uzbekistan
Gas‐to‐liquids technology is approaching a new wave of development as sponsors of both
large‐scale and small‐scale projects work towards final investment decisions (FIDs).
However, it will be the 2020s before these projects have a substantial impact on global
aggregate GTL production capacity. Most of the new projects are likely to be located in
North America, where a significant differential between oil and natural gas prices is
expected to persist over the long term. Projects are also likely to go ahead elsewhere,
where technology availability and political factors combine to drive them forward – the
most obvious such location at present being Uzbekistan, where FID on the next world‐
scale project is now only months away. These were the main messages to emerge from
October’s GTL conference in London – organised by the SMi Group. This report examines
these messages in detail, putting them into context against a backdrop of long‐term
energy trends. It also – for the first time – reports the results of electronic polling of
delegates to key questions the industry faces.
It has been clear for some time that the gas‐to‐liquids industry is set for a new wave of development
as the various factors needed to make that happen line up. These include: the availability of proven
technology, helpful market fundamentals in terms of oil and gas prices, an abundance of cheap gas
to drive the differential in gas and oil prices needed to make projects economic, market demand for
GTL products driven in part by tightening environmental regulations, and the availability of the
finance needed for what can be very capital‐intensive projects.
The overarching message from last month’s GTL conference in London was that it is taking longer
than expected for the various companies involved to reach the milestone that matters most: the final
investment decision (FID) that marks the transition of a project from proposal to the start of
construction. This is true at both ends of the GTL spectrum – not just at the large‐scale end, where
project investments can run into tens of billions of dollars, but also at the small‐scale end.
That said, there is no doubting the momentum that has been built up by the technology leaders:
South Africa’s Sasol in the case of large‐scale technology, and CompactGTL and Velocys in the case of
small‐scale technology. Other companies too are making progress, among them Axens, BP,
ExxonMobil, Narkangan GTL, and Oltin Yo’L GTL (in which Sasol is a participant) – all of which had
positive news to report at the London conference.
A significant setback for the industry was Shell’s announcement in early December that it had
decided to walk away from its proposed plant in the US, despite recently having selected a potential
site in Louisiana. The rather curt statement from the undoubted leader in GTL, in terms of production
capacity, raised many more questions than it answered. It is now no longer clear what Shell’s plans
may be for future GTL projects – in North America or elsewhere.
Despite the build‐up in momentum, the overall conclusion we reached in last year’s post‐conference
report remains valid: “It is starting to look as though GTL will not make a significant impact in global
terms until the 2020s. That said, future growth of the industry will largely be founded on the
achievements being made today.” In making this statement we are keenly aware that 2014 is almost
upon us. With just six years to go until the end of the decade, even were a large‐scale project to
reach FID before the end of the year, it would not be starting up until around 2019.
SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 1

2003‐2013 – a mixed decade
At SMi’s London conference, the scene was set by Malcolm Wells of Malwell Corporate Projects and
formerly with Sasol Chevron. Looking back over the past decade, he recalled that back in the early
years of the noughties the “GTL orthodoxy” was that: projects would only be possible when
monetising remote/stranded reserves; that commercial plants required economies of scale; that
plant construction required easy access to the sea, as did product export; and that, outside of Alaska,
there was little prospect of GTL development in the United States.
Today, all five of these assertions have been turned on their heads. The main focus on GTL
development in now in the United States, using gas from the pipeline grid. A project being developed
in Uzbekistan – Oltin Yo’l GTL – challenges the requirement for easy access to the sea, given that it is
one of only two double‐landlocked countries in the world. Meanwhile, several companies are
claiming to have developed small‐scale technologies that are economic for projects with capacities as
low as 1,000 barrels/day (b/d) rather than the 30,000+ b/d giants that have been developed to date.
In the early years of the 2000s, projects were being planned in various locations around the world,
including Australia, Egypt and Nigeria. There was a strong focus on the Middle East, especially on the
gas‐rich nations of Iran and Qatar. By 2005 the nation attracting the most attention was Qatar,
where the list of proposed projects was growing by the month, with one project – Oryx GTL – already
under construction. However, in April 2005 the Qatari government imposed a moratorium on further
development of the gas resources in the offshore North Field, pulling the rug from under the feet of
all but a couple of the projects. In the event the only two projects to go ahead following the
moratorium announcement were Oryx GTL, a Sasol/Qatar Petroleum joint venture, and Shell’s Pearl
GTL, 100% owned by Shell but governed by a Development and Production Sharing Agreement
(DPSA) with the state of Qatar.
Escravos GTL in Nigeria is now in the commissioning phase and should begin production soon. It
will be the last world‐scale GTL plant to come on stream for some time.
For this and various other reasons the exuberance of the first half of the 2000s began to ebb away.
Oryx GTL struggled to get up to full capacity because of engineering difficulties which took several
years to resolve. Pearl GTL went ahead but project costs were several times what had had been
assumed when the project was mooted. The only major commercial‐scale project to begin
construction outside Qatar – Escravos GTL in Nigeria – suffered massive delays and cost‐over‐runs
and is only now in the commissioning phase. The global economic crisis that hit in 2008 did not help.
One consequence of the slow‐down was that the major automotive manufacturers, who had been

regular presenters at the various GTL conferences, began to lose interest – for the simple reason that
the industry did not look as though it would grow at a sufficient rate to be significant to them.
Remarkable achievements
Along with the disappointments, however, there were some remarkable achievements. Oryx
eventually fixed its teething troubles and today produces more than its nameplate capacity. Pearl
started up as scheduled in 2011 and though its capital expenditure was high, at $19 billion, it was
within the limits agreed by Shell’s board at the time of FID in 2006. Escravos has ploughed on to
completion and should start up early in 2014. New technologies have emerged at large and small
scales, several of which are claimed by their developers to have reached commerciality.
What has really transformed the prospects for GTL, however, in ways that could not have been
foreseen in the mid‐2000s, has been the trajectories of oil and gas prices. At the launch of its World
Energy Outlook in London in November, the International Energy Agency (IEA) noted that oil price
had averaged over $100/barrel for three years running, which has never happened before. Moreover
the agency does not expect oil prices to plummet any time soon. Chief Economist Fatih Birol
emphasised – as he has in the past – that “the era of cheap oil is over”.
Meanwhile, gas prices in the US have plummeted over the past five years as the unconventional gas
revolution has taken hold, confounding the sceptics. Low gas prices and high oil prices have created
attractive conditions for GTL development in the United States – which is why the main focus has
shifted there from the Middle East, where rampant demand has meant that most countries there are
facing gas shortages. Interestingly, the IEA does not believe that the light tight oil revolution that has
followed the shale gas revolution in the US will necessarily lead to “an era of oil abundance”.
“Technology is opening up new oil resources, which is very good news,” said Birol. “Shale oil is
coming, other unconventionals are coming – but we should not forget that the Middle East will
remain the heart of the global oil industry, with its low‐cost resource base, for many years to come.”
At the London GTL conference, Mindi Farber‐DeAnda, Team Lead for Biofuels and Emerging
Technologies at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), gave delegates an insight into her
agency’s projections for oil and gas prices through to 2040. The EIA sees domestic natural gas
production growing faster than consumption, making the US a net exporter of natural gas in around
2020. Shale gas leads growth in total gas production, making up half of total supply by 2040. In the
Reference case of the EIA’s scenarios, oil price in 2011 dollars rises from just under $100/b in 2012 to
over $150/b by 2040. Gas prices also rise but, in the Reference case, they do not exceed $6/MMBtu
until around 2034.
Given the importance of the US oil/gas price differential to the future of the industry, we look in
more detail at the projections made by the EIA later in this report.
Conference innovations
One of several innovations at this year’s SMi GTL conference was the use of an EventPad system,
meaning that delegates were given the use of specially programmed iPads, allowing them to follow
presentations, ask questions of speakers, and vote on carefully framed multiple choice questions put
to them by the organisers.
In one such polling exercise the question put to delegates was: “North America is seen as the most
likely region for new GTL projects because of the wide differential between oil and gas prices. Which
scenario looks most likely?”
More than three‐fifths of delegates (63%) voted for “the price differential will narrow but GTL projects
will still make a reasonable return”. Just over a fifth (20.4%) thought that “large‐scale LNG exports

from North America will raise gas prices making GTL unprofitable” – clearly a significant concern. Just
under one‐in‐ten (9.3%) opted for “gas prices will stay low but the shale oil revolution will depress oil
prices making GTL unprofitable”. The lowest share of the vote (7.4%) was for “GTL has a highly
profitable future in North America”.
Where is the industry today?
GTL remains a small industry when compared to the overall market for oil products. The main
projects currently producing GTL are:
* Shell’s Bintulu project in the states of Sarawak in Malaysia – capacity 14,700 b/d.
* PetroSA’s Mossel Bay project in South Africa. Its GTL production capacity is 22,500 b/d and it also
produces a range of other liquid products. However, the plant does not run at full capacity because
of shortages of feed gas.
* Oryx GTL in Qatar has a nameplate capacity of 32,400 b/d but the plant now runs above this for
much of the time.
* Pearl GTL in Qatar has a total capacity of 260,000 b/d making it a very large plant indeed. Of this,
120,000 b/d is upstream liquids and 140,000 b/d is GTL products.
* Escravos GTL in Nigeria is in the final stages of commissioning and will produce 32,400 b/d when it
has ramped up to full capacity.
The latter three projects – Oryx, Pearl and Escravos – represent a combined investment of over $30
billion. (Bintulu and Mossel Bay were constructed in a very different capex environment, during the
early 1990s.)
Together all five projects have a capacity of close to a quarter of a million barrels per day. This is less
than half of what the industry anticipated a decade ago would have been reached by today. Not
included in this total are various demonstration and pilot plants, some of which are not currently
operating. The total also excludes coal‐to‐liquids (CTL) capacity owned by Sasol in South Africa that
now uses natural gas from Mozambique as a feedstock.
The new wave
The current surge in interest in GTL technology is due to several factors working in combination, the
most important of which is arguably the differential in oil and gas prices that has opened up in North
America because of the shale gas revolution. Other crucial factors include: the availability of proven
technology; the fact that GTL can, when blended, be used as a “drop‐in” fuel, meaning that it does
not require changes to existing fuel infrastructure and engines; and the successful implementation
and impressive profitability of projects such as Pearl and Oryx. Also worth noting is the continuing
domination of the internal combustion engine in road vehicles and a trend towards “dieselisation” of
vehicle fleets in several major markets, notably in Europe and in Asia.
In a presentation of Sasol’s progress and plans for GTL in North America, Mark Schnell, General
Manager for Marketing, Strategy and New Business Development, noted that middle distillates are
projected to be the “fastest growing segment of transport fuel demand”. He added: “GTL produces
65‐75% of product in the middle distillate range, with the balance of the slate comprising chemical
naphtha or added‐value chemicals, with no ‘bottom of the barrel’ products.”
Schnell told delegates to the London conference that Sasol had decided to proceed with front‐end

engineering and design (FEED) for a world‐scale cracker and GTL projects in the US state of Louisiana
in December last year – and that FID on the 96,000 b/d GTL project was expected in 2016.

Source: ExxonMobil’s 2013 energy outlook to 2040
The charts above, from ExxonMobil’s 2013 energy outlook, project that diesel will account for 70%
of the growth in transportation fuels over the period to 2040. Note also the growth in jet fuel, the
other major middle distillate fuel.
Sasol’s other big project – Oltin Yo’l GTL in Uzbekistan – was the subject of a presentation by James
Vaughan, its General Director. The project is a joint‐venture involving the national oil and gas
company of Uzbekistan, Uzbekneftegaz, Sasol and Petronas, the Malaysian national oil and gas
company. A joint venture agreement for the project was signed by the three companies in 2009. It
will have a nameplate capacity of 37,600 b/d and will produce diesel, kerosene, naphtha and LPG. It
will utilise the Slurry Phase Distillate (SPD) technology developed by Sasol and used at the Oryx and
Escravos projects in Qatar and Nigeria.
“We are very close towards taking an FID,” said Vaughan, “and are ramping up our discussions with
our EPC (engineering, procurement and construction contractor of choice. We’ve already started
some construction activities on site . . . We’re talking about having product in the market in 2018.”
Small‐scale GTL – edging towards FIDs
Until relatively recently, the GTL spotlight has shone most brightly on the large‐scale projects
undertaken by Sasol and Shell. Today, however – during the current hiatus in construction of large‐
scale projects – interest is building in the potential of small‐scale GTL. The two companies widely
regarded as the leaders in small‐scale technology – CompactGTL and Velocys – appear to be getting
tantalisingly close to agreeing their first commercial projects.
Both companies have been claiming for some time that their technology is ready for
commercialisation. What everyone is waiting for is the commercial breakthrough that would be

represented by a final investment decision (FID) on a full‐scale project.
Unlike large‐scale GTL plants, which generally have production capacities of more than 30,000 b/d,
small‐scale plants are aimed at applications requiring production capacities from hundreds of barrels
a day up to around 15,000 b/d. The technologies look very different. Instead of the giant Fischer‐
Tropsch reactors used in large‐scale plants, small‐scale plants use much smaller, modular reactors
made up of mini‐channels or micro‐channels, in which the chemical reactions take place (see pages
15‐16). Target applications are different too, which has a big impact on project economics. The main
applications are oil field monetisation and “distributed” GTL production.
How close are these two companies to seeing their first FIDs?
“We have a number of projects around the globe,” says CompactGTL’s Business Development
Director, Iain Baxter, “and these are all at the concept stage. We’ve just announced we are now
engaged in a pre‐FEED for a project in North America at 2,500 b/d. We see a number of these other
projects we have moving towards FEED early in 2014 – and so we would expect to see the first FID
for engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) stages happening around the end of 2014.”
Source: Image courtesy of CompactGTL
CompactGTL’s Business Development Manager, Shravan Joshi, told the conference that his
company’s “mini‐channel” FT technology had been proved over a two‐and‐a‐half year period at a
20 b/d plant in Brazil, constructed for the national oil and gas company Petrobras.
Velocys’ Commercial Director, Jeff McDaniel, sees his company achieving an FID “sooner rather than
later – I’d like to say in the coming months”. The most likely location, he adds, is North America.
“We’re pursuing projects throughout the world but a significant portion of them are in North
America,” he says. “That’s because of the price gap between where natural gas is, and is expected to
be for quite some time in the future, and where the oil‐based products, whether they are diesel, jet
or the specialty products, are priced and will be priced in the future.”
If small‐scale GTL is to become big business, the next couple of years will be critical. There has never
been a better time than now.

Responding in early December to Shell’s announcement that it would not be going ahead with its
world‐scale GTL project in the US, the CEO of Velocys, Roy Lipski, said: “Shell’s recent decision not to
pursue a GTL plant in Louisiana illustrates the complexity of planning a mega‐scale conventional GTL
project. In contrast, the economics and project complexity of smaller‐scale GTL are much better
suited to the current realities than conventional GTL projects with their huge demands on capex and
other resources. Indeed, market momentum for smaller‐scale GTL has never been stronger, which is
only reinforced by today’s announcement.”
In electronic polling delegates were asked: “Small‐scale technologies are widening the applications
for GTL. How much small‐scale capacity will we see globally by 2023?”
The largest share of the vote (36.7%) was for “between 20,000 b/d and 50,000 b/d”. Exactly a third of
delegates opted for “less than 20,000 b/d”. Exactly a quarter voted for “between 50,000 b/d and
100,000 b/d”. Only one‐in‐twenty took the bullish view that it would exceed 100,000 b/d.
Other technologies
A major constraint to the growth of the GTL industry has been the fact that the leaders in the large‐
scale technologies, Shell and Sasol, closely guard the secrets of their technologies. This protection of
intellectual property is understandable, given how much time, effort and money these companies
have invested to get to where they are today. The complex issues surrounding intellectual property
and its protection were explored in a useful presentation given by Mark Sajewycz, Partner at law firm
Norton Rose Fulbright. However, this does mean that the development of other technologies that
are available for use under licence will be vital to the industry’s future.
Sebastien Boucher, XTL Manager at Axens, gave a progress report on the Gasel technology
developed by Eni and IFP, announcing that in February of this year it had been selected for a 3,700
b/d biomass‐to‐liquids (BTL) project in Finland. The Ajos BTL project is a breakthrough for the
company as it will be the first commercial implementation of the technology, assuming that it goes
ahead as planned.
Tom Parsons, Business Development Manager at BP, gave an update on the technology his company
has developed as part of an FT development programme spanning more than three decades and
which has cost over $500 million. The fixed‐bed technology, developed in collaboration with Davy
Process Technologies, has been successfully tested at a demonstration unit at Nikiski in Alaska and is
now available under licence. Like Mark Schnell of Sasol, Parsons said BP “believes the conditions are
right to deploy FT technology” in North America . . . and that “current favourable economic
conditions . . . are forecast to remain for 25 years or more”.
There are several technologies that can be used to convert natural gas into liquid products but
usually what people mean when they talk about GTL is the Fischer‐Tropsch (FT) technology for
converting small hydrocarbon molecules like methane into molecules with longer carbon chains:
liquid products such as naphtha, kerosene and gasoil (or diesel), but also heavier molecules such as
lubricant base oils and waxes, which are high‐value speciality products.
Most of the presentations at the London conference reflected that – but there was one exception.
Mitch Hindman, Licensing Manager at ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, gave a presentation on
a methanol‐to‐gasoline (MTG) technology, now in its second generation and available for licensing.
Like FT technology, the MTG process starts with the production of syngas from coal, biomass or gas.
The syngas is converted into methanol and the methanol then converted into gasoline in a fixed‐bed
reactor. Hindman added that the technology had been proven for use in applications with capacities
up to 15,000 b/d.

GTL in Iran?
At one time Iran was a focus for GTL development because of its huge proved reserves of
conventional natural gas, the second‐largest in the world after Russia. Shell and Sasol are among the
companies that have looked at the possibility of pursuing a GTL project there. However, the coming
to power of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President in 2005 and the subsequent international furore
over Iran’s nuclear ambitions has meant that GTL development there has been held back, even for
local company Narkangan GTL International Company.
The results of this year’s presidential election and the recent interim agreement on the nation’s
nuclear activities could once again see Iran becoming a focus for GTL development. It remains to be
seen whether the interim deal will lead to a permanent arrangement and the wholesale lifting of
sanctions – but that now looks more of a possibility than it has for almost a decade.
That would be good news for Narkangan GTL, which has been trying for years to get a GTL project
under way in Iran. Managing Director Narsi Ghorban told delegates at SMi’s London conference that
Iran, a country of more than 70 million people, has the potential to produce and utilise up to 500,000
b/d of GTL capacity.
The company is planning a project called Shiraz GTL, for which it signed a 25‐year gas purchase
agreement with the National Iranian Gas Company in May of this year. Interestingly, the company
has signed an agreement with the National Iranian Oil company to study the implementation of a
carbon dioxide capture‐and‐injection project to enhance local oil production. That, he said, would
significantly enhance the project’s economics.
The coming decade
It is conceivable that we could see global aggregate GTL capacity grow over the coming decade from
just under 250,000 b/d when Escravos has ramped up to full production to around 400,000 b/d by,
say, 2023.
That said, there is a lot of uncertainty around this projection, in terms of both downside and upside.
Much will depend on what happens in North America and especially in the US. Another crucial factor
will be whether the North American unconventional gas revolution is replicated elsewhere – and to
what extent. Outside North America, unconventional gas production is still very much in its infancy.
Yet another crucial factor is what happens with Iran. If the current interim agreement on its nuclear
activities leads to a permanent deal and the wholesale lifting of sanctions, Iran could well, once
again, become a focus for GTL project development.
Even assuming that that aggregate capacity reaches 400,000 b/d by 2023, GTL will remain a relatively
small industry in the context of the global oil market, with crude oil production today approaching 90
million b/d.
In electronic polling, delegates were asked: “What will be the biggest challenge to GTL growth?”
Almost three‐fifths (59.3%) voted for “Competition from other gas monetisation options – such as
LNG and chemicals”. Just under a fifth (18.5%) thought that the biggest challenge would be “cost
escalation in energy project construction”. A sixth (16.7%) thought it would be “sourcing finance”.
Only about one‐in‐twenty (5.6%) opted for “Intellectual property rights will hinder availability of
proven technology”.

2. GTL markets – Product availability is the challenge
The products that are produced by the GTL process essentially break down into three categories:
transport fuels, chemical feedstocks and speciality products, though with some overlap between
categories. The following table, presented at the workshop that preceded the London GTL
conference, helps with understanding the chemical compositions of these three categories.
The most important category in the chart, from an FT perspective, is middle distillates, which
includes diesel and kerosene. Light distillates includes naphtha, which can used as a fuel or as a
chemical feedstock. Some LPG (propane and butane) is also produced. Also significant are base oils,
used to make high‐specification lubricants, and waxes, used to make a wide range of speciality
products. Not listed specifically in the table are normal paraffins, used to make detergents.
The product slate of a particular project will depend on how it has been engineered. For example,
Oryx GTL makes mainly diesel and naphtha, with a small amount of LPG. Pearl, in contrast, makes a
wide range of products. Bintulu’s product slate includes a substantial proportion of waxes. The
speciality products command high prices but potential volumes are in some cases limited by market
size; they also require specialist marketing. The main GTL products in volume terms are the
transportation fuels.
Transportation fuels
The two main transportation fuels are diesel, widely used in road transportation, and kerosene,
which can be used to produce jet fuel for aviation. Both are very promising markets.
As we have already seen, diesel is set to dominate the growth of transport fuels over coming
decades. Used as a blend stock, at a few percentage points of concentration, it is a “drop‐in” fuel,
meaning it can be used in existing re‐fuelling infrastructure and engines without any modifications
being required. If it is to be used neat or at high concentrations then care needs to be taken that it

won’t cause unintended consequences. This does, however, put a limit on how much GTL diesel can
be absorbed by the markets. If blended at 5% for example, and assuming total global diesel
consumption of 15 million b/d, the theoretical maximum that could be used in this way would be
around 750,000 b/d. In practice, of course, the real limit would be much smaller.
The market for jet fuel is much smaller than the diesel market but a higher concentration of GTL can
be blended as a drop‐in alternative to conventional fuels. In October 2009, Qatar Airways made
aviation history when the first‐ever commercial scheduled flight took place using GTL fuel, from
London Gatwick to Doha Airport in Qatar. The flight took place a few weeks after a 50:50 blend of
GTL kerosene and conventional refinery‐derived kerosene had been approved for use as a civil
aviation jet fuel by ASTM. GTL kerosene is the first aviation fuel component derived from natural gas
to gain such approval.
Aircraft using Qatar's new international airport are to be re‐fuelled exclusively with a 50:50 blend of
GTL kerosene and conventional jet fuel when it opens next year – in what promises to be the first
major commercial use in the civil aviation industry of fuels derived from natural gas. The GTL will
come from Shell's Pearl project, which has the capacity to produce 30,000 b/d of kerosene, much of
which will go into jet fuel.
The aviation industry is working on the possibility of developing 100% synthetic fuels, perhaps a
50:50 blend of GTL and BTL, which would help reduce the industry’s carbon footprint.
At the London GTL Conference, Sasol’s Mark Schnell presented the following chart showing the
rough sizes of the various markets:
Source: Sasol
Realising the quality premium
The point was made several times, by Mark Schnell, Malcolm Wells and others, that the products
produced by the FT process are generally of significantly higher quality than those derived from
conventional refineries. This raises the question of how best to realise the premium prices that
premium products ought to attract.

Up to now the single biggest factor holding back the marketing of GTL products has been the very
limited amounts of product available for sale, especially on a medium‐term or long‐term basis. If
refineries are to adapt their investment plans over the long term through using GTL products for, say,
blending applications, a long‐term reliable supply will be essential.
Shell’s Bintulu project, up and running since 1993, has made a virtue out of this necessity, taking a
significant market share of speciality products such as chemicals and waxes. Clearly, Bintulu over the
past decades, and Pearl, now that it has ramped up to full production, benefit from Shell’s positions
around the world in potential markets for GTL products. Much of the output from both projects goes
into the group’s supply chains, especially the fuels and the base oils used to produce high‐spec
lubricants.
That leaves relatively small volumes of product available to other potential customers, creating a
significant challenge for companies entering the market with new volumes that do not have Shell’s
marketing channels. This in turn creates the challenge of building awareness amongst potential
customers of the premium qualities of GTL products, and thereby realising the price premia that such
products ought to command when marketed optimally.
Marketing GTL products is relatively straightforward if producers are happy to take commodity
prices. Realising premium prices is trickier, partly because current volumes of available product are
so small. That is starting to change with Pearl now on stream and Escravos GTL due to come on in a
few months.
At the SMi conference, Duncan Seddon, Independent Consultant with Duncan Seddon and
Associates, gave delegates an insight into the practical problems that GTL producers are likely to face
when it comes to marketing their output, looking specifically at retail forecourts for fuels, premium
blend‐stock markets and chemical markets. His central message was that it is not easy to persuade
refiners to see new opportunities.
These are issues that producers will increasingly have to get to grips with as the industry grows. For
now, however, the wide spread between gas and oil prices means that producers will be doing very
nicely even at basic commodity prices for their products. That said, it clearly makes sense to achieve
premium prices where possible for what are undoubtedly premium products.
In electronic polling, delegates were asked: “GTL plants produce premium products which ought to
attract premium prices. How easy is it to realise the price premium?”
More than half (53.8%) voted for “buyers will pay premium prices in applications where the
advantages are worth the price”. Just under a quarter (23.1%) opted for “premium prices will only be
realised when GTL producers have sufficient output to sign long‐term supply contracts”. Just under a
sixth (15.4%) thought that “there isn't enough GTL being produced for buyers to be familiar with the
premium properties of the products”. Fewer than one‐in‐twenty (7.7%) voted for “GTL projects are so
profitable in today's pricing environment that a price premium – while nice to have – is not essential”.

3. Technologies – Maturing processes multiply
To date only two large‐scale FT GTL technologies have been proved at world scale – the Shell Middle
Distillate Synthesis (SMDS) process and Sasol’s Slurry Phase Distillate (SPD) process. (The Mossel Bay
plant in South Africa uses technology developed by Sasol but is a high‐temperature FT plant; all the
GTL projects currently being developed or under consideration employ a low‐temperature FT process
design.)
Both Shell and Sasol guard their technology secrets jealously and do not licence their processes to
third parties.
The consequence of this policy is that the availability of proven technology is arguably the single
biggest constraint to growth of global GTL capacity. That is starting to change. Other companies have
been developing large‐scale technologies, several of which are claimed to be ready for
commercialisation. At the London GTL conference, Axens and BP gave insights into their technologies
and the discussions they are having with potential project developers.
The two leading small‐scale technology developers – CompactGTL and Velocys – are also claiming
that their technologies are ready for commercialisation. They too are having discussions with a
number of potential project developers.
This chapter also looks at a couple of other technological developments that were presented at the
conference: ExxonMobil described a methanol‐to‐gasoline (MTG) process, now into its second
generation, while Narkangan GTL said it was looking into the possibility of implementing carbon
dioxide capture and injection technology at its proposed Shiraz GTL plant in Iran.
Emerging large‐scale Fischer‐Tropsch technologies
Axens
The Gasel process being promoted by Axens has been under development and scale‐up by Eni, the
Italian oil and gas major, and IFP Energies Nouvelles, a French company, since 1996. It is a low‐
temperature FT process that uses a slurry bubble column (SBC) for the FT synthesis and an FT catalyst
of cobalt on alumina powder.
The process and catalyst have been tested at a 20 b/d pilot plant at Eni’s refinery in Sannazzaro,
which started up in 2001 and has since clocked up 25,000 hours of operation.
Sebastien Boucher, XTL Technical manager at Axens, told delegates at the London conference that
the Gasel process had been selected by Forest BtL (Vapo) for a “first‐of‐kind project” in Finland that
would represent the company’s first reference project, once constructed. He added that the process
is suitable for any of the XTL applications (GTL, BTL and CTL, as well as waste‐to‐liquids, and the co‐
treatment of biomass and petroleum feedstocks in refineries). The company offers a “single‐point
guarantee” for the performance of the process and the catalyst, “from the syngas to the final
products”.
Axens offers to provide a complete and patented design for the slurry bubble column (SBC) reactor
that forms the heart of the process and says that constructability and maintainability have been
assessed with qualified major reactor‐exchanger manufacturers.


Source: Axens
The 20 b/d Gasel pilot plant at Eni’s refinery in Sannazzaro has clocked up 25,000 hours of
operation since starting up in 2001.
BP
BP has been developing FT technology since 1981 and has invested more than $500 million to date.
The company was represented at the SMi conference by Tom Parsons, Business Development
Manager. The company says that its proprietary fixed‐bed technology is “ready for commercial
deployment and available for licensing”.
BP teamed up in 1996 with Davy Process Technology to commercialise an FT process based on a
proprietary BP cobalt‐based catalyst. The companies have also developed a process, using a
commercially available catalyst, to upgrade the output from the FT process into final products such
as synthetic crude, diesel, kerosene and naphtha. Having tested its process in a pilot plant at Hull in
the UK during the 1980s, in 2003 BP started up a 300 b/d demonstration plant at Nikiski in Alaska,
which ran until 2009 and “met all technical targets”.
BP says its fixed‐bed technology uses conventional multi‐tube reactors “which are available from
multiple manufacturers world‐wide and can be shop or site fabricated”. The FT catalyst is
manufactured by “leading catalyst companies” and over 100 tonnes have been successfully
manufactured for use at Nikiski. The catalyst has operated for over 10,000 hours at commercial
conditions.


Source: BP
BP’s 300 b/d demonstration plant at Nikiski in Alaska ran until 2009 and “met all technical targets”.
Small‐scale Fischer‐Tropsch technologies
CompactGTL
Under development since 2000, and approved for commercial deployment by Brazilian oil and gas
company Petrobras in 2011, CompactGTL’s small‐scale GTL technology is attracting strong interest
from around the world, according to the company’s Business Development Director, Iain Baxter. The
company is currently in various stages of work on more than ten projects world‐wide, with
conceptual engineering under way on proposed plants with capacities ranging from 1,000‐10,000
b/d. A significant step forward for the company is a proposed project in the United States with a
2,500 b/d capacity, in North Dakota, for which the company has embarked on pre‐FEED.
The concept behind the technology differs from others in that it is not intended primarily as a means
of converting gas into synthetic oil products. Instead, the objective is to provide way of handling,
indeed monetising, natural gas produced from smallish oil fields that would otherwise need to be
flared, which has become politically unacceptable, or re‐injected, which can be costly.
Instead, gas produced with the oil is converted into a waxy synthetic crude which is mixed into the
crude oil stream from the project. This makes the basis of its economics very different to those for
large‐scale projects, such as Pearl and Oryx in Qatar, where the aim is to convert gas into fuels,
petrochemical feedstocks and speciality products such as lubricant base oils and waxes.
The technology is also substantially different in that the Fischer‐Tropsch (FT) reactions take place in
proprietary “mini‐channels” that are much smaller than the large reactors used by Oryx and Pearl.
Compact GTL adds that its technology incorporates all the aspects needed for commercial application
in treating associated gas at remote onshore and offshore oilfields. These include: gas pre‐treatment,
pre‐reforming, reforming, waste‐heat recovery, process‐steam generation, syngas compression, FT
synthesis, and the recycling of cooling water and tail gas. These elements, claims the company, can
be integrated into a host facility or operated as a stand‐alone plant.


Source: CompactGTL
Unlike conventional large‐scale GTL technologies, CompactGTL reactors use brazed plate and fin
construction to create “mini‐channels”. These contain corrugated metallic inserts coated with
catalyst which can be removed when catalyst needs to be replaced.
Overview of the CompactGTL process

Source: CompactGTL
The CompactGTL technology can accept feed gas with high levels of carbon dioxide and does not
require a supply of oxygen.

The company has been building relationships with SBM Offshore, Fluor, Sumitomo Corporation,
Johnson Matthey, Kawasaki and Bayer to enable it to meet demand for commercial applications.
Velocys
The other small‐scale GTL technology currently attracting interest from around the world comes
from Velocys. It is even smaller in scale than the CompactGTL technology, based as it is on “micro‐
channel” reactors. At the SMi conference, Jeff McDaniel, Commercial Director, described the
technology as “modular GTL for the mainstream”. Like CompactGTL, Velocys also sees big
opportunities in playing a role in monetising associated gas that is preventing development of
smallish remote oil‐fields.

Source: Velocys
A comparison of large‐scale and small‐scale technologies reveals big differences in reactor
architecture, which lead to major differences in how the chemical reactions proceed, and the
investment and risk involved in implementing projects.

Source: Velocys

Asked what he meant by “distributed GTL” McDaniel replied: “We’re targeting projects nominally
between 1,000 b/d and 15,000 b/d – much smaller than the 100,000 b/d world‐scale projects. That
allows you to deploy GTL as mini‐refineries or other facilities, in a range of locations. It may be next
to a refinery or out in the oil field itself. So what we mean is the ability to put the GTL plant where
the economics dictate the best possible opportunity.”
Velocys is currently pursuing a number of projects around the world, amounting to a “pipeline” of
100,000 b/d of total installed capacity. Since the start of 2013, says Velocys, five clients have
progressed to engineering, while 19 companies are in the pre‐engineering “feasibility” stage and
others in “qualification”. Most of the GTL opportunities are in North America. Among the various
proposed projects are the following:
 The Calumet project in the US would involve construction of a 1,400 b/d commercial project
integrated with an existing refinery. A plant design has been completed by Ventech, one of
Velocys’ technology partners and Calumet is interested in progressing with more detailed
engineering and a market study.
 The Solena GreenSky London project would involve Velocys becoming the FT supplier for a
commercial 2,500 b/d waste‐biomass‐to‐liquids plant with partner British Airways, which would be
the off‐taker for the jet fuel produced by the plant. Pre‐front‐end engineering is said to be “in the
final stages”. A detailed look at the project was the subject of a presentation by Leigh Hudson,
Biofuels manager at British Airways, who told delegates that the aviation industry was anxious to
find ways to reduce its carbon footprint and that alternative fuels were set to play an increasing
role in achieving this target. BA hopes that production from GreenSky will begin in 2015.
 Velocys was selected in 2012 by Red Rock Biofuels, a subsidiary of IR1 Group, to provide
technology for a 1,100 b/d BTL plant that would be located in Oregon in the United States.
Feedstock would be forestry waste. A nine‐month FEED study has begun.
 Ventech began engineering in April of this year for a 2,800 b/d plant for Pinto Energy, a Houston‐
based developer of GTL facilities in North America. Air and water permits for what would be the
first phase of a multi‐train facility at Ashtabula were filed recently.
As with CompactGTL, Velocys has lined up a group of technology partners. They include: Ventech,
Petrofac, Hatch, Toyo Engineering, SGS, Mourik and Haldor Topsøe.
Other technological developments
Methanol‐to‐Gasoline (MTG) Technology
The technologies we have examined so far all involve the utilisation of the Fischer‐Tropsch synthesis
process to convert natural gas into liquid hydrocarbons and waxes. However, FT is not the only way
to convert natural gas into liquid hydrocarbons, as Mitch Hindman, Licensing Manager at ExxonMobil
Research and Engineering (EMRE), highlighted in his presentation on methanol‐to‐gasoline (MTG)
technology.
The MTG process involves using natural gas to produce syngas, as in FT‐based GTL, but the syngas is
then used to produce methanol, which is then used to produce gasoline, along with a small

proportion of LPG. The technology was proved at a plant in New Zealand that started up in 1985 and
was operated by New Zealand Synfuel until 1997. “The New Zealand MTG experience demonstrated
MTG to be a robust technology,” said Hindman. “Daily gasoline yield and octane indicated a very
consistent process performance. After start‐up, the unit ran reliably with an on‐stream factor greater
than 96%.”
EMRE has continued development of the process and now has a second‐generation design based on
a decade of learnings from the New Zealand operation. It has also developed a second‐generation
catalyst.
The second‐generation EMRE MTG technology is currently being demonstrated at a coal‐to‐liquids
plant constructed by Jincheng Anthracite Mining Group (JAMG) plant in China’s Shanxi Province,
which uses Chinese gasification technology. The JAMG plant has capacity of 2,500 b/d and started up
in June 2009. According to Hindman, in September 2011 JAMG licensed and announced plans for an
additional 25,000 b/d of additional MTG capacity in Shanxi Province.
EMRE has also licenced the technology for a number of projects in the Americas, including a 3,500
b/d biofuels plant planned by Sundrop Fuel in the United States.
Capturing carbon dioxide for injection into oil fields
One of the most intriguing technological ideas to emerge from the SMi conference was a proposal to
capture carbon dioxide from Narkangan GTL’s proposed Shiraz project and to use it to enhance
production at nearby oil fields by injection. The company’s Managing Director, Narsi Ghorban,
claimed that not only would this be economically feasible, it would improve the plant’s economics.
The proposed site for the Shiraz GTL project is less than 10 km away from the oil fields of Sarvestan
and Saadat Abbad. The company therefore proposes to capture the nearly 500,000 tonnes of carbon
dioxide that the plant would emit and to inject it into the oil fields. This, said Ghorban, would help to
recover an additional 1.5 million barrels of oil each year, earning revenues of around $150 million at
current oil prices. “The economics of the project improve drastically with the capture and injection of
carbon dioxide into the oil fields,” he said. “This will increase the IRR of the Shiraz project by 6‐7%.”
The additional capital expenditure required is estimated to be around $80 million. An agreement has
been signed with the National Iranian Oil Company to study and implement the carbon dioxide
capture and injection project.

4. Project economics – Location matters
The economics of GTL projects are driven by four main factors: the cost of gas; capital expenditure,
including financing costs; operational costs, including the cost of catalyst; and the prices that you can
realise for the products. The current resurgence of interest in GTL technology is largely explained by
the de‐coupling of oil and gas prices that has taken place in recent years, notably in North America.
The big question facing potential GTL investors is: “How long is this de‐coupling likely to last?”
Delegates at the SMi conference heard several views on this issue, some of the most interesting
coming from the US Energy Information Administration, an agency set up by the US government to
provide energy analysis to inform policy. Interestingly, however, the EIA is less bullish than it was last
year about the prospects for GTL, not just in terms of the differential between oil and gas prices but
also in terms of the specific capital expenditure (cost per barrel per day of capacity) needed for
construction.
The oil/gas price differential in North America
Predictions of a “golden age of gas” – as the International Energy Agency memorably described it in a
landmark 2011 report – are mainly founded on the remarkable revolution in unconventional gas
production we have seen in North America since 2007/8. While that revolution has yet to be
replicated to any significant extent elsewhere, what is happening in North America has direct
implications for global energy markets.

Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2013
The EIA’s long‐term projections show domestic production growing faster than domestic demand,
with the consequence that the US becomes a net exporter of gas around 2020.
Some believe that gas production in the US is set to rise so strongly that the US will become a major
exporter of LNG by the end of this decade. The probability of that happening has increased
significantly over the past year. However the US LNG boom has significant implications for GTL

projects because of the effect it could have on gas prices – some upward pressure looking inevitable
– and the competition it will create for engineering and construction resources.
One of the main sources of information and analysis of what is happening in North American energy
is the EIA. At the SMi conference the EIA was represented by Mindi Farber‐DeAnda, Team Lead,
Biofuels and Emerging Technologies. Her presentation was entitled “Shale gas – Providing
opportunities for GTL in the United States”.
Taking data and analysis from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), Farber‐DeAnda gave delegates an
insight into the forecasts that the administration is making for gas prices and production and the
medium and long term (see charts above and below).
The EIA’s long‐term projections show domestic gas price in the Reference scenario remaining
below $6/MMBtu until well into the 2030s. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the
eventual trajectory.
The chart above shows considerable uncertainty over the trajectory of gas prices depending on the
estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of shale gas wells. This uncertainty is one of the reasons that Shell
has decided not to go ahead with its proposed US project. In its announcement in early December
the company said: “Despite the ample supplies of natural gas in the area, the company has taken the
decision that GTL is not a viable option for Shell in North America, at this time, due to the likely
development cost of such a project, uncertainties on long‐term oil and gas prices and differentials,
and Shell’s strict capital discipline.”
What matters, of course, is not just gas price but the ratio of oil price to natural gas price. According
to the EIA’s Reference case in 2012, that ratio rises from around four today to around five by 2020
and then declines gently to around 3.5 by 2035. The latest position, as shown in the chart below, is
that in the Reference case low‐sulphur light crude oil price remains almost four times higher than
natural gas prices through to 2040. However, the uncertainty is again significant. In a low oil‐price
scenario it falls below three before 2020 and continues to decline until 2040. So it is perhaps not
surprising that Shell was uncomfortable about taking that kind of gamble with a project that would
have cost upwards of $20 billion to construct.


The EIA’s long‐term projections show the oil/gas price differential remaining wide over the long
term. However, again, there is considerable uncertainty about the eventual trajectory.
That said, as we have noted several times in this report, plenty of people believe that the differential
will be wide enough for long enough to make GTL viable in the United States.
Capital cost
Another major factor in project economics is, of course, the capital cost of constructing the plant,
including the cost of finance and other owners’ costs. On this matter there was a definite sense of a
sea‐change, with the general feeling being that capital costs now look as though, in general, they are
likely to be higher than people were assuming last year.
In last year’s edition of this report, we wrote: “The figure of $100,000/b/d of capacity is an intriguing
one as it appears to be a point of convergence for the industry at the moment. Iraj Isaac Rahminof E‐
Meta Venture used the same figure in his presentation in the context of new North American
projects, while Mindi Farber‐DeAnda said that in its next Annual Energy Outlook the EIA was
proposing to use a figure of $90,000 per b/d (in 2011 dollars). Interestingly, Forbes Communications
estimates the specific capital cost of the GTL portion of the Pearl project to be somewhere between
$85,000 and $105,000 per b/d.”
Delegates to the workshop that preceded the conference were advised that it is not possible right
now to talk of generic economics for GTL projects. The example quoted was a comparison of the
economics of Oryx and Escravos. Both use the same technology and both have the same capacity. Yet
Oryx cost about $1.2 billion and Escravos will cost around $10 billion. The specific capital cost of Oryx
turns out to be around $37,000 per b/d while at Escravos it is over $300,000 per b/d. The difference
is down to two main factors: timing and location. The low specific capital cost of Oryx was down to a
number of special factors and is not likely to be repeatable in the foreseeable future. The very high
cost of Escravos is also down to unusual factors and is it unlikely that any company would today
agree to proceed with a project that looked this expensive.

So what about the projects that companies are currently working, such as Oltin Yo’L GTL and the
Sasol project in Louisiana?
Oltin Yo’L GTL
The Oltin Yo’L project in Uzbekistan is reported to require investment of about $4.2 billion, though it
is not clear exactly what this includes. For a capacity of 37,600 b/d that would give a specific capital
cost of around $112,000 per b/d. Given that it is likely to be similar to the design used at Oryx GTL
and Escravos GTL, that looks a reasonable cost, given that Oryx was completed as long ago as 2006. It
certainly looks a lot cheaper than Escravos.
Sasol’s proposed US plant
At the London conference, Sasol’s Mark Schnell said the expected capital cost of the 96,000 b/d plant
that Sasol is proposing for Louisiana would be between $11 billion and $14 billion. That gives a range
of specific capital cost of $115,000‐146,000/b/d of capacity.
Interestingly, Farber‐DeAnda told the conference that the cost that the EIA is assuming (on an
“overnight basis”) is around $152,000/b/d, for a plant entering operation in 2019, with capacity of
48,000 b/d, a thermal efficiency of 55% and a capacity factor of 85%.
Small‐scale GTL
We have yet to see the true cost of a small‐scale GTL plant, given that so far only demo and pilot
plants have been built. That said, the chart below, present by CompactGTL’s Shravan Joshi, shows
capex of $100,000/b/d for a 10,000 b/d plant, based on a completed client study.

Source: CompactGTL

5. Environmental issues – A good story to tell
The issue of the environmental performance of GTL products, especially those used as transportation
fuels, is important for two reasons:
 One is the marketability of the products in a world where environmental restrictions continue to
tighten. This is particularly relevant to local emissions, such as sulphur dioxide and particulates.
 The other is the carbon footprint of the products in a world where greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
are a growing concern because of their contribution to climate change.
The issues are largely separate, but on both counts GTL can claim to perform as least as well as
products derived from conventional refining processes. In the case of local emissions, GTL products
tend to have much lower emissions of pollutants.
Local emissions
The products that come out of a GTL process are generally of a higher quality than those derived
from conventional refining because of the amount of processing that has to be done to the feedstock
gas before it can enter the syngas generation and FT parts of the process, and the nature of the FT
process itself. The catalysts used in these processes tend to be very sensitive to contaminants. The
consequence is that GTL products contain less sulphur and other contaminants and tend to burn
more efficiently in engines, leading to better performance but also lower emissions of particulates
and aromatics.

Source: ASFE World Biofuels presentation 2009
The chart show the significant benefits in terms of reduced emissions of local pollutants from using
synthetic fuels versus refinery‐derived fuels, even in existing engines.

5. Environmental issues – A good story to tell
This was well illustrated in the presentation given at the SMi conference by Malcolm Wells. The chart
above shows that emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
particulate matter (PM) are all substantially lower than for conventional refinery derived diesel, even
in existing engines. If engines are optimised to take advantage of the higher quality the benefits are
even greater.
Global emissions
The issue of the performance of GTL products in terms of GHG emissions is much less
straightforward. In general terms, people new to the GTL industry look at the relatively low thermal
efficiency of the FT process (compared with, say, LNG) and argue that if, say, 45% of the gas is being
used up in the process, GTL must be more carbon‐intensive than refinery derived fuels.
The general message from the GTL industry itself has been that, at present, the GHG performance of
GTL products on a Life‐Cycle Analysis (LCA) basis is comparable with that of refinery derived
products. Moreover, as the technology develops, this performance should improve, in the same way
that LNG technology has become more efficient over time.

6. About the writer
6. About the writer

Alex Forbes, Director, Forbes Communications
Independent journalist and consultant Alex Forbes has been reporting on energy developments and
analysing trends for three decades. His expertise covers the whole gamut of energy – including oil,
natural gas, electricity, policy, regulation, climate change and the geopolitics of energy supply
security. His specialisms include unconventional fossil fuels, liquefied natural gas (LNG), gas‐to‐liquids
(GTL), nuclear power and renewables.
Between 2006 and 2011, Alex was the lead author and executive editor of an annual survey of the
natural gas industries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) published by the Paris‐based Arab
Petroleum Research Center. Between 1995 and 2005 he was editor of Gas Matters. Other editorships
include Electrical Review International, Inside Energy, and deputy editorship during the launch phase
of Utility Week. He also frequently chairs and speaks at energy conferences.
Recent consultancy assignments have included a study of the prospects for unconventional gas in
Europe, a report on natural gas trends in the European Union, and several studies on energy
developments in the MENA region.
Alex graduated from King's College, London, in 1981 with an Honours degree in physics.

GTL Conference Report Hemendra Khakhar

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GTL Conference Report Hemendra Khakhar

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1. Overview – Focus shifts to North America and Uzbekistan 01

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report i

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report ii

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 1

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 2

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 3

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 4

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 5

Source: Image courtesy of CompactGTL

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 6

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 7

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 8

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 9

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 10

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 11

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 12

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 13

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 14

Overview of the CompactGTL process

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 15

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 16

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 17

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 18

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 19

Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2013

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 20

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 21

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 22

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 23

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 24

SMi GTL 2013 Conference Report 25

Вам также может понравиться