Upload
dokhue
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 http://www.aascit.org/journal/ajees ISSN: 2381-1153 (Print); ISSN: 2381-1161 (Online)
Keywords Natural Gas Conversion,
Liquid Fuel Production,
Membrane Reactor Technology,
Economical Assessments,
Shell Pearl Qatar Process,
Petroleum Engineering
Received: November 10, 2015
Accepted: December 2, 2015
Published: April 26, 2016
Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar
A. A. Panteloglou, S. P. Vasileiadis, Z. D. Ziaka
School of Natural Sciences and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patra, Greece
Email address [email protected] (A. A. Panteloglou), [email protected] (S. P. Vasileiadis),
[email protected] (Z. D. Ziaka)
Citation A. A. Panteloglou, S. P. Vasileiadis, Z. D. Ziaka. Economic Evaluation and Upgraded
Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar. American Journal of Environmental Engineering
and Science. Vol. 3, No. 3, 2016, pp. 80-89.
Abstract Natural gas that is discharged to the environment through flaring or is situated in areas
4000 km away from the final consumers and thus is not economically feasible to transfer
through pipelines can be further processed for producing liquid fuels. The process
studied in this paper is the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis, which is applied in the Shell
Pearl Qatar project. This project produces liquid fuels – naphtha, kerosene, diesel and
baseoil –in approximately 140,000 barrels/day. This paper is a feasibility study of Shell
Pearl Qatar project and its sustainability aiming to determine the price range for crude oil
over which an investment to a similar project can be profitable. An MS Excel Model was
developed in order to perform calculations having as a variable the crude oil price and
taking into account all the process and project’s financial data. The results of this model
showed that the project remains profitable in crude oil prices above $48.67/barrel. In the
price range $55 - $60/barrel, the payout of the project will be in about 9 years. In
addition, we proposed a new method for the improvement of the project’s financial
results. The use of membrane reactor technology to produce synthesis gas, after
appropriate modification, will increase the overall financial performance by about 35%.
The study of the new process showed that the project remains profitable in crude oil
prices above $30.78/barrel and the payout will be in 4.2 years.
1. Introduction
In recent years there has been great interest in the use of natural gas, on a global scale,
both as a source of energy and to produce useful chemicals. This interest becomes larger
when one considers environmental benefits compared with the use of crude oil.
It has been found that 5% of global gas supply is rejected through flaring, because it
cannot be further processed or sold as such [1]. The amount of gas that in 2014 was
rejected to the environment was about 140 billion m3. The World Bank has estimated that
the rejection of this quantity of gas through flaring corresponds to the release of 300
million tones of CO2 into the environment. Should this quantity be used to generate
electricity it would cover the annual needs of the entire Africa [1].
Correspondingly, the proven gas reserves worldwide have increased by 55% over the
last 20 years, as presented in Table 1 [2]. By proven hydrocarbon reserves we mean the
estimated quantities of hydrocarbons, which, on analysis of geological and engineering
data, can be recovered under existing economic and operating conditions. Estimates of
reserves change annually as new exploration discoveries come to light, existing
exploration areas are fully valued, existing deposits are mined, and the technological and
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 81
operational costs are constantly changing.
Table 1. Proven world gas reserves for the years 1993, 2003 and 2013 [2].
Year Natural Gas (in oil equivalent)
1993 106.6 bn. ton
2003 140.1 bn. ton
2013 167.1 bn. ton
The main commercial use of natural gas is burning, either
for electricity or heat production, from residential or
industrial consumers or for moving vehicles [31-38]. Before
its consumption the gas should be transferred from the
pumping space. It has been found that the transport of gas by
pipeline remains economically feasible when the total
distance of the pipeline does not exceed 4000 km [3]. Proven
natural gas reserves could be more if those found at a
distance more than 4,000 kilometers, have undergone process
to other useful products.
In conclusion, both for environmental and economic
reasons, natural gas can be used to produce other chemicals,
when it is distant from the final consumer or discarded into
the environment through flaring.
2. Scientific Background
Natural gas can now be compared to crude oil, as it is one
of the most important raw materials for the production of
other chemicals. “Cleaning” raw natural gas produces water,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, mercury, and other
hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane and butane (LPG).
Direct processing may produce many other useful products,
such as ethylene, acetylene, propylene and benzene.
Processing gas indirectly and after having produced synthesis
gas, as shown in Figure 1, the following chemicals can be
obtained [4]: hydrogen and ammonia, aldehydes, methanol,
hydrocarbons and olefins, formaldehyde, acetic acid, MTBE
etc.
Figure 1. Products manufactured by indirect process gas [12].
In this paper we dealt with the production of liquid fuels
via the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis process, SMDS.
Royal Dutch Shell plc. invested $19 billion for the
construction of the project Shell Pearl in Qatar, for the
production of liquid fuels from natural gas utilizing the above
process. The project and the process include the following
four steps [5] as shown in Figure 2 below:
1. The extraction of natural gas from 22 wells from the
marine space of Qatar through two unmanned
platforms. Natural gas is transported to land 60 km
away, where it is “cleaned”. The daily volume of gas
processed is 45.31 million cubic meters.
2. Production of synthesis gas by the non-catalytic partial
oxidation of methane with pure oxygen in gasifiers
(Shell Gasification Process, SGP). The reactions taking
place within the gasifiers are:
CH4 + ½O2 ↔ CO + 2H2 (∆Ho = -36 kJ/mol) (1)
CH4 + 1,5O2 ↔ CO + 2H2O (∆Ho = -519 kJ/mol) (2)
CH4 + 2O2 ↔ CO2 + 2H2O (∆Ho = -802 kJ/mol) (3)
CH4 ↔ C + 2H2 (∆Ho = 74,6 kJ/mol) (4)
CO + H2 ↔ C + H2O (∆Ho = -131 kJ/mol) (5)
2CO ↔ C + CO2 (∆Ho = -172 kJ/mol) (6)
The desired chemical reaction (1) of partial oxidation of
methane with pure oxygen is slightly exothermic and from
the reaction stoichiometry, the ratio of oxygen to methane
should be 0.5: 1. In real conditions the ratio of oxygen to
methane is 0.7: 1, so that some of the methane is consumed
in reactions (2) and (3), which are very exothermic and
generate large amounts of heat. The amount of energy
produced is consumed in the remaining part of the process
and make the entire process self-sufficient. This requires very
good temperature and pressure control of the reactor and the
reaction conditions are: temperature of 1300° - 1400°C,
pressure of 1 - 65 bar and yield of 35 - 40% [7]. Due to the
very high temperatures of the reactor the side reactions (4),
(5) and (6) may occur, which lead to carbon formation.
Finally, the oxygen is produced in air separation units (Air
Separation Units. ASU), which are the most energy
consuming unit operations.
1. Heavy Paraffin Synthesis, HPS, through the Fischer –
Tropsch reactions. The reactor used is a tubular fixed
bed reactor and the catalyst carrier is alumina or silica
or a mixture of both. The active centers of the catalyst
consist ofcobalt molecules and smaller quantities of
zirconium, titanium and chromium. The typical Shell
composition of the catalyst system is 3-60 parts by
weight cobalt with 0.1 to 100 parts by weight
zirconium, titanium and/or chromium, per 100 parts by
weight alumina/silica carrier. The catalyst is prepared
by conventional impregnation methods, or kneading.
Finally, the presence of the catalyst in the reactor is in
the form of fixed bed, the catalyst bed has an external
surface 5 – 70 cm2/ml and an internal surface of 100 –
400 m2/ml. The catalyst activation requires contact with
hydrogen or a gaseous stream containing hydrogen at a
temperature of 200° - 350°C [8]. Finally, the reactor
operating conditions are: temperature of 175° - 275°C
and pressure of 10 - 75 bar.
82 A. A. Panteloglou et al.: Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar
The reactions that take place in this reactor are:
Methane:
3H2 + CO → CH4 + H2O (7)
2H2 + 2CO → CH4 + CO2 (8)
4H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2H2O (9)
Paraffin:
(2n+1)H2 + nCO → CnH2n+2 + nH2O (10)
(n+1)H2 + 2nCO → CnH2n+2 + nCO2 (11)
(3n+1)H2 + nCO2 → CnH2n+2 + 2nH2O (12)
Olefin:
2nH2 + nCO → CnH2n + nH2O (13)
nH2 + 2nCO → CnH2n + nCO2 (14)
3nH2 + nCO2 → CnH2n + 2nH2O (15)
Alcohols:
2nH2 + nCO → CnH2n+1OH + (n-1)H2O (16)
3nH2 + nCO2 → CnH2n+1OH + (2n-1)H2O (17)
The reactions that are thermodynamically favored are
reaction (11) for the production of paraffin and reaction (14)
for the reaction of olefin [13].
The industry of Shell in Qatar includes 12 heavy paraffin
reactors, each of them comprising 200 tones catalyst and
each weighing a total of 1200 tones.
2. Heavy Paraffin Conversion, HPC, to finished products
in a diffusion reactor (trickle bed reactor) in the
presence of a catalyst. The catalyst comprises one or
more noble metals of group VIII of the periodic table of
elements. Specifically, the catalyst system used in the
SMDS process consists of 0.2 to 1% by weight
platinum or palladium on alumina – silica carrier. The
reactor operating conditions are: temperature of 250° -
350°C and 10 - 75 bar pressure. The product of this
reactor is subjected to fractionation in a traditional
distillation column. The lightweight products of
distillation are recycled to the HPC reactor.
Figure 2. Simplified process flow diagram SMDS [6].
Due to the low quantity of syngas production, we
recommend using a different reactor technology, which will
increase the total efficiency of the process. Such as potential
technologies to contribute can be membrane reactor
technology or pressure swing adsorption technology. We
present and analyze here the use of membrane technology,
which can be applied after appropriate modificationsto the
conventional processes. The membrane reactors in chemical
engineering concept integrate reaction and separation
processes in a single process. This technology is utilized in
reactions limited by thermodynamic and kinetic phenomena,
to increase conversion efficiency or selectivity of the overall
reaction. The operation of such a reactor is either to eliminate
the production of a byproduct or to transfer a byproduct out
of the reaction or to remove the main product from the
reactor, as shown in Figure 3. All these lead to a lower
temperature reaction and reduced deactivation of the catalyst,
thus longer catalyst life and higher energy savings.
The membrane reactor is a device in which,
simultaneously, taking place chemical reaction and
separation, due to membrane, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Diagram function of the membrane [15].
The types of membrane reactors that are widely used in
industry, depending on the function and location of the
membrane, are shown in Figure 4. In general, these reactors
may be categorized as follows:
• Fixed Bed Permreactor, FBP: In this type of reactor the
catalyst particles are arranged in a fixed bed in a tubular
reactor. Around the catalyst is the membrane, usually
made of ceramic material to withstand the high
pressures of this type of reactor. The membrane is non
catalytic, thus does not play the role of catalyst.
• Catalytic Permreactor, CP: There is no catalyst in the
tubular reactor, but the film itself plays the role of the
catalyst, as it has been impregnated with the catalyst
liquid.
• Catalytic Fixed Bed Permreactor, CFBP: This reactor is
a combination of the two described above, as the
catalyst particles located in a fixed bed in a tubular
reactor enclosed by the membrane, which has also been
impregnated with catalytic material [16].
The process that we propose includes methane steam
reforming to produce synthesis gas and carbon dioxide. The
reactions that take place are shown below. The reactor used is
the Fixed Bed Permreactor. The membrane reactor is sol - gel
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 83
hollow cylindrical reactor made of aluminum. The film
consists of three microporous levels, which are made by
using sol – gel technique, the first made of gamma-alumina
and the other two of alpha-alumina. The catalyst is a 15% by
weight nickel supported on calcium aluminate. The catalyst is
in the form of particles of diameter 0.92 mm [16]. With this
method, the reactor performance is expected to increase to 65
- 70%, which will lead to increased production of the desired
products.
CH4 + H2O(g) ↔ CO + 3H2 (∆Ho = 206 kJ/mol) (18)
CO + H2O(g) ↔ CO2 + H2 (∆Ho = -41 kJ/mol) (19)
CH4 ↔ C + 2H2 (∆Ho = 74,6 kJ/mol) (4)
CO + H2 ↔ C + H2O (∆Ho = -131 kJ/mol) (5)
2CO ↔ C + CO2 (∆Ho = -172 kJ/mol) (6)
The selection of the membrane materials is based upon the
selectivity of the appropriate products in order to achieve the
desired conversion of the process.
Figure 4. Classification of membrane reactors in accordance with the
function and location of the film [12].
3. Feasibility Study
A feasibility study incorporates financial terms that need to
be explained as follows [9]:
• Capital: the commodity expressed in monetary units,
which has the capacity to produce other goods.
• Capital Cost: in industry, is the cost of all fixed assets
(land, machinery, other services) of an investment.
Often referred to as the compensation required by
investors or lenders to convince to provide funding to
an investment, since investment must return at least the
cost of capital, and ideally an amount greater than the
cost.
• Annual Operating Costs: the cost of operation covers
the whole production process in relation to the nature of
the product, and general selling expenses,
administration, etc.
• Annual Revenue: income generally equals to the product
of the sale price of the product multiplied by the annual
production.
• Payout: Payout is the accounting statement of the
damage caused to the asset value of the use or over
time. The practice of payout consists of removing a
specific amount from the gross profits annually until the
sum of annual payout is equal to the market value of
assets. Usually, the rate of payout is 20%.
• Interest: performance (increase) of capital for a certain
period of time.
• Interest Rate: the interest on capital for a monetary unit
at a specific time period.
• Inflation: expresses the reduction in the purchasing
power of money, i.e. the fact that over time the same
amount can buy increasingly fewer goods.
• Discount Rate: is used to calculate the future value of a
current amount or the present value of a future amount.
In the case of reducing an amount in future value, the
discount rate is often called and compound interest rate,
whereas in the case of calculating the present value of
an amount, the discount rate is referred to as the
discount rate.
• Future Value, FV: suppose an amount K, which invested
today (time 0) with discount rate e. The value of this
amount K after a year is K * e and the amount will
increase to K+K*e or K*(1+e). Following the practice
of capitalization of interest, the future value of the
initial amount K after t years at an annual interest rate e
will be:
FVκ = Κ*(1+e)t (20)
• Present Value, PV: if you are going to pay a X amount
after t years, then the value of the amount currently (at
time 0), called Present Value will be:
PVx = Χ*(1+e)-t (21)
• Cash Flow, CF: the cash flow of the project is defined
as the algebraic sum of all the years of life investment.
However, since financial flows take place at different
times, it is necessary before realized the sum of cash
flows to calculate the present value of each cash flow.
84 A. A. Panteloglou et al.: Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar
• Net present value, NPV: defined as the difference
between the present value of annual income less the
present value of annual expenses, including initial and
subsequent investment in the project. The NPV is given
by:
NPV = 0
1 (1 )
CF
e
ντ
ττ =
− Ε+∑ (22)
Where NPV = Net Present Value,
CFτ = Cash Flow for year t,
Ε0 = initial investment in year 0,
ν = the lifetime of the project, and
e = the discount rate.
• Internal Rate of Return on capital IRR: when the
discount rate for a particular cash flow increases, the
NPV value of cash flows is reduced. The IRR of the
EBA capital can be defined as the discount rate that
resets the cash flow, i.e. the rate that equates the initial
investment value of all future cash flows. The formula
that gives the IRR is:
NPV=0 = 0
1 (1 )
CF
IRR
ντ
ττ =
− Ε+∑ (23)
Where IRR = the internal rate of return for NPV = 0.
When considering a project, regardless of the options, then
the terms of acceptance or rejection in relation to the NPV or
IRR are as follows:
A. For NPV:
• NPV> 0, The investment is considered advantageous,
• NPV = 0, the financial result of the investment is
marginal,
• NPV< 0, the investment is rejected.
B. For IRR:
• IRR>the minimum acceptable discount rate, the
investment is considered advantageous,
• IRR = the minimum acceptable discount rate, the
investment is considered marginal, applicable when
there is no better alternative,
• IRR<the minimum acceptable discount rate, then the
investment is rejected.
The financial analysis aims in calculating the cash flows
arising from the implementation of the future project. Cash
flow is defined by the difference of two ratios: the cash
inflow and cash outflow. This difference may be positive or
negative. Cash flow refers to a specific period of operation,
usually annually. Therefore, for an investment project a list of
annual cash flows should be made for the economic lifetime
of the investment [9]. The list of cash flows of an investment
project is in the following format:
4. Results
This paper aims to carry out a financial study of the Shell
Pearl Qatar project in relation to the price of crude oil. The
crude oil prices variation from 1950 to date is presented in
Figure 5, where it seems that in the last 15 years the price has
not fallen below the $40/boe.
Figure 5. Oil prices (boe), historically from 1950 to date [14].
The Shell Pearl Qatar products consist of: methane LPG,
condensate, naphtha, kerosene, gasoil and baseoil and the
total production amounted to 260,000 barrels/day, as shown
schematically in Figure 6. This production, according to the
density and energy of each component may be converted to
an oil equivalent. Table 3 shows the annual production of
Shell Pearl Qatar in oil equivalent.
Figure 6. The Shell Pearl Qatar project’s products.
Table 2. A typical table of cash flows of an investment project [9].
0 1 2 v
(1) Capital Cost
(2) Annual Revenue
(3) Annual Operating Cost
(4) Gross Profit = (2) – (3)
(5) Payout (20%)
(6) Interests
(7) Taxable Income = (4) – (5) – (6)
(8) Taxes = (7) * Tax Rate
(9) Net Profit after tax = (7) – (8)
(10) Installment Credit
(11) Internal Rate of Return = (9) + (5) – (10) – (1)
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 85
Table 3. The annual output of products Shell Pearl Qatar, in oil equivalent.
Product Barrels/day
(bbl/d)
Oil equivalent
barrel/day (boe/d)
Oil equivalent
barrel/year (boe/yr)
Ethane 30,000 30,000 9,855,000
LPG 30,000 21,450 7,046,325
Condensate 60,000 56,130 18,438,705
Naphtha 35,000 30,835 10,129,297.50
Kerosene 25,000 25,425 8,352,112.50
GasOil 50,000 48,650 15,981,525
BaseOil 30,000 34,500 11,333,250
Total: 260,000 246,990 81,136,215
The completion of the cash flow table in Figure 5 includes:
• The total investment capital. For Shell Pearl Qatar the
total investment cost is $19 billions [10].
• The annual operating costs. The operating costs are
$2,500,000/day or $821.25 million annually [11].
• The annual revenue. The project revenues depend
exclusively on oil prices. The annual production, shown
in Table 2 must be multiplied by the price of oil per
barrel in order to calculate the annual income of Shell
Pearl Qatar. The price of WTI oil on 10/30/2015 was
$46.59/barrel. So the annual revenue of the project, if
this was the average price of oil throughout the year, is
$46.59/bbl x 81,136,215 barrels/year =
$3,780,136,256.85/year. Table A1 in Appendices
presents the annual project revenues compared with the
price of crude oil. It must be emphasized that the
working days/year is considered to be 90% of the time
or 328.5 days / year. The remaining days of the year
maintenance is carried out.
• The payout of the project is 20%.
• We suppose that interest does not exist, since the $ 19
billion cost of capital, is given by the construction
consortium of the project, i.e. the State of Qatar and the
private company Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
• The State of Qatar tax is 10%.
• Finally, it is assumed that the annual inflation will be
3% and the discount rate is 8%.
Figure 7. The Net Present Value of the project Shell Pearl Qatar with
respect to the price of oil.
The financial study showed that the Shell Pearl Qatar
project is profitable as long as the oil price is above $ 48.75 /
bbl, as shown in the graph of Figure 7. With oil prices below
this, the project is not profitable. Conversely, oil prices
exceeding $100/barrel of oil will gain more than $55 billion,
over the project life of 20 years. Finally, payout of the project
for crude oil prices between $ 55-60/barrel will be in about 9
years, as shown in Figure 8.
The final analysis to be made has to do with the IRR of
the project. For this analysis the oil price of $50.93/barrel
was used, which is the 2015 average WTI oil price.
According to the theory presented above, the IRR is the
discount rate that makes the Net Present Value NPV = 0.
Figure 9 shows the graph of the NPV versus IRR. We can
see that IRR = 9.1% is than the minimum acceptable
discount rate = 8%. Therefore, the investment is considered
advantageous.
Figure 8. The Net Present Value over the years of project operation.
Figure 9. NPV versus IRR, when the oil price is $50.93/barrel.
The manufactured products that will result from the
membrane reactor are presented in Table 4. From this table
we observe an increase in total manufactured products of
50%.
The data shown in Table 4 will be used to carry out the
same feasibility study in order to investigate the
significant economic effects of the new process. Figure 10
presents the Net Present Value of the new process versus
the oil prices and it can be seen that the project remains
profitable for oil prices over $ 30.78 / barrel. Payout of the
project for crude oil prices between $ 55-60/barrel will be
in about 4.2 years, as shown in Figure 11. Finally, Figure
86 A. A. Panteloglou et al.: Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar
12 shows the graph of the NPV versus IRR for the
membrane technology. We can see that IRR = 22.5% is
than the minimum acceptable discount rate = 8%.
Therefore, the investment is considered advantageous. In
Table A2 in Appendices presents the annual expected
revenue of the new proposed process with membrane
technology with respect to oil prices.
Table 4. The expected results of the proposed production process using
membrane reactor.
Product Barrels/day
(bbl/d)
Oil equivalent
barrel/day (boe/d)
Oil equivalent
barrel/year (boe/yr)
Ethane 30,000 30,000 9,855,000
LPG 30,000 21,450 7,046,325
Condensate 60,000 56,130 18,438,705
Naphtha 71,220.93 62,745.64 20,611,942.59
Kerosene 50,872.09 51,736.92 16,995,577.76
GasOil 101,744.19 98,997.09 32,520,545.06
BaseOil 61,046.51 70,203.49 23,061,845.93
Total: 404,883.72 391,263.14 128,529,941.30
Figure 10. The Net Present Value of the new process with membrane reactor
with respect to the price of oil.
Figure 11. The Net Present Value over the lifetime of the project using the
membrane reactor.
Figure 12. NPV versus IRR for the membrane technology, when the oil price
is $50.93/barrel.
5. Discussion
The first observation to be made has to do with the
resulting products of the Shell Pearl Qatar project. The
process Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis can be altered so as
to yield either light products, i.e. larger amounts of naphtha
and kerosene, or larger amounts of heavy products, i.e. diesel
and baseoil are more than the others. The Shell Pearl Qatar
project, from the commencement in 2011, is set to produce
more heavy products. Whenever the need arises can change
the settings and produce more light products.
To study the financial viability of Shell Pearl Qatar we
created an MS Excel model. The model was constructed so
that there is only one variable, the price of crude oil. The
purpose of this approach is to determine under what
conditions, specifically the crude oil price, is economically
feasible to build a similar project, such as Shell Pearl Qatar.
It is easily understood that for very low oil prices, investment
in the exploitation of remote natural gas resources, similar to
Shell Pearl Qatar, will not be viable.
The results of the model showed that the project studied
will remain profitable as long as the oil price will be above
$48.67/bbl. According to historical oil price data of Figure 5
and because of the great geopolitical tensions in major oil
producing countries it is almost certain that oil prices will not
fall below $ 50/barrel for long periods of time. Therefore,
investments in the exploitation of remote natural gas
resources can be made utilizing the Shell Middle Distillate
Synthesis process will be viable as long as the oil price will
be above $48.67/bbl.
Finally, using the proposed membrane reactor, where the
efficiency reaches 70%, the sustainability of the project is
maintained and the project remains profitable as long as the
oil price is above $ 30.78/bbl.
6. Conclusions
The quantities of gas released into the environment during
the extraction of crude oil, by flaring, along with the
quantities of natural gas reserves, which are remote from the
final consumer and is not economically feasible to exploit,
together constitute a vast source of mineral wealth which can
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 87
be used to produce other useful products. In this paper we
studied the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis process, used in
the Shell Pearl Qatar project, as a solution to the above
problem. This process includes, after the cleaning of natural
gas from coastal area of Qatar, the non-catalytic partial
oxidation of methane to synthesis gas and then the Fischer -
Tropsch process in order to produce liquid fuels, which
include naphtha, kerosene, diesel and baseoil. Financial study
of the project was implemented in order to establish under
what crude oil prices it remains viable.
Simultaneously, due to the low yield of synthesis gas we
proposed a new process that utilizes a membrane reactor,
which can yield up to 70%. Financial study of the proposed
new process was, similarly, implemented. The Table below
presents the analysis of the two processes.
Table 5. Overall comparison of the two processes.
Shell Pearl Qatar
project
New Proposed Process
with Membrane Reactor
Mass gas at the inlet
(kg/d) 4,244,003,69 4,244,003.69
Efficiency of
gasification reactor 34.40% 70%
Effciency of FT
reactor in diesel 42% 42%
Productsα:
Ethane (bbl/d) 30,000 30,000
LPG (bbl/d) 30,000 30,000
Condensate (bbl/d) 60,000 60,000
Naphtha (bbl/d) 35,000 71,220.93
Kerosene (bbl/d) 25,000 50,872.09
Diesel (bbl/d) 50,000 101,744.19
BaseOil (bbl/d) 30,000 61,046.51
Products in Total
(bbl/d) 260,000 404,883.72
Financial Results:
Oil Price for
profitability ($/bbl) 48.67 30.78
Process profits after
20 years ($) 6,415,868,178 26,830,498,470
Payout (years) 9.0 4.2
To conclude, the purpose of this paper is, through
studying the Shell Pearl Qatar project, to provide the
information for anyone interested to investigate whether
there is possibility for return in an investment in a similar
process. An in-depth financial study is necessary which will
take under consideration the data of the process and social
and political factors of the area where the investment will
take place.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Prof Christos Kordoulis for his
scientific discussions and Mrs. Aspasia Davakou for her
valuable and in-depth professional contribution and support.
Appendices
Table A1. The ratio of the price of crude oil compared with the expected
annual revenue of the project Shell Pearl Qatar.
Oil price in $ / barrel Annual expected revenue in $ / year
10 811362150
20 1622724300
30 2434086450
40 3245448600
50 4056810750
60 4868172900
70 5679535050
80 6490897200
90 7302259350
100 8113621500
110 8924983650
Table A2. The ratio of the price of crude oil compared with the expected
annual revenue of the proposed process using membrane reactors.
Oil price in $ / barrel Annual expected revenue in $ / year
10 1285299413
20 2570598827
30 3855898240
40 5141197653
50 6426497067
60 7711796480
70 8997095894
80 10282395307
90 11567694720
100 12852994134
110 14138293547
120 15423592960
130 16708892374
140 17994191787
150 19279491201
References
[1] Fielden K. 2015. Fixing Flaring. The Chemical Engineer (October 2015), 26–30.
[2] BP (2014) BP Statistical Review of World Energy – June 2014, British Petroleum, London, United Kingdom.
[3] Cornot – Gandolphe S., Appert O., Dickel R., Chabrelie M.F. and Rojey A. 2003. The Challenges of Further Cost Reductions for New Supply Options (Pipeline, LNG, GTL). 22nd World Gas Conference.
[4] Roussiere T. L., 2013. Catalytic Reforming of Methane in the presence of CO2 and H2O at high pressure. Dissertation, Faculty of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
[5] Tijm P. J. A., 2001. Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis: The process, the plant, the products. Shell International Gas Ltd.
[6] Hoek A., 2006. The Shell GTL Process: Towards a World Scale Project in Qatar: the Pearl Project. Shell Global Solutions International.
[7] Maurstad O., 2005. An overview of Coal based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology. Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
88 A. A. Panteloglou et al.: Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar
[8] Post, M. F. M. and S. T. Sie, 1986. European Patent Application: 0167215. Shell International Research, European Patent Office.
[9] Kaliampakos D. And D. Damigos (2008) “Course Notes: Economics of environment and water resources - financial and socio-economic evaluation of investments”, Graduate Program: Water Resources Science and Technology, National Technical University of Athens.
[10] Van Rijssen P. (2011) “The delivery of Pearl GTL”, 16th Turkmenistan Oil & Gas Conference, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
[11] Shuster E. (2013) “Analysis of Natural Gas – To – Liquid Transportation Fuels via Fischer – Tropsch”, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.
[12] MacLeary E. E., J. C. Jansen and F. Kapteijn (2006) “Zeolite based films, membranes and membrane reactors: Progress and prospects”, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, Elsevier.
[13] Korili S. (1994) “Hydrogenation of carbon monoxide in Neolithic nickel catalysts, cobalt and ruthenium”, Doctoral Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessloniki.
[14] Macrotrends “West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Prices: Historical oil prices”, Macrotrends LLC.
[15] Thien C. Y. (2006) “Development of a catalytic membrane reactor for the production of ethylene using oxidative coupling of methane (OCM)”, Master of Science Thesis, University of Science of Malaysia.
[16] Ziaka Z. D. and S. P. Vasileiadis (2009) “Membrane Reactors for Fuel Cells and Environmental Energy Systems”, XLibris Publishing Corporation.
[17] Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with emphasis on the potential for Biomass – Derived Syngas – Technical Report”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.
[18] Van Vliet O. P. R., A. P. C. Faaij and W. C. Turkenburg (2009) “Fischer – Tropsch diesel production in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost analysis”, Energy Conversion and Management, 50, 855–876, Elsevier.
[19] Tsotsis T. T., A. M. Champagnie, S. P. Vasileiadis, Z. D. Ziaka and R. G. Minet (1992) “Packed bed catalytic membrane reactors”, Chemical Engineering Science, 47, 2903–2908, Pergamon Press Ltd.
[20] Chen Y., Y. Wang, H. Xu and G. Xiong (2008) “Efficient production of hydrogen from natural gas steam reforming in palladium membrane reactor”, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 80, 283–294, Elsevier.
[21] Sammels A. F., M. Schwartz, R. A. Mackay, T. E. Barton and D. R. Peterson (2000) “Catalytic membrane reactors for spontaneous synthesis gas production”, Catalysis Today, 56, 325–328, Elsevier.
[22] Wood D. A., C. Nwaoha and B. F. Towler (2012) “Gas-to-Liquids (GTL): a review of an industry offering several routes for monetizing natural gas”, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 9, 196–208.
[23] Spath P. L. and D. C. Dayton (2003) “Preliminary screening – Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to
Fuels and Chemicals with emphasis on the potential for Biomass – Derived Syngas”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory.
[24] Fleisch T. H., R. A. Sills and M. D. Briscoe (2002) “2002 – Emergence of the Gas-to-Liquids Industry: a Review of Global GTL Developments”, Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry, 11, 1-14, Science Press.
[25] Cornot – Gandolphe S., O. Appert, R. Dickel, M. F. Chabrelie and A. Rojey (2003) “The challenges of further cost reductions for new supply options (pipeline, LNG, GTL)”, 22nd World Gas Conference, Japan.
[26] Guettel R and T. Turek (2009) “Comparison of different reactor types for low temperature Fischer – Tropsch synthesis: A simulation study”, Chemical Engineering Science, 64, 955–964, Elsevier.
[27] De Swart J. W. A. and R Krishna (2002) “Simulation of the transient and steady state behavior of a bubble column slurry reactor for Fischer – Tropsch synthesis”, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 41, 35–47, Elsevier.
[28] Sajjad H, H. H. Masjuki, M. Varman, M. A. Kalam, M. I. Arbab, S. Imtenan and S. M. A. Rahman (2014) “Engine combustion, performance and emission characteristics of gas to liquid (GTL) fuels and its blends with diesel and bio-diesel”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 961–986, Elsevier.
[29] Kim Y. H., K. W. Jun, H. Joo, C. Han and I. K. Song (2009) “A simulation study on gas-to-liquid (natural gas to Fischer – Tropsch synthetic fuel) process optimization”, Chemical Engineering Journal, 155, 427–432, Elsevier.
[30] Wood D. A., C. Nwaoha and B. F. Towler (2012) “Gas-to-liquids (GTL): A review of an industry offering several routes for monetizing natural gas”, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 9, 196–208, Elsevier.
[31] Panteloglou A. A., (2015), “Catalytic production of liquid fuels from natural gas”, MSc Thesis, HOU, Greece.
[32] Vasileiadis S., Z Ziaka, M Dova, (2012), “Methane and methanol steam reforming in a membrane reactor for efficient hydrogen production and continuous fuel cell operation”, International Journal of Engineering and Technology 2 (4), 630-636.
[33] Vasileiadis S., Z. Ziaka, and M. Tsimpa, (2011), “MCFC- Electricity Generation from Biogas to Syngas Renewable Process via a Membrane Reactor”, International Transaction Journal Of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, Volume-2, No.1.
[34] Vasileiadis S. and Z. Ziaka, (2004), “Efficient catalytic reactors-processors for fuel cells and synthesis applications”, Separation and Purification Technology Journal, Vol.34, pp. 213-225.
[35] Vasileiadis S. and Z. Ziaka, (2010), “Small Scale Reforming-Separation Systems with Nanomembrane Reactors for Direct Fuel Cell Applications”, Journal of NanoResearch, Vol 12, 105-113.
[36] Vasileiadis S., Z. Ziaka, M. Tsimpa, E. Vasileiadou, (2012), “New Biogas Renewable System For Combined SOFC-Electricity Generation With A Membrane Reactor”, Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, USA.
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 89
[37] Ziaka Z. D. and S.P. Vasileiadis, (2000), “Reactor-membrane permeator process for hydrocarbon reforming and water gas shift reactions” USA Patent, No:#6,090,312.
[38] Vasileiadis S. and Z. Ziaka, (2005), “Permreactor and Separator type fuel processors for the production of hydrogen and hydrogen, carbon oxides mixtures”, USA patent, No.# 6,919,062 Β1.