Upload
kristopher-oliver
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TARBLASTER MARKET SEGMENTATION
Interim Report
Prepared for Tarblaster A/S
27th April 2009
INTRODUCTION
OTM understands that Tarblaster is planning to hold a market segmentation and planning
one-day workshop with EPI-V, in May 2009. This has been moved tentative to 03.06.09.
OTM has been asked to carry out an initial market segmentation and verification exercise in
advance of the workshop, and also participate in this workshop as a presenter of this
information and as an independent participant.
OTM market analyses generally have three levels of detail as follows:
Level 1 – Market segmentation and verification
Level 2 – Segment market demand and revenue analysis
Level 3 – Commercialisation planning/ roadmapping
This work represents level 1analysis and the accompanying slides review the 5 different
segments and verification of the market for each segment
Following this interim report we plan to conduct interviews to probe and validate the initial
conclusions of this report
2
Segments investigated
1. Oil sands refining
2. Drill cuttings disposal (Onshore and Offshore)
3. Algae refining
4. Oil shale refining
5. Land reclamation
3
Topics investigated for each segment
Market Drivers
Geography
Value Chain
Competing Technologies
Summary
4
1.Oil sands refining
5
Oil sands refining: Market Drivers
6
Drivers Examples
Depleting conventional oil Roadmap by U.S. DOE to develop oil sands in America
Anticipated demand from developing countries Petroleum demand in Asia to increase by 40% (2015)
Environmental challenge Most governments have policies to reduce GHG emissions (Kyoto protocol)
Preservation of fresh water • Push to reduce fresh water usage (Canada)• Lack of availability of fresh water in Middle East• Lack of water in remote areas
Energy Intensive process Extraction and upgrading processes requires steam generated from natural gas – prone to price and availability fluctuations
Rapid development of new production technologies
THAI, VAPEX, electrical heating recovery technologies in pilot stage. Successful development will increase demand for upgrading
Oil sands refining: Geography & Clients
7
2390 bbl
2260
430
347
46
17
10.5
4.46
0.0015
Canada – Global technology leader.• Suncor, Syncrude, Petro-
Canada, Shell, ExxonMobil• Husky, EnCana, Talisman,
Statoil Hydro, TotalUnited States – renewed interest by
the government to develop bitumen deposits
• Shell. Chevron, Murphy, Marathon, ConocoPhillips
Mexico – traditionally the major supplier of heavy oil to US. Assets decreasing.
• PEMEX
Brazil – offshore heavy oil (not a market for Tarblaster)
Venezuela – large scale implementation of upgrading technologies
• PDVSA, StatoilHydroEcuador – heavy oil under
environmentally sensitive area (UN Biosphere reserve site)
Kuwait – Keen to ramp-up production. Steam Injection is preferred. Lack of freshwater
• KOCCongo, Madagascar – smaller capacities needed, lack
of fresh water• Total, Eni
Egypt , Nigeria and Angola– Large bitumen onshore deposits. No plans to develop yet
• Total
North Sea – Offshore heavy oil. Grane (Norway)- not a market for Tarblaster
Russia – Current focus light oil. Major heavy oil projects expected in coming years (Tatarstan and Timon-Peshora basin)
Oil sands refining: Value Chain (Mining & in-situ)
8
1 Extraction Bitumen
API ~8
RefineryMining
Diluents
Dilbit / Synbit
API ~ 24
3 Bitumen RefineryIn-Situ
Diluents
Dilbit / Synbit
4Partial Upgrading
Bitumen RefineryIn-Situ SCO**
API ~25
2 Extraction SCO
API ~34
RefineryMining Upgrading
Full UpgradingBitumen RefineryIn-Situ5
ValueCreatedCost
Extraction(Mining)
Partial Upgrading
Full Upgrading(Mining and In-situ)
*SCO – Synthetic Crude oil; **SCO – partially upgraded
(Non – Integrated)
Integrated
(Non – Integrated)
Partial Upgrading
Full Upgrading
High Medium
Low
Tarblaster’s Market
2
4
5
4 and 5 is related to Ellycrack, not Tarblaster
Oil sands refining: Competing Technologies
9
Chattanooga group
ETX
HTL - Ivanhoe
Fluid Coking
Delayed Coking
Flexi Coking
Hydro-RetortingGHU - Genoil
Technology Maturity
Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration
Commercial
HYDROCRACKINGHydrogen Addition –Mature technology
Several projects are operational (e.g., Scotford -Shell)
Carbon Removal (Mature) – several
companies involved in technology development.
Several projects are operational (e.g. Syncrude, Suncor)
Deasphalting technology.
Utilized in Long Lake, Canada –
Opti Inc./ NEXEN
First projects are coming online
now
Fixed Bed H+
Ebulated bed H+
Fixed Bed H+
OrCrudeTM Process
Supercritical- KBR (ROSE)
TOTAL –IFP Catalytic Development
Uses propriety pyrolysis technique. Developed for Heartland upgrader
BA Energy
Membrane
Selective Separations
TARblaster technology
Most of these pro-cesses are related to Upgrading especially Ivanhoe
10
Oil sands refining: Summary
The demand for extraction and upgrading technology is uncertain in the current climate – most new projects
need crude-oil prices of around $80 a barrel to turn a profit
Near term growth for Tarblaster technology may not come from North America because most of these
projects are large and have already committed to infrastructure
Oil sand reserves in Madagascar, Congo and Egypt, where fresh water availability is a problem and projects
are expected to be small scale may offer niche growth opportunity
Tarblaster is ideally suited for smaller scale mining and in-situ operations because of its scalability, avoiding
infrastructure costs required in full upgrading (such as sulfur and nitrogen handling facilities) to produce a
higher value product
For large scale mining projects (> 150K bpd) the main competitors will be Coking and Hydrocracking that
offer a higher value product (higher API0). However, Tarblaster has advantages (lower GHG footprint, lower
requirement of energy, lower capital intensity and scalability). Cooking and Hydrocracking is related to
upgrading, not extraction
For small scale (10K-30K bpd) projects, Ivanhoe(HTLTM), ETX systems, BA energy, GHU & Chattanooga group
will be the main competition. Ivanhoe is the furthest up the commercialization curve and others are catching
up. These are not competitors and especially not Ivanhoe, this is related to Ellycrack’s technology.
2.Drill cuttings disposal (onshore and
offshore)
11
Drill cuttings disposal: Market Drivers
12
Drivers Examples
Stringent environmental / ecological regulations • Ecological dangers, land pollution• US EPA regulations on drilling waste discharge• OSPAR regulations in the EU
Economic Incentives • Cost of disposal is high (energy, maintenance, labour, equipment, transportation)
• Maximizing oil recovery from cuttings• Recycling drilling fluids
Operational issues • Process bottleneck: Weather uncertainty – waiting on weather and availability of ships to transport
• Skip footprint on expensive rigs
Need for Innovation • Portability of unit(s)
Health & Safety • Human health issues/chemical exposure
Drill cuttings disposal: Geography & Clients
13
• Azerbaijan – No standards for these have been set• China - Government encouraging the use of low toxicity
fluid• Denmark – Considered on a case-by-case basis• France – Under OSPAR 2002/3, cuttings contaminated
with synthetic fluids may only be discharged in exceptional circumstances. Expected that authorities will not grant any more discharge permits for the Northeast Atlantic or Mediterranean Sea
• Italy – Not considered under current regulations• Netherlands – Under OSPAR 2002/3 cuttings
contaminated with synthetic fluids may only be discharged in exceptional circumstances
• Norway – OSPAR decision 2002/3 permits Group III cuttings discharge only under exceptional circumstances. Applications for approval require testing according to OSPAR format
• Russia (Sakhalin Island) - Not yet discussed with regulators
• Spain - Under OSPAR 2002/3, cuttings contaminated with synthetic fluids may only be discharged in exceptional circumstances.
• United Kingdom – Although OSPAR 2002/3 decision permits Group III cuttings discharge only under exceptional circumstances, the UK government has made it clear that there will be no exceptional circumstances arising that would lead to discharge of SBM cuttings
• Canada – (2002 draft guidelines allow cuttings to be discharged if treated prior to discharge – provided that reinjection is not economically or technically feasible. Target oil on cuttings retention limit of 6.9% wet weight
• United States – Discharges not allowed. Alaska: Discharges allowed except for coastal Cook inlet, subject to restrictions.
• Brazil – Discharge approved on a case-by- case basis by IBAMA
• Trinidad - No specific restrictions against offshore discharge and has historically been allowed.
• Angola – Cuttings discharge allowed• Bahrain – Not addressed• Congo – No specific requirements• Equatorial Guinea – Discharge allowed• Gabon – No specific requirements• Iran – Not addressed• Kuwait – Not addressed• Malaysia – Discharge allowed• Nigeria - Cuttings limited to 5% drilling fluid or
less for discharge (except for esters)• Oman – Not addressed• Qatar – Not addressed• Saudi Arabia – Not addressed• Thailand – No specific restrictions• UAE – Not addressed• Vietnam – No stipulations
• Australia – Cuttings discharge assessed on case-by-case basis
Oil companies under pressure to conform to regulatory requirements , such as in Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and Australia. Opportunity for new technologies to facilitate achieving regulatory requirements
Oil companies under pressure to conform to regulatory requirements , such as in Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and Australia. Opportunity for new technologies to facilitate achieving regulatory requirements
Drill cuttings disposal: Value Chain
14
Untreated Landfill
Treated Landfill
Onshore Landfarm
OnshoreInjection
IncinerationTreatment
Cost(incremental cost / well)
Onshore ThermalTreatment
OffshoreInjection
OffshoreThermal Treatment
Drillcuttings
Value Created
Cost Parameter Value Units
Thermal Treatment (UK) 251 $/t
Incineration Treatment (UK) 111 $/t
Landfarm (UK) 37 $/t
Untreated Landfill (UK) 74 $/t
Treated Landfill (UK, Norway , USA ) 208 $/t
Onshore Injection ( UK, USA) 130 $/t
*WBM- water based mud; OBM / SBM – Oil / Synthetic based mud
*Gulf of Mexico
Drill cuttings disposal: Competing Technologies
15
Technology Maturity
Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration
Commercial
Onshore Disposal Methods
•Landfills, Landfarm, Injection, Thermal treatment
Offshore Injection
Offshore Thermal treatment (TWMA –
Rotomill method)
Microwave technology(Global Resources
Corporation)
TARblaster technology
MI Swaco Thermal treatment
technology
Rotomill is my invention which I sold to Swedish investor in 1995.
16
Drill cutting disposal: Summary
The demand to meet the energy Industry’s increasing need to comply with strict environmental
regulations will drive the growth in this sector. Both North Sea and Gulf of Mexico are strictly
monitored for ecological and environmental footprint and may be the near term market for
Tarblaster
Offshore and onshore treatment of drill cuttings and offshore re-injection are suited for
Tarblaster’s technology. We do not know at present if Tarblaster can be used offshore.
Offshore treatment of drill cuttings offers excellent opportunity for growth. TWMA –Rotomill as
the only company that processes drill cuttings offshore and will be the main competition. It has
recently won major contracts from Shell & BP worth £ 10 Million
Tarblaster is ideally suited for onshore treatment of drill cuttings, where its low energy
requirement, portability and no ground water usage will be advantageous. However, there are
many companies working in this space
Offshore re-injection may also offer an opportunity for Tarblaster, where drill cuttings need to
have <1% oil content before injection. Is this correct? If they need to clean to less than 1 w%,
then they could dispose of the cuttings without re-injection.
3.Algae refining
17
Algae refining: Market Drivers
18
Drivers Examples
Political • EU has biofuel target of 5.75% (2010); 10% (2020)• America, energy mandate for renewable; 25% (2025).
Growing interest by end users • Big push by automotive industry to use clean technology
• Pratt & Whitney, Air France-KLM, Airbus, Boeing interested in Jet fuel from Algae (investing heavily)
Oil company diversification Chevron & Shell investing actively in algae refining technologies
Non competition with food • Higher yield for acetate compared with traditional biofuel feedstocks (corn, soyabean, oil palm)
• Algae can be grown on marginal land• Doesn’t compete with food crops
First mover advantage • Algae production is still a challenge• Industry offers excellent advantage to partner with
Algae production companies
Utilize large waste CO2 resources Coal fired plants – Algae consumes CO2 producing O2.
Explosion ion biotechnology Advances in metabolic engineering and systems biology
USA• Chevron –NREL alliance
(algal oil to transportation fuel)
• Shell – Pilot facility under construction in Hawaii
• ConocoPhillips - $5 million in research
• Boeing: algae expected to be primary feedstock for aviation biofuels within 10-15 years.
• Other players: Livefuels, Petrosun, Solix, Greenfuel Tech, Petroalgae, Valcent)
Algae refining: Geography and clients
19
New Zealand• Aquaflow Bio
Netherlands• Air France-KLM: agreement
with Algae-Link to procure algae oil to be blended with conventional jet fuel. Algae-Link
UK• SeagreenFrance• Shamask • FermentalgGermany• NovagreenSpain• Biofuel SystemsItaly• ENI - for GHG Abatement
IsraelSeambiotic
Canada• Pratt &Whitney:
Investigating biofuels from algae
Algae refining: Value Chain
20
PhotobioreactorRefineAlgae
Biomass
Open Ponds
Extraction Algae Oil
Harvest
Algal paste
Biocrude after Pyrolysis
Algal oil and dilapidated algalcake
Algal oil and Ethanol
Biodiesel and jet Fuel
Algae Oil & Animal Feed and Ethanol Solid Fuel
NutrientsSunlight
CO2
1 Metric Ton *
* Calculation based on 1 metric Ton of CO2
~540 kg
Dry equivalent
(20% oil)
~54 kg oil
~$20 /bbl is expected with a production of 150K gallons of biomass / year
200 kg ground water
61 kg Nitrogen
Algae refining: Competing Technologies
21
Technology Maturity
Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration
Commercial
Aurora Biofuels (USA)•Algae to biodiesel
Petrosun (U.S.)
Produce:•4.4 million gallons of Algae oil•11 million pounds of biomass
Enhanced Biotechs and Technologies (UK)•CO2 Abatement
Infinifuel Biodiesel (USA)•Algae to Biodielsel
Solix Biofuels ( USA)•Algae to biodiesel
Algaelink (Netherland)
•Algae to Jet Fuel
PetroAlgae(USA)•Algae to transportation fuel and heating oil
Origin Oil (USA)•Algae to fuel
HR BioPetroleum (USA) •Shell JV•Algae to Ethanol and solid fuel
GreenShift (USA)
•Algae to fuel
Sapphire Energy (USA)
•Algae to gasoline
TARblaster technology
22
Algae Refining: Summary
Research to produce oil from algae – potential to yield 30 times more energy per acre than
crops such as soyabean – to produce diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and solvents is actively being
pursued
Near term growth for Tarblaster technology may come from North America, where most R&D
into producing algae strains for oil is focussed at the moment
Currently the industry is focussing on growing suitable strains of algae, maximizing algae
yield whilst minimizing production costs and not focussing so much on the conversion to oil
It is hard to predict the suitability of Tarblaster technology for this segment as there is lack of
data for the peer group. Although there is uncertainty, Tarblaster’s growth strategy could
focus on forging strong partnerships with algae producers
Some companies have started to develop technologies for extraction of oil from algae, such
as OriginOil, PetroSun Inc., Greenstar Products Inc. However, most of these companies are
in early-development stage and years away from generating revenues
4.Oil shale refining
23
Oil Shale refining: Market Drivers
24
Drivers Examples
Declining conventional production and increasing demand
• ~2.8 trillion bbl of Oil shale resources• Successful exploitation will result in 400 years of
additional oil at current consumption
Government funding • Government funding for leasing and technology R&D
Water Intensive • Current technologies have huge water demands• Present technologies unable to prevent leaching and
protect ground water
GHG Emissions • Extracting hydrocarbons from oil shale produces carbon dioxide, which must be captured, used, or stored
Energy Intensive • Most technologies require using so much energy to extract the oil that the amount of energy expended is greater than the energy produced
Poor recovery • Existing technology can convert 15% shale into oil• 40% of the energy recovered is consumed in the process• Approximately 6% of shale is converted at the end of the
process
Oil Shale refining: Geography and clients
25
USA• Largest reserves• Pilot plants only• Chevron; ExxonMobil,
Anadarko, Shell,• Syntec Inc, Natural Soda Inc,
millennium synthetic fuels Australia• Pilot plants only• Queensland Energy Resources Ltd
Brazil• 1 Operational plant –
Petrobras
China• China projected
to be the largest producer
• 1 Operational Plant -Fushun Mining Group
Russia• Keen to develop
shale• One plant in
collaboration with Estonia (currently in standby)
Estonia• Active shale industry• 95% electric power from
shale• 3 operational plants• Companies: Eesti Energia,
VKG Oil, Keviali
Canada• Looking into
developing
Africa• No plans yet
USA: 620 BbblBrazil: 300Russia: 40Congo: 40Australia: 15Canada: 15Europe: 15China: 10Rest 5
Only 5 operational plants in the world:Estonia – 3 Eesti Energia, VKG Oil and KevialiChina – FushunBrazil – Petrobras
Oil shale refining: Value Chain
26
Mining and crushing
RefinerySurfaceMining
Surfaceretorting
facility
Mining (under ground)Underground
mining
Shale Fragments (Kerogen)
Synthetic crude oil[$43/bbl]
Shale
oil
Upgrading
[$52/bbl] Refinery
Surfaceretorting
facility
Kerogen Synthetic crude oil
Shale
oilUpgrading
Pre refining costs*
MiningModified insitu
[$57/bbl]In situ
retortingKerogen
In-situTrue insitu[$25/bbl] upgradingShale oil RefinerySynthetic
crude oil
* Estimates, US Department of Energy (2004)
1
2
3
4
RefinerySynthetic crude oil
Shale
oilUpgrading
ValueCreatedCost
Mining
OrePreparation
Retorting
Upgrading
Mining ValueCreatedCost
In-Situ
Steam Generation
Upgrading
In-situ
Oil shale refining: Competitors (Retorting Technologies)
27
Technology Maturity
Basic Research Testing Pilot Plant andDemonstration
Commercial
Modified In-Situ
True In-Situ
EGL Process (USA)
Fuel Cell Process (USA)
IGE Process (USA)
ExxonMobil Electrofac Process (USA)
Chevron CRUSH Process (USA)
Shell ICP Process (USA)
Internal Combustion
Paraho Process (USA, AUS)
Conduction Through Wall (In-
situ)
OilTech Process (USA)
Fushun Process (CHINA)
Kiviter Process (ESTONIA)
Externally Generated Hot Gas (mined)
Hot Recycled Solids (mined)
Petrosix Process (Brazil)
Galoter Process (Estonia)
TARblaster technology
Microwave technology
Global Resource Corporation (USA)
28
Oil shale refining: Summary
Oil shale is a very large resource of energy. However, Oil shale lacks the lower boiling-range
hydrocarbons that make up natural gasoline, and the heavier hydrocarbons that refineries
crack to make gasoline. It does yield hydrocarbons in the middle-distillate fuels boiling range
— naphtha, kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel
Inspite of this vast resource there are only 5 operational plants in the world (Estonia, Brazil
and China). The high recovery cost (Mining process can cost ~ $70 to $80 / bbl) is holding the
industry back. Is this reallly the case? I would think that it is a bit higher than oil sand mining.
The true in-situ –Shell‘s ICP process (Mahogany Project) –is still in early-development stage
Department of Energy, USA predicts commercial production of oil from shale in 2030
Existing methods are limited by high energy requirements and very low oil yield . Do you
have any numbers? If the Tarblaster process can transform the kerogens to soluble oil and
upgrade it in one operation then it will be a disruptive technology.
Global Resource Corporations (Microwave technology) has reported pilot oil yields of around
70% compared with 15% from existing technologies and will present significant challenge to
Tarblaster. What about the energy consumption with micro waves?
5.Land Reclamation
29
Land Reclamation: Market Drivers
30
Drivers Examples
Political • Legal frame work, legislation and regulations for Contaminated Land Remediation (CLR):
• N. America, W. Europe - in place• Asia, Africa, E. Europe. S. America – limited
• Health concerns and risks
Economical • Real estate requirements• Landfill tax exemption policies• Losses caused by contamination• Fines imposed by authorities
Environmental • Cross contamination• Consequential crop yield degradation• Secondary land erosion
Implementation barriers • Progress hampered by ambiguous legislation/regulations• Uncertainty over waste status (waste definition)
Land Reclamation: Potential Market
31
Soil Contamination Common Causes Contaminants
Rupture of underground storage tanks Fuels, Solvents
Application of pesticides Pesticides
Percolation of contaminated surface water to subsurface strata
Effluents, heavy metals pesticides
Land farming Drill cuttings, effluents
Leaching of waste from landfills Waste water
Direct discharge of industrial waste Textile waste
Mining waste and slurry dams Oil spillage (blowout), drilling fluid, coal-tar
Established Markets
Potential Markets
Future Markets
Land Reclamation: Geography
32
UKTI strategy outlook (08/09):
CHINA• Considered most serious
contamination situation.• Little or no legislation in
place.• Over 123,000 km2 or one-
tenth of cultivatable land contaminated
• Estimated annual grain loss (heavy metals): US$ 2.6 bn
USA• Leader in remediation
execution.• Full legislation and
regulations in place.• Over 200,000
Contaminated Land Remediation (CLR) sites identified
BRAZIL• Little legislation in place.• Over 15,000 CLR sites
identified• Companies (local and
foreign) looking for new solutions to comply with local legislation
UK• Full legislation and
regulations in place.• Estimated market
size (2007) £1 bn• Over 228
companies actively involved in land remediation industry
CANADA• All mining companies must remediate land after
activities in Alberta• As of 2005: 42,000 hectares of land disturbed by oil
sands mining, $356 million held by Alberta Gov. as security to ensure reclamation obligations met.
Land Reclamation: Value Chain
33
Excavation (dig and dump)
Ex-situIn-situ
Bioremediation
Vapour extraction system (excavated
soil bank)
Thermal desorption plant (rotary kiln)
Soil washing
Contaminated site
Cover and barrier
Bioremediation
Vapour extraction system (sparging
and slurping)
Electrical resistance heating
Chemical oxidation (introduce reactive
materials)
Contaminated site
Cost Value Cost Value
Land Reclamation: Competing Technologies
34
Technology Maturity
Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration
Commercial
Ex-situ dig and dump
•High degree of confidence•Very rapid but expensive
Bioremediation•Used for: Petroleum Hydrocarbons and coal tar contaminated sites
Vapour extraction•Atmospheric losses a concern.•Used for petroleum hydrocarbon contaminations
Thermal desorption
•Very effective• Remediated soil needs further processing
Soil washing•High degree of confidence•Post treatment required
Cover and barrier
•Expensive •Requires long term monitoring
Bioremediation•Minimal site disturbance•Used for: Petroleum Hydrocarbons and coal tar contaminated sites
Vapour extraction
•Well proven•Used for: volatile hydrocarbons, soil gas, ground water
Chemical oxidation
•Treatment of organic contaminants.
Electrical resistance
heating•Rapid but with high power requirements
TARblaster technology
Ex-situIn-situ
35
Land Reclamation: Summary
European and US industries undergoing sustained development in (CLR) technology
advances, legislation implementation and reclamation execution
Potential near-future market foreseen in developing countries which is driven by: growing
awareness of the relative contamination scale, development of legal frame works,
consequential health effects and indirect losses attributed to contamination
Numerous reclamation technologies exist which are well understood and have been
implemented at a commercial level for a large period of time
Technology selection for CLR is heavily influenced by reclamation costs versus project time
requirements
Summary
36
High
Low
High
Ease of segment entrySegment is dynamic and open to new
entrants
Low
Co
mp
etit
ive
stre
ng
th o
f T
arb
last
erD
isti
nct
iven
ess
Attractiveness of industry segment
Early opportunities for Tarblaster
In-situ partial upgrading of oil sands
Small scale (~30K bpd) oil sands mining projects
Example Congo, Egypt)
Onshore treatment of drill cuttings (compared with
thermal, incineration treatment technologies)
Land reclamation for mining projects such as tar
sands projects
Land reclamation for
onshore oil spillage
References
To be added later
37
Supporting slides
38
Oil sands refining: Competitor Analysis
39
Tarblaster
Coking
Hydrocracking
HTLTM - Ivanhoe
ETX Systems
OrCrude(Opti / Nexen)
BA Energy
CompetingTechnology
Scalability GHG*
EmissionsProcess
API value Capital
Cost Energy
Efficiency
GHU (Genoil)
Feed conversion rate
* Based on point source emissions only not lifecycle
Best
Medium
Worst Most of these are not competitors to Tarblaster, but to Ellycrack