EXl:.

CUTIVE SUMMARY

SASOL, operated commercially 1n South Airica, represents the state-of-the-art in Fischer-Tropsch technology. The SASOL process employs dry ~sh Lurgi gasifiers and fast fluid bed Synthol Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reacto~s. SASOL technology has a number of limitations which adversely affect process E'fficiency and product cost. Potential improvements in SASOL technology were highlighted in prior MITRE reports. based on the use of advanced gasifiers and an advanced slurry phase Fischer-'£ropsch configuration (Koelbel).

Mobil Oil has investigated a modified slurry phas~ FischerTropsch concept in a'continuous bench-scale unit with DOE support. '!he ~bil two stage Fischer-Tropsch proceas incorporates a slurryphase Fischer-Tropsch unit closely coupled to a flxed bed zeolite (ZSM-5) reactor. This was desi~ed to exploit the capabilities of ZSM-5 to isomerize, alkylate, and aromatize the raw Fisch~r-Tropach distillat~ an~ eliminate oxygenated compounds by conversion to hydrocarbons. The objective was to produce finished high-octane gasoline wi th minimal additional downs tream refining.

DOE requested that MI'lRE carry out 811. assessment of the ~obil two stage Fischer-lrcpsch program. This would include a review of bench scale studies to da te. The original slurry phaae Fisc.herTropsch de"elopment by Koelbel in Germany claimed lot." methane-ethane production, high selectivity to gasoline bOilIng-range hydrocarbons, and negligible wax make. Subsequently, a number of investigators

~e.L~Gce 1, Section 1.0.

xiii

have attempted to duplicate Koelbel's original results without complete success. Mobil, as part of their study, re exama ned this question.

Fischer-Tropsch catalysts were produced by Mobil. These are proprietary, preCipitated-iron catalysts pro~oted with copper al~ potassium.* The slurrY-phase Fischer-Tropsch unit was closely coupled to a fixed bed ZSl-f-5 uni t to produce a high oc tane gasoli ne ,

Mobil completed five .bench scale runs whIch ranged in duration from 13 to 86 days on-stream. Three Flscher-Tropsch catalysts were evaluated. The key process variables were explored • These include. in addition to catalyst compo sd tt orr, pressure, temperatu4"e, superficial gas velocity, gas space velocity. and catalyst loading. Stable operation over ext end sd pe':iods was demonat r at e,t , with high conversion of synthesis gas.

The product distribution claimed in the slurry-phase Koelbe1 pilot plant. i.e., very low methane and ethane production with low wax make, was not duplicated. Two wodes of operation were demonstrated with runs of re;asonable duration and steady-state operdtion. A low wax case produced C1 and C2 yields of 12 percent. C3/C4 yields of 32 percent. gasoline yields of 48 percent, and

wax yields of 8 percent. A high wax caRe ~3S also demonstrated. result i ' in a product analyzing 6.8-peccent C1-C2, C/C4

yiel~' 9 percent, gasoline yields of 40 percent, and 4: ~ercent

'.fax. l!tilization of wax re qut red hyd roc rac kt ng to diesel. fuel. It

*See cp.ierence Section .!.. Referer.:e 4, K(l",lbel and Ralek. xiv

is estimated that the resulting gasoline-diesel fuel product containe~ 37 percent diesel. This provides additional ma~ketlng flexibility.

Following the detailed assessment of the bench-scale runs, MITRE carried out economic analyses of commercial-size plants, using the experimental test run data from the Mobil two-stage SFT/ZSM-5 benchscale unit. These data were scaled to provide a conceptuAl de~~gn for commercial-size plants with ~ total coal input of 27,800 tons of as-received Wyoming coal per day. These commercial plants utilized the British Gas Corporation Slagging Lurgi (BGC) gasifier for the production of synthesis gas. Predicted thermal efficiency, product slate, capital cost, operating cost, annual revenue requirement, and unit product cost of such commercial facilities are compar~d to the corresponding figures for the reference cases.

Six cases are examined in this report. Three of these cases involve various versions of Mobil's two stage SFT/ZSM-5 process. The other three cases ar .. provided for comparison purposes and LncIude a SASOL-like or -SASOL(U.S.) case which u se s a dry ash Lurg! ga s t f Le r and Synthol synthesis units, a BGC/Synthol case, and a slurry-phase Fischl:.r-Tropsch case identified as the BGCIKoelbel case. The latter

t hree Tt:.ferencl~ cases have already been examined in MITRE's report MTR-80W326. The thte€o cases all include refining of raw FischerTropsch gasoline to market grade, high octane gasoline and alkylation of C3-C4 olefins to additional gasoline. Marketable diesel fueL

and fuel oil are produced. To maintain a Common basis of comparison, the cost data for all these cases are adjusted to 1983 dollar

xv

value and their theI"llal output is calculated on the ~ower heatillS value basis.

The three versions of the Mobil conceptual two Btage SFT/ZSM-5 design ezaadned in this report include a Mobil low wax case, a KlTRE version of the Mobil low wax case, and a MITRE conceptual design of a Mobil high wax case.

In the Mobil low wax case, the zeolite reactor produces high

octane gasoline supple.anted by additional alkylatioD of C)-C4 olefine. The aull quantity of wal: is marketed. In the MITRE version, a more cODservative process efficiency was obtained and a product diatribution, aore consistent with the beilch-acale data, was utilized. In the high vax caae, hydrocracking of wax to a."I:~ diesel fuel aske was iccluded. Hydror.rackins product distribution was baaed on publiohed data by Dry of SASOL.

lbl! results of the econoatc analyses are sWIIW!'ized in Tables 1 and 2. The product cost is based on 100 percent equity fi~ncing with a DCF of 12 percent. Plant and product output in terms of amounts and thermal efficiency are highlighted. In these tables, each case is evaluated for two modes of operation: the 1D~.xed output mode (Table 1), in which both SMG and liquid fuels a~e produced, and the all-liquid output mode (Table 2), where the SNG is reform~d back to synthesis gas and recycled to the F-T reactor.

In addition, the unit product cost is expressed in Tables 1 and 2 on two bases: lhe thermal b&s1a and the market basis. In the thermal basis, all products are assuaed to haYe eqwll thermal unit value. On xvi

.. •

~ Cl)N .. ""' .... W""I,...O"'"'

..... ....,N,...,V"I ~.

""" ..... r... N _0

. . .

"'N ...

~ .-4"" ..... ..., ..... '" g.,g 00.-4". ....N

..... ,...,.... eo.. -0 ..

...

~ ON ...... .... 0

.:

CID,....~~c:> "N...,""1O ,... .. Il10...... N

.... N

0 .... "' .,..

...... ,..,0 ....

CPI .. O .. tD N .......

...

0"'''' . .,..".,

~~

... .0 ... ...

~ .....

~~

g::::::;:

... ...

... '" ......

.......

... .., ......

0 ... .0 ..... .., ......

~t-.. •

....... ......

i:::

......... ... ..,..,

"' .. ........

~~ ~~

......

...... r .....

u .. .. .... U .... ...

::l

...

... - .......

!3

"' .... ..

... .... .. :1_

.... 3 ....

... 0:>-

:I .. OJ o ... c

.... ...... ,. ...

a ...... u

.... i se

.. "' ...

JO '"

... ..

c..... _ ... s

~ c; c

c • II

: ~f..

i

II .z:;

'"'

'0

c

•

... :I

...

6

~vii

.; .... ..0""

==~. ~.~

... ... ....

8 I I "' •

N

... _., ..... '" ~e "'«1 ~NII"IN

"' ..... '"

:

I I'"

N

:;~i,

. , c.., ..,

...

~~C!::::~8~

.......... Nf""'la-. •• .... .. .. I

""'..-I ... N

...

,..,

,..;O ..... oet .... t-IfS'l ..... CCC..,.CNC"'!I .... "'..~ .... ~"OCl) ..

~ ..... N ...t

.. ...

!

VI

.. " :I

-e e .. ..

;;;

... .... ...

... ... .., -II

... ....

- ...

...

... ...

... ...

...

"" .... ...

,.. ...

on ...

....i N

il ~I

u

"

'E

.. ....

- :I

... i ..

" ""''' ..

0 ....

....... " ",-I > 00 ..... .... 10 " ...........

..... •• II .... " c .......

..... .. .. 0

.. "

o: ... t!

e.:

.. ..

f..:

I~ .

.....

:I~

'i' ... ... =

.......

J1

... 0 .. .. :.J ... 0 ...... ,:<: .. .,. ....

• I ... "

]"0

....

e.~

...,

."

" "

..

.z:;

!:1 a~

.. .... .. " ... c

...

.. ..

· .. . ..

10::

.. " ... ..

.. ..

.3 ....

e

8", ~~ j-=

o .......

".0 ... ..;

.. ec · .. ......

co ...

.. " S> ...

! ~

u-

• • •

If

~CII'."'fliV"\NO.

~~;:,..'-! =~

... .., ...

N ...... ,.,.G\1f\

il.S.i"'~

... ..,

~=:~~~

•• ~ ..... N .....

- 0"

......

I ~-:

...

~2S:

....

S!

.. ... ", . .,;

.... ...

ii:

';.",;

....... ......

...... ... ...

e ...... ....... .......

..

0"

c: ~ .

..... ......

0 .....

g~'"

l"'- ,; "' ... .t> ..,

...... .......

00 .... oe ... 0.0.

:!!:':

0-

NN

........

... ...

I '''',

..,

.....:!

~: ... ,

"' .... ...

~1II~8'U

.,..,... .. r\ f'to. .. "". "".. I ''''''I, '11"'1 ...... ...

~~;:l~~;e

0 .... '" 0'" t:) til; "1; tI"!".,-4 •• _N

... N

"t

...

... • o

u

.... ...,

,,;

...

.... .... ...

.... ...

c

'" ....

., .... "'0 ... ..

....

.8

..

!

...

0,""

...... ,~" I •

...

1

•

.. "

..

.5

.. C

• ...

..

xv t I I

"

i

..

- "

... ~ .... ... ..... .......

...

. . .. .. ....

~.i

...

.. ..

e.::

" ... .c ..

'"' r

..

!

... ..

II

:,

... a

.:.

f

•

~

...

...... "" ....

::;.~:o ... ~

N'"

... ... ~

"" .....

...

•

..

8f

.. c • ...

..

~

-

]

.... ...

oS

•

the market basis. however, all pr~(I.ucts other than gasoline ar€ priced according to their relative thermal gasoline ~quivalent indicated in Table 3.

The thermal efficiency improvement over the conventional dry ash Lurgi/Synthol system (SASOL U.S.) in both versions is apparent. In the mixed output cases, over 40 percent of the output energy 1s SNG. The improvement 1n gaso11ne output and gasoline plus diesel fuel output over SASOL(U.S.) and BGC/Synthol is ap~.rent in both mixed and all-liquid versions.

Product costs for the various CaHe8 highlight the improvemont

'made possible by the Mobil two stage results. When· the BeC/Mobi:' in the low and high waz versions 1s compared to SASOL(U.S.) a 27 to 30 percent reduction in product cost is ubserved in the mixed .,utp~·t mode. A reduct aon of 13 percent in product coe t is calculated when compared to the reference BGC/Syuthol configuration in the mlx~d output mode. Comparing product coata in theall-liquid output cases, BGC Mobil showe a reduction of 26 to 27 percent compared to SASOL(U.S.) and 13 percent over BGC/Synthol.

The conceptual commercial plant, using Mobil experimental date, from the high-wax mode. approaches the Koelbel product cost resultt, within 6 percent. The C08t of gasoline ft-om the high wax Mobil plant configoration i8 shown in Table 2 to be slightly lower than from the low wax plant configuration. This cost of gasoline from the high wax plant is sensitive to the relative value of diesel and gasoline which

xi;,:

'tABLE 3

GASOLINE E<JJIVALENT FAC'IOR*

Product

Barrels of Gasoline Value EQuivalent

Btu Fquilvalent

SNG (MHSCF)

96.5 1.0

.5 1.0

basoline

0.758 0.861 0.95

1.0 1.0 .89

Hea V'f FUel 011

0.57

.50

Alcollol

0.73

LO

Wax

0.62

.50

*In order to calculate product costs, the volumes of each fuel ar~ adjusted based 011 their value versus gasoline t ueing fa::tors li9ted in Column 1. The SNG conversion is based on KMSC~. The total number of adjusted barrels of all fuels 1n gallons is divided into the requ,lred revenue to calculate dollars/gallon of equivalent gasoline in Tables 1 and 2 for the Dlat"ket basis values"

xx

i8 assumed. The data presented in Table 2 for the market basis cost analysis assume that dieSfo<l is valued at 95 percent of the;ralue of gasoline on a cost-per-b3rrel baais. Any esr.alat~ou of the cost of diesel relative te gasollne wl1l preferentially reduce the gasoline cost from the high-waz Mobil configura.tien. If diesel and gasoHne ure assumed to be equivalent on a S/Btu basis, the computed cost of gasoline froll the Mobl1 high wax piant would be $1.64/gal10n-oliglitly lower than the cost of gasoline from the BGC/JCoe1bel reference plant. Pricing diesel and gasoline at equivalent values on a Btu basis is consistent with future pricing projections. This 18 particularly true for the high eetane dip.8~1 produced from hydrocracking of wax.

In the high wax BGe-Mobil case, the product distribution from the Fischer-Tropsch'eollte two stage uni1: u9':!d l!i. this study was calcu16ted by eJCtrapolation of experImental data. The reaults were cO'1firmed tu a later experimental run of limited dllratl':m. Hydrocracklng of the wax in the overall refining process with its h:f.gh selectivity to d:lese' :htt!l (80%) and gasoline (15%) waS not demonstrated to date by Mobil on the actual wax fraction but predicated on published r1llta by M. Dry for an Arge wax pr-oduced at SASOL. This a~pect must be cQnfirmed experimentally. Inherent in the process analyses contained ia Lhls report are the following addit10nal aa8ump~lons fOT the BGe/Hobil two stag~ precess:

xxi

:..I

J I :1

,.-\

•

Sustainable single-pass conversion of synthesis gas of 85 percent

•

Recycle of FiAchcr-Tropsch catalyst from a wax Beparat~r system with acceptable activity

• Catalyst removal from product wax to a level acceptable for fixed bad hydrocracl.ing

Exper'imental verH'ication of the above itelDb is required in addition to the scaleup of the slurry phaae F1acher-Tr~p8ch reactor

with the projected throughput and conversion.

In any analysia of relative product costs arising from a

comparison of SASOL with advanced gasifier-synthesis.' we must

remember that the sele<.tiol\ of the gasifier ia impot'tant. II an

all-liquid product slat~ is desired, it ia very important to

minimia;e the fOI'lBl!tion of methane in the gasification process. In

the all-liquid mode, the use of a Shell gasifier in place of the BGC

61agging wrgi would result in all-liquid product cost reduct:fons of

about 10 percent over those shown for both lhe Mobil two stage and

the a;C-Xoelbel plant •

. ,

xxi:!.