OTC-26473-MS

Comparative Study of Gas to Liquids GTL Technology for Monetising

Marginal Reserves and Wasted Flared Gas
Manu Menon, Scomi Group Malaysia

Copyright 2016, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–25 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper provides a comparative study between gas to liquids (GTL) technologies that are targeted at
capturing stranded and associated gas. As a result, it should act as a preliminary guide to oil and gas
operators who intend to gain an overview of available miniaturised technologies. Subsequently, this would
assist operators with decision making regarding potential monetization of stranded and associated gas
available in their oilfields. The miniaturised GTL technologies will be compared by collating data
published from the companies’ website, online publications and journals as well as correspondence
between the author and company representatives. The paper examines intrinsic differences between the
fundamental chemistry between technologies used to produce synthesis gas in terms of steam methane
reforming, autothermal reforming and partial oxidation. Figures shall be used to compare the maturity and
commercial readiness of technologies provided by GTL companies. Maturity and commercial readiness
will be based on the availability of a pilot plant showcase and activity of the companies in presenting their
technology at oil and gas conferences. In addition, the status of the respective companies and their current
affiliates will be described. In summary, this paper provides a list of players in the GTL atmosphere who
are actively seeking to innovate the GTL process to make it feasible to handle stranded and associated gas;
i.e. monetizing small volumes of gas that would otherwise be overlooked or flared.

Introduction to GTL
The gas to liquid (GTL) process was developed in the early 1900’s and has experienced global success
with facilities being constructed in various countries such as Malaysia, South Africa and Qatar [6]. These
GTL facilities are constructed to capture and monetize large volumes of natural gas present in the
respective regions. Large scale GTL plants are capable of producing up to 140,000 barrels per day (bpd)
of synthetic liquid hydrocarbons. As such, these GTL plants are highly capital intensive. For instance,
Shell’s Pearl GTL facility in Ras Laffan, Qatar cost the company approximately USD18-19 billion and
utilizes large volumes of natural gas feedstock; up to 1.6 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) [8]. As new
discoveries of large green fields are becoming increasingly scarce, there is a shift towards monetizing
smaller volumes of natural gas present in marginal fields and brownfields. It is in these types of fields
where smaller scale or miniaturized GTL technology are becoming an increasingly viable option.
2 OTC-26473-MS

Proven natural gas reserves globally stand at approximately 187.1 trillion cubic meters (tcm) [1].
Associated gas is currently being flared on platforms and stranded gas is often deemed unfeasible for
monetization due to limitations in terms of cost and availability of technologies to capture this valuable
resource. There is a significant monetary gain if flared gas is captured and monetized as the total flared
natural gas amounts to approximately 5 Tcf globally [2].
Besides financial gain, there is a global movement towards zero flaring for oil fields. The initiative is
from both local governments and private sectors that aim to capture associated gas which is currently burnt
off as there are no other viable options to monetize this hydrocarbon resource [6]. This movement is aided
by the World Bank and its Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) authority which provides flaring data
and supports oil companies find the best possible method of managing their flares. Table 1 shows the
countries, oil companies and organizations that are actively involved with GGFR in flaring reduction [5].
This is indicative of the vested interest of various entities committed to address the issue of their flaring
operations.

Table 1—List of Countries, Operators and Organization Participating in GGFR Partnership[5]

Countries Oil companies Organizations

Algeria BP (UK) European Bank for

Angola Chevron (USA) Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
Azerbaijan ConoccoPhillips
Cameroon
Canada Eni (Italy) European Union
European Union ExxonMobil (USA)
France Kuwait Oil Co (Kuwait) World Bank
Gabon Marathon Oil
Indonesia Maersk Oil & Gas
Iraq NNPC (Nigeria)
Kazakhstan Pemex (Mexico)
Khanty-Mansiysk Pertamina (Indonesia)
(Russian Federation) PetroEcuador (Ecuador)
Kuwait
Mexico Shell (UK-The Netherlands)
Nigeria Sonatrach (Algeria)
Norway Sonangol (Angola)
Republic of Congo
Qatar SOCAR (Azerbaijan)
United States SNH (Cameroon)
Uzbekistan Statoil (Norway)
TOTAL (France)
Qatar Petroleum (Qatar)

The parties listed in Table 1 are continually looking at ways to reduce their flaring operations. This is
where technologies such as gas to liquids come into play. Figure 1 shows the available technologies
capable of capturing and monetizing associated and stranded gas.
OTC-26473-MS 3

[3]
Figure 1—Available Technologies for Capturing Associated and Stranded Gas

For the purpose of capturing associated gas, there are numerous technologies available. Based on
Figure 1, the volume of gas handled and its distance to market play a key role in determining technology
selection. Available methods such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG)
require physical change of state for natural gas which in turn requires specialty handling and storage
equipment. LNG requires extensive dehydration for the removal of water to sub-ppm level, which makes
the gas acceptable for the downstream cryogenic unit or for export requirements [6]. The required
infrastructure and highly specialized equipment making it capital intensive to implement especially on a
smaller scale. As a result, Figure 1 indicates that GTL technology is ideal for monetizing low volumes of
gas for transportation over large distances.
Moreover, the need for smaller scale versions of GTL plants have arisen due to the following factors:
i. The disparity between natural gas and crude oil prices[6]
ii. Demand for cleaner fuels in some regions such as North America. Diesel produced from synthetic
crude oil have low sulfur content and high cetane number providing a cleaner burn with less CO2
emissions. [6]
iii. Growing natural gas reserve estimates. A large part of the reserves are located more than 5,000 km
from centers of consumption are not able to utilize traditional transport technologies. Gas is more
abundant than oil. Additionally, prices in most locations are lower than oil. For example, the shale
gas revolution in North America indicates low-cost natural gas feedstock for the foreseeable
future. [6]
iv. Infrastructure for the transport and distribution of liquid fuels is already in place and can be used
to market GTL products. [6]

Overview of the GTL Process

In general, the GTL process occurs in two distinct stages; i.e the production of synthesis gas (syngas)
followed by the generation of GTL products via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) reaction [7]. The first stage
produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas while the second stage can be adjusted to generate synthetic
crude oil which a mixture of diesel, naphtha, wax, lube oils and other products. Figure 2 shows the overall
GTL process. It is a two stage process which involves synthesis gas production followed by the F-T
reaction. The feedstock for the process is natural gas and its output is synthetic crude oil.
4 OTC-26473-MS

Figure 2—GTL Process Producing Synthetic Crude Oil

Syngas Production – The first step in GTL Technology

The gas to liquids technology begins with the production of synthesis gas or better known in the industry
as ⬙syngas⬙. Syngas is the feedstock to the Fischer-Tropsch reactor which subsequently produces synthetic
crude oil or ⬙syncrude⬙. There are 3 main reactions by which syngas may be produced; i.e Steam Methane
Reforming (SMR), Autothermal Reforming (ATR) and Partial Oxidation (POX) [4]. This stage of the
reaction is often determined to be the most costly and should therefore be given attention to any potential
adopter of GTL technology. The syngas step can sometimes account for up to 60% of the capital cost [54].
The final cost, however, is site-specific and depends on available infrastructure and local manufacturing
industry, and construction costs. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of cost for a typical GTL facility.

[6]
Figure 3—Typical Cost Breakdown for GTL facility

The following section of the paper describes the various technologies used in synthesis gas production
in further detail.
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)
Steam reforming of hydrocarbons is often deemed the benchmark technology for the production of
hydrogen in refineries. SMR can be performed in various different types of reactors. The major types of
reactors are adiabatic, tubular and heat exchanger reformers. The key reactions in this process are
summarized in the Table 2. The enthalpy of the reactions are shown to gauge the potential energy
requirements for each process and to identify whether reactions are endothermic (energy consuming) or
exothermic (energy producing).
OTC-26473-MS 5

Table 2—Chemical Reactions and Enthalpies Associated with

SMR [9,53]
Reaction Enthalpy (⌬H, kJ/mol)

CH4 ⫹ H2O ¡ CO ⫹ 3H2 (Wet Reforming) ⫹206

CH4 ⫹ CO2 ¡ 2CO ⫹ 2H2 (Dry Reforming) -247
CO ⫹ H2O ¡ CO2 ⫹ H2 (Water Gas Shift Reaction) -41

As shown in Table 2, SMR is an endothermic reaction, consuming 206 kJ/mol of energy. The output
also consists of a 3:1 ratio of carbon monoxide to hydrogen. The the ideal ratio of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen is 2:1 as it enables the efficient production of synthetic crude in the downstream F-T process.
A summary of the various characteristics of SMR technology is described in Table 3.

[4,12,13]
Table 3—SMR Technology Characteristic and Explanation
Item Characteristic Explanation

Cost Low ● Mature technology

● No oxygen plant required
● Larger community of third party contractors whom are familiar with process requirements
and operating condition
Product Composition High hydrogen content ● Chemical reaction produces high hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio at ⬎2 indicating that
additional process units may be installed to reduce hydrogen content before feeding to FT reactor.
● High methane level in effluent indicating low carbon efficiency
Heat Requirements High ● SME technology is based on an endothermic reaction requiring consistent heat source
● Heat supply could potentially lead to higher costs due to system complexity
Oxygen Requirement None ● Process employs steam running over fixed bed
Robustness Low ● SMR catalyst are often vulnerable to sulphur-based catalyst poisons

Autothermal Reforming (ATR)

Ever since the mid 1900’s, ATR technology have been used as the intermediate step in ammonia and
methanol production. From an operational standpoint, ATR can be characterized by the initial combustion
of natural gas and steam in a fuel-rich environment and a final conversion of feed into syngas over a
catalyst bed. The reactions that take place in an ATR reactor are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 —Chemical Reactions and Enthalpies Associated with

ATR [10-11]
Reaction Enthalpy (AH, kJ/mol)

CH4 ⫹ 1.5O2 ¡ CO ⫹ 2H2O (Combustion) -520

CH4 ⫹ H2O ¡ CO ⫹ 3H2 (Reforming) ⫹206
CO ⫹ H2O ¡ CO2 ⫹ H2 (Water Gas Shift) -41

Based on Table 4, ATR can be seen as a technology which combines both SMR and partial oxidation
(POX). This is because both combustion (POX) and reforming (SMR) are present within the process. This
technology has also seen applications in large scale GTL facilities onshore. A summary of the various
characteristics of ATR technology is described in Table 5.
6 OTC-26473-MS

[4,12,13]
Table 5—ATR Technology Characteristic and Explanation
Item Characteristic Explanation

Cost High ● Requires oxygen plant

● Reactors and catalyst bed size are often large
Product Composition Intermediate hydrogen content ● Technology incorporates chemical processes involved in both SMR and partial oxidation
(POX) producing intermediate yield of hydrogen
● Low methane in effluent indicating moderate carbon efficiency
Heat Requirements Intermediate ● Process combines partial oxidation reaction which is exothermic with the endothermic
process of steam methane reforming
Oxygen Requirement Yes ● Process requires oxygen supply as both oxygen and steam are used in the process.
Robustness Moderate ● Advantage - Thermally neutral system component, more responsive than SMR, moderate
in cost, size and weight requirements.
● Disadvantage - A more extensive control system is needed for ATRs to ensure robust
operation of the fuel processing system
● No tolerance to sulphur in feedstock.

Partial Oxidation (POX)

There are not many GTL players that have adopted POX technology on a large scale. However, many
authors in the scientific community suggest that there is much potential for execution of a GTL plant using
POX reactors. The reactions that take place in a POX reactor are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6 —Chemical Reactions and Enthalpies Associated with

POX [54]
Reaction Enthalpy (AH, kJ/mol)

CH4 ⫹ 0.5O2 ¡ CO ⫹ 2H2O (Combustion) -36

Partial oxidation produces energy as seen in its negative enthalpy. It also produces a hydrogen to
carbon monoxide ratio of 2 which is ideal for feedstock into the FT reactor. A summary of the various
characteristics of POX technology is described in Table 7.

[4,12,13]
Table 7—POX Technology Characteristic and Explanation
Item Characteristic Explanation

Cost Low ● Cost of reactor is low as partial oxidation process shows fastest reaction times resulting in compact
reactor requirements.
● Low heat supply requirements
● No steam required
● Desulphurisation of feed not necessary
Product Composition Ideal ● Hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio close to 2.
● Minimal CO2 production
Heat Requirements Low ● Heat required for reaction ignition. Reaction proceeds further independently as process is exothermic.
Oxygen Requirement Yes ● Reaction is based on oxygen mixing with hydrocarbon feedstock over catalyst at a specific ratio, thus
supply of oxygen to reactor is essential.
Robustness High ● Considered to be more tolerant to sulphur and other contaminants in feedstock
● Disadvantage – High temperatures could lead to catalyst degradation.

Fischer Tropsch Reaction (F-T) – Completing the puzzle

The Fisher Tropsch reaction was developed by Franz Fischer, Hans Tropsch, and Helmut Pichler in 1923.
At the Kaiser Wilhelm Inistut, the team developed a method to hydrogenate carbon monoxide, reacting
synthesis gas over an iron or cobalt catalyst. This process produced gasoline, diesel, middle and heavy
OTC-26473-MS 7

oils. This implied that synthetic products could be produced from sources of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide [15].
The reactions that take place in an FT reactor are summarized in Table 8.

[14]
Table 8 —Chemical Reactions involved in FT Process
Primary Reactions Chemical Equation

Paraffins (2n⫹1)H2 ⫹ nCO ¡ CnH2n⫹2 ⫹ nH2O

Olefins 2nH2 ⫹ nCO ¡ CnH2n ⫹ nH2O
Water Gas Shift Reaction CO ⫹ H2O ¡ CO2 ⫹ H2

The FT reaction has been around long enough for various companies to work laboriously in optimizing
the catalyst and reactor configuration. Most GTL companies now tout a catalyst lifespan of around 2 years
and low energy requirements of their FT reactors. The history of FT process and their progress throughout
the last decade is shown in Table 9.

[15]
Table 9 —History of the FT Process
Year FT Developments

2002 ● Exxon/Mobil and has spent over $500 MM

● Chevron formed a joint venture with Sasol
● Statoil has formed a joint venture with Mossgas
● Conoco built a $400MM test plant in Oklahoma
● BP completed its pilot/test plant in Alaska
● Shell has announced 7 new projects
2004 ● As of July 2004, 50 new Fischer-Tropsch projects have been announced.
● These projects total over 900,000 BPD capacity
● Some of these projects are pilot plants, some are feasibility studies for clients, and some have started construction
2005 ● Chevron/Sasol: 100,000 BPD GTL Qatar
● Shell: 140,000 BPD GTL Qatar
● Conoco/Phillips: 130,000 BPD GTL Qatar
● Exxon-Mobil : 150,000 BPD GTL Qatar
● Chevron/Sasol: 33,000 BPD GTL Nigeria
● Shell: 6 projects worldwide @ 72,000 BPD each
● Sasol 2 -80,000 BPD CTL China
● Shell 70,000 BPD CTL China
2007 ● Sasol -35,000 bbl/d GTL Plant Qatar
2008-2010 ● Shell Oil 140,000 bbl/d GTL Plant Qatar

Recent Developments in Mini-GTL Technology

Mini GTL technology is now becoming a viable option as companies specializing in this equipment are
investing millions of dollars attempting to miniaturize, modularize and increase efficiency of the GTL
process. These companies are utilizing the same principle reactions involved with innovative leaps in
terms of reactor design, catalyst formulations and intensive utilization of energy recycling processes.
The Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) Partnership has published various reports on mini-GTL
technology over the past few years. The World Bank published a report via GGFR entitled ⬙Associated
Gas Monetization via miniGTL – Conversion of flared gas into liquid fuels & chemicals⬙. Its initial report
has since been updated in January 2014.
The report published information in regards to the state of the company, technology advancement and
status of pilot plants (if any) based on the author’s research on various miniGTL companies. The initial
companies examined are listed in Table 10.
8 OTC-26473-MS

Table 10 —List of Initial GTL Companies Reviewed

● CompactGTL ● Synfuels
● Velocys ● Carbon Sciences
● OberonFuels ● Methion
● GasTechno ● Verdis
● 1st Resource Group Inc. ● GRT Inc.
● R3 Sciences

The findings were then described on a graph with overall risk and time to commercialisation considered
based on the information processed by the author. This was then represented in a figure as shown in Figure
5.

[2]
Figure 4 —Overall Risk and Time to Commercialization for various GTL companies – Dec’ 2013

[2]
Figure 5—Overall Risk and Time to Commercialization for various GTL companies – Jan’14 Update

The report then commented on the state of new and emerging GTL companies. The new mini GTL
players that were introduced are shown in Table 11.
OTC-26473-MS 9

Table 11—New GTL Companies Reviewe

● Greyrock ● TIGAS
● Infra ● Primus GE
● ETF ● TU Freiberg
● Gas2 ● Siluria
● MarcellusGTL ● Proton Ventures

For the new GTL players, the report published a similar comparison which outlines the overall risk and
time to commercialization of these companies. This is represented in Figure 5.
It should be noted that this report was updated in January 2014, after which some of the companies
listed have made progress in terms of technology development, commercial sale and tie-ins with other
companies that are keen on reducing their flaring operations to make way for natural gas monetization.
The following section of the paper discusses individual companies and their status in GTL development
based on publicly available information. In particular, it briefly describes their technology and provides
information on their progress based on press releases and presentations made at conferences around the
globe.
Mini-GTL Company Update
CompactGTL
CompactGTL’s patented process uses a 2 stage FT process which it claims can significantly increase
catalyst life and reduce operating costs [17]. Based on its simplified process flow diagrams (PFDs) shown
during the 2015 International Gas Technology Conference, the company provides proprietary Compact
GTL SMR and FT modules. As an option, CompactGTL may provide a hydro-processing unit that
separates synthetic diesel product. If this option is unutilized, the products from the FT reactor would
include waxes, naphtha, waxes and middle distillates that may be blended with natural crude.
The company has a 0.2 MMscfd demonstration plant in Aracaju, Brazil which cost USD 45 million to
build. The unit was built as part of an agreement between CompactGTL and Petrobras that was signed in
2008 [52]. CompactGTL provides option to use conventional SMR or ATR modules as well. Based on
information on their website, CompactGTL has a collaborative agreement with Single Buoy Moorings
Inc. (SBM) for offshore GTL solutions.
In March 2014, MoU was signed with Kazakhstan Oil Ministry. The plant is to be located in the
Aktobe region and would accept gas that would otherwise be flared. The plant is scheduled to be
operational some time in 2018 [29]. The 2,500 bpd plant in Kazakhstan is estimated to cost USD$275
million [17].
In December 2015, CompactGTL announced its settlement in the patent infringement case with
Velocys for an undisclosed amount. The patent lawsuit was filed against CompactGTL’s activities at its
Wilton pilot plant facility which infringed two separate patents [29].
Velocys
Velocys presented at the Global FPSO forum on the 18th of September 2015. Here, the company touted
15 years and over USD$300 million spent on product development. Their patent portfolio is also extensive
with more than 7,600 granted GTL patent claims. Besides that, Velocys has a suite of partners which help
deliver their GTL facility. Their partners include Haldor Topsoes, Ventech, Hatch, Mourik, MODEC and
Toyo [16]. Based on information on their presentation at the conference, Velocys has a collaborative
agreement with Mitsui Ocean Development & Engineering Co., Ltd (MODEC) for its offshore GTL
solutions.
Velocys offers both SMR and FT technology but information on its website is more towards the
description of its FT reactor. It claims to have a high CO conversion (⬎91%) using a 1 stage (with recycle)
approach [32].
10 OTC-26473-MS

In May 15 2015, ENVIA Energy, LLC held the ground-breaking ceremony for its first gas-to-liquids
(GTL) plant. ENVIA Energy Oklahoma City, LLC, is to be located adjacent to Waste Management’s East
Oak landfill site. This project was executed as part of a joint venture formed in March 2014 between
various companies. In particular, ENVIA Energy is a Joint Venture between Waste Management, Inc
(NYSE:WM), NRG Energy, Inc (NYSE:NRG), Ventech Engineers International LLC, and Velocys plc
(LSE:VLS) [30].
This project is key to Velocys as it would provide a commercial reference plant for the use of Velocys’
technology with a combination of landfill gas/natural gas as feedstock and will deploy a number of
Velocys’ full scale Fischer-Tropsch reactors [30].
The fabrication of the FT reactors was officially completed on the 2nd of September 2015 with all
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) certifications required for the reactors prior to
installation and commissioning of the plant have been issued. In addition, all other QA/QC protocols have
been fully achieved [31].

Greyrock
Greyrock claims to have over 10 years of engineering design and refinement of its GTL technology. It’s
Direct Fuel Production™(DFP) platform enables value creation by transforming flare gas, bio-gas, natural
gas or natural gas liquids into premium diesel fuel. In addition, Greyrock’s proprietary GreyCat™
catalyst, directly converts syngas into diesel fuel with high selectivity. The catalyst is unique as it
eliminates the wax upgrading stage and therefore reduces complexity and cost associated with small scale
DFP systems [51]. The company also has a commercial demonstration facility in Toledo, Ohio and a pilot
plant in Sacramento, California [2]. Its system can handle a feedstock with ethane, propane, butane,
associated gas and waste gas.
28 September 2015 saw Greyrock announcing its performance results from the testing of the
company’s zero sulfur design fuel. The press release also indicated that Greyrock’s diesel fuel meets
existing ASTM standards, but also has premium properties including zero sulfur, no aromatics, high
cetane and excellent lubricity. The diesel produced can also be used as a blend-stock to upgrade the quality
of petroleum-based diesel fuels [25].

Infra Technology Group

INFRA technology has been developing its Fischer Tropsch and SMR technology actively in 2015.
Potential clients have access to independent oil assay testing, catalyst test statements and their synthetic
oil assays in the information centre of their website [33].
INFRA produces FT catalysts that produces light synthetic oil with no wax produced. The company
shipped the first batch of the proprietary catalyst in December 2015 to its GTL plant in Houston, USA.
[26]
.
15 November 2015 had INFRA commencing SMR fabrication works for 100 bpd GTL facility[28] and
on November the 30th, INFRA completed fabrication of its FT reactors [27]. The company’s website has
an easy to use slider system which provides indicative sizing and costs for their GTL facility. Their
equipment is highly modularized and shipped in containers.
In 2010, a pilot plant for conversion of natural gas into synthetic oil was built by Infra Technologies.
The plant modelled the full cycle of the GTL chemical process including the intake of pipeline gas, sulfur
removal, steam methane reforming, syngas conditioning, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. This plant was
later acquired by VNIIGAZ Gazprom LLC in 2013.
In 2014, the second generation of INFRA’s testing facility was built and it stood apart from the first
by high degree of automation and extensive data gathering system. Both pilot plants were designed,
manufactured and assembled in-house, by INFRA’s engineering and production group [34].
OTC-26473-MS 11

Gas Technologies LLC

Unique process that converts natural gas to methanol in a single step. Their unique proprietary process
eliminates the need for the intermediate syngas stage and instead produces methanol, ethanol and
formaldehyde directly from methane [36].
Gas Techno’s technology provides the ability to capture extremely small volumes of gas ranging from
125 Mscfd – 300Mscfd. In January 2015, the company was awarded USD$350,000 grant for North
Dakota Associated Gas Flare Reduction Project [18]. More recently on November the 5th 2015, Gas
Technologies reached an agreement with Generon to utilize their recognized custom engineering and
fabrication capabilities. In addition, the company signed an agreement with Future Trends Internation
Group, a Shanghai based company, to establish the world’s first $2 billion dollar Sharia compliant,
green-certified equipment leasing and carbon asset fund. This fund would focus on financing GasTechno’s
gas flaring emission reduction projects around the world [37].
Oberon Fuels
Oberon Fuels has developed proprietary skid-mounted, small-scale production units that convert methane
and carbon dioxide to DME. Their units are capable of accepting from various feedstocks, such as biogas
and natural gas. Oberon units have the capacity to produce 3,000 –10,000 gallons of DME per day. The
company currently offers 3 standard production units as provided in Table 12.

Table 12—Sizing options for Oberon Fuels GTL Technology [50]

NG-10 BG-10 BNG-10

Output DME10,000 gallons/dayAlternate 100% BioDME10,000 gallons/ Partial BioDME10,000 gallons/

configuration: 11,300 gallons/ dayAlternate configuration: dayAlternate configuration:
day methanol 11,300 gallons/day 11,300 gallons/day methanol
biomethanol
Feedstock Pipeline or stranded natural Biogas with up to 50% CO2 Biogas with up to 50% CO2
gas1,240,000 standard cubic content1,540,000 standard content900.000 standard cubic
feet/day cubic feet per day (72% CH4/ feet per day (72% CH4/28%
28% CO2) CO2) Pipeline natural gas
470.000 standard cubic
feet/day
Footprint 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet

The company advocates the use of DME in commercial vehicles. 26 February 2015 saw the state of
California approving DME for legal use as a vehicle fuel resulting in positive growth for Oberon fuels [35].
On 15 September 2015, Oberon partnered with Ford and FVV on 3 year, $3.5 million euro deal to test
world’s first production passenger car running on DME [23].
Verdis Fuels
Verdis Fuels’ Gas to Diesel technology is bolstered by its catalyst that it claims to improve on the
traditional Fischer Tropsch process thanks to the patented cobalt-ruthenium based catalyst [38]. The
company also has had its process reviewed and endorsed by the World Bank Global Gas Flaring
Reduction Partnership.
Verdis provides solutions for fixed and mobile units. Fixed units have capacities of 4MMscfd
producing 400 barrels of diesel. Mobile units can be as small as 0.25 MMscfd producing 25 barrels of
diesel [20]. There is no current information on its website.
Synfuels International Inc.
Synfuels International’s technology converts methane to acetylene in a pyrolysis reactor which is then
converted in ethylene [21]. As such, the company claims that their technology is superior over the
12 OTC-26473-MS

traditional Fischer Tropsch process as it dramatically reduces capital costs and plants can be configured
to produce a variety of products, syuch as gasoline blendstock, ethylene and acetylene [39].
In April 2015, SABIC Global Technologies, a subsidiary of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
announced that it has executed an agreement with Synfuels to license its patented process [22].
Primus Green Energy
Primus GE’s primary selling point is that their GTL unit produces no wastewater produced and represents
a single loop process. The company markets its technology as STG⫹ technology (STG⫹ - Syngas to
Gasoline Plus). The first step uses conventional Steam Methane Reforming (SMR). Intermediate steps
involve production of methanol and DME before gasoline is produced. Thus, their GTL can produce either
methanol, dimethyl ether (DME) or gasoline. The company claims to handle a feedstock of 4 MMscfd and
above [41].
Primus GE built a USD$12 million demonstration plant in 2013 producing 5 barrels of oil per day. The
main investor for Primus’ technology is IC Energy. Total investment in technology development is
USD60 million [42].
On October 2015, Jereh, a world leading oil and gas company agreed to collaborate and launched
Jereh-Primus GTL solution. Jereh and Primus will jointly market and deploy their range of GTL systems
which includes gas-to-gasoline and gas-to-methanol systems [40].
Siluria Technologies
Siluria Technologies use oxidative coupling of methane in a direct catalysed reaction to produce ethylene
and water. Siluria also offers the option for a second stage called Ethylene to Liquids (ETL). This process
converts ethylene produced into liquid hydrocarbons [45].
On the 1st of April 2015, the company announced the successful start-up of its demonstration plant
located in La Porte, Texas which Siluria wholly owns. This was a landmark day as the plant represented
the world’s first large-scale production of ethylene directly from natural gas through Oxidative Coupling
of Methane (⬙OCM⬙) [43]. The demonstration plant is designed to produce approximately one ton of
ethylene per day (350⫹ tons per year) [44].
Emerging Fuels Technology
Emerging Fuels Technology utilises its own advanced fixed bed FT catalyst/reactor system. This system
has been developed by its R&D team and the company claims that its reactor productivity is 2-3 times
more than a conventional fixed bed reactor system [48].
In November 2014, Black & Veatch and Emerging Fuels Technology, Inc. (EFT) agreed to collaborate
in hopes to propel their initiative market alternative/renewable transportation fuel projects worldwide [47].
EFT was recently selected to collaborate in the supply of its Fischer Tropsch technology for conversion
of syngas to diesel and jet fuel to Fulcrum BioEnergy. The unit will be part of a bio refinery using
gasification technology to convert municipal solid waste into syncrude that will be upgraded into jet fuel.
The contract is worth approximately USD$200 million [46].
Proton Ventures
Proton Ventures differs from most GTL technologies as its target output is ammonia. Their process is
available in modular skids capable of producing 120 kg/hr of ammonia [49]. Another unique feature of this
technology is the ability of the plant to run for 15 years with catalyst change [2]. This capability has a
significant advantage as most GTL plants using F-T reactors have catalysts with a limited two year
lifespan.
Proton Ventures has a partnership with Casale and have developed 1000 tonnes/year mini-ammonia
plants. [49] The company has yet to release any new information in the news update section of its website.
For other companies provided in the list, information that is publicly available has been limited. The
companies with limited press releases and update are shown in Table 13.
OTC-26473-MS 13

Table 13—Companies that have limited information online

● TIGAS ● Marcellus GTL
● Tu Freiberg ● General Methanol
● GRT Fuels ● R3 Sciences
● Methion LTD ● Gas2
● Carbon Sciences

Conclusion
Gas to liquids is a technology that has been tried and tested in an industrial scale. Since the early 1900’s,
governments and private companies have been working diligently to develop this technology that offers
them a means to diversify their revenues from natural gas feedstocks. At the turn of the 21st century, GTL
is now seen as a means to solve one of the oil and gas industry’s most pertinent challenge; to curb flaring
operations in a commercially viable manner. Companies that were established in the mid to late 2000’s
are now ready to bring their technology out of their research labs and into the commercialization.
Leading the pack are CompactGTL and Velocys, both of which have secured contracts to bring their
GTL facilities into active projects in Kazakhstan and the United States respectively. Other players who
are active in this space are INFRA technology who have successfully fabricated their GTL units and
delivered them to their respective clients. Greyrock Energy and Oberon Fuels have also seen success in
their GTL technology and future potential for offshore placement could become a reality.
The main goal of these minitiarusied GTL companies are to turn hydrocarbons, mainly methane gas,
into some sort of high value fuel. Most opt for the synthesis gas and FT reaction route, however, there are
some such as Gas Technologies and Synfuels International that are promoting their alternative process to
achieve the same goal.
At this juncture, it is imperative that oil and gas operators make reasonable assessments of these
technologies by visiting the pilot plants built by many of the miniaturized GTL companies and verifying
their claims. Although the cost of such technology may be relatively high, operators should plan for when
government bodies and industry regulators impose strict fines on flaring in the future. With the help of
studies and data provided by the World Bank via its Global Gas Flaring Reduction partnership pro-
gramme, operators will equipped with the best knowledge in the Gas to Liquids space to bring this
technology into fruition.

References
1. British Petroleum, 2015, ⬙Natural Gas Reserves⬙ http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/
statistical-review-of-world-energy/review-by-energy-type/natural-gas/natural-gas-reserves.html
2. The World Bank, 2006, ⬙Global gas Flaring Reduction Partnership⬙ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGGFR/
Resources/GGFR-IssueBrief.pdf
3. CompactGTL, 2015, ⬙An Upstream Success Story in a $50 Oil World⬙ http://www.compactgtl.com/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/CompactGTL-presentation-for-IGTC-2015-English-version.pdf
4. Wang. R, Rohr. D, 2002, ⬙Natural Gas Processing Technologies For Large Scale Solid Oxide Fuel Cells⬙ – PDF
document in Science Paper files
5. World Bank Group, 2016, ⬙Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR)⬙ http://www.worldbank.org/en/
programs/gasflaringreduction#4
6. Genovese, N.A., Gorlani, A., Arroyo, A.H., 2005, ⬙GTL Technology and It’s Role in the World Energy Markets⬙
http://www.eni.com/attachments/lavora-con-noi/pdf/GTL-technology.pdf
7. Panahi, M., Rafiee, A., Skogestad, S., Hillestad, M., 2001, ⬙A Natural Gas to Liquids (GTL) Process Model for
Optimal Operation⬙ http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/publications/2012/panahi-gtl-part1/old-submitted/s1-
ln10312581643951567-1939656818Hwf-681530888IdV-16732284511031258PDF_HI0001.pdf
8. Shell Global, 2003, ⬙Pearl GTL – Overview⬙ http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/major-projects-2/pearl/overvie-
w.html
9. Steynberg, A. and M. Dry, eds., 2004, ⬙Fischer-Tropsch Technology Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis⬙ ed. G.
Centi. Vol. 152, Elsevier Amsterdam. 700.
14 OTC-26473-MS

10. Iandoli, C.L. and S. Kjelstrup, 2007, ⬙Exergy Analysis of a GTL Process Based on Low-Temperature Slurry F∈’T
Reactor Technology with a Cobalt Catalyst⬙, Energy & Fuels, 21(4): p. 2317–2324.
11. Yagi, F., et al., 2005, ⬙Development of synthesis gas production catalyst and process⬙, Catalysis Today, 104(1): p. 2–6.
12. Wilhelm, D.J., et al., 2001, ⬙Syngas production for gas-to-liquids applications: technologies, issues and outlook⬙, Fuel
Processing Technology⬙, 71(1–3): p. 139 –148.
13. Al-Saadoon, F., 2007, ⬙Economics of GTL plants⬙ SPE Projects, Facilities and Construction, 2(1): p. 1–5.
14. Van Der Laan, G.P. and A.A.C.M. Beenackers, 1999, ⬙Kinetics and Selectivity of the Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: A
Literature Review⬙, Catalysis Reviews: Science and Engineering, 41(3): p. 255–318
15. Fischer-Tropsch Fuels, ⬙A GTL, CTL, BTL Process – Historical Review⬙ http://www.angtl.com/pdfs/HistoryofF-
T.pdf
16. Stratmann, P., 2015, ⬙The onshore roll-out of smaller scale gas-to-liquids⬙ ⬙ http://www.velocys.com/press/
ppt/ppt150916_Global_FPSO_Forum.pdf
17. CompactGTL, 2015, ⬙An Upstream Success Story in a $50 Oil World⬙ http://www.compactgtl.com/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/CompactGTL-presentation-for-IGTC-2015-English-version.pdf
18. Gas Technologies LLC., 2013, ⬙ GasTechno® & Supporters Awarded $350,000 Grant for North Dakota Associated
Gas Flare Reduction Project⬙ http://www.gastechno.com/GasTechno%20Awarded%20Grant.html
19. Gas Technologies LLC., 2012, ⬙GasTechno® Mini-GTL™ and Small Scale GTL Plant⬙ http://www.gastechno.com/
pdf/GasTechno-Mini-GTL-Data-Sheeet.pdf
20. Verdis Synthetic Fuels, ⬙Why Verdis GTD⬙ http://www.verdisfuels.com/ultra-clean-diesel
21. Global gas Flaring Reduction Partnership, 2014, ⬙Associated Gas Monetization via miniGTLConversion of flared gas
into liquid fuels & chemicals⬙ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGGFR/Resources/Associated_gas_utilization-
_via_MiniGTL_Jan_2014_update.pdf?resourceurlname⫽Associated_gas_utilization_via_MiniGTL_Jan_2014_update.
pdf
22. Syn Fuels International Inc., 2015, ⬙Sabic Global Technologies Executes License to Utilize Synfuels International Gas
Conversion Technology - Non-Fischer Tropsch Technology Monetizes Abundant, Low-value Natural Gas Into
High-value, In-demand Petrochemicals⬙ http://www.synfuels.com/SABIC%20PressRELEASE%20-%20FI-
NAL%204-15.pdf
23. Oberon Fuels, 2015, ⬙Oberon Fuels Partners with Ford & FVV on 3-Year, €3.5 Million Project to Build and Test
World’s First Production Passenger Car Powered by DME⬙ http://www.oberonfuels.com/2015/09/15/oberon-fuels-
partners-ford-fvv-3-year-e3-5-million-project-build-test-worlds-production-passenger-car-powered-dme
24. Carbon Sciences, 2014, ⬙West Texas Gas to Supply Carbon Sciences’ First Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) Plant⬙ http://
carbonsciences.com/view_news.php?id⫽135
25. Greyrock Energy, 2015, ⬙Greyrock Highlights Significant Reductions in Diesel Emissions using its Ultra-Premium,
Zero Sulfur Diesel⬙ http://www.greyrock.com/newsroom/press-releases/greyrock-highlights-significant-reductions-in-
diesel-emissions-using-its-ultra-premium-zero-sulfur-diesel
26. INFRA Technology, 2015, ⬙INFRA starts shipping its Fischer-Tropsch catalyst⬙ http://www.infratechnology.com/
news-1/99
27. INFRA Technology, 2015, ⬙INFRA has put in production the Fisher-Tropsch reactors for its GTL plant⬙ http://
www.infratechnology.com/news-1/98
28. INFRA Technology, 2015, ⬙INFRA starts SMR fabrication⬙ http://www.infratechnology.com/news-1/97
29. Compact GTL, 2015, ⬙Settlement of UK IP Infringement Case⬙ http://www.compactgtl.com/settlement-of-uk-ip-
infringement-case
30. Envia Energy, 2015, ⬙ENVIA Energy Oklahoma City GTL plant ground-breaking⬙ http://www.velocys.com/press/
pdf/PR_Envia_Groundbreaking_May_2015.pdf
31. Velocys Technologies Ltd., 2015, ⬙ Manufacture of reactors and catalyst complete⬙ http://www.velocys.com/press/
nr/nr150902.php
32. Velocys Technologies Ltd., 2015, ⬙ Manufacture of reactors and catalyst complete⬙ http://www.velocys.com/our-
_products_core_technologies.php
33. INFRA Technology, 2015 http://www.infratechnology.com/documents/
34. INFRA Technology, 2015, ⬙ Pilot Plants⬙ http://www.infratechnology.com/pilotplant/
35. Oberon Fuels, 2015, ⬙Oberon Fuels Poised for Growth as State of California Approves Dimethyl Ether (DME) for
Legal Use as a Vehicle Fuel⬙ http://www.oberonfuels.com/2015/02/26/oberon-fuels-poised-growth-state-california-
approves-dimethyl-ether-dme-legal-vehicle-fuel/
OTC-26473-MS 15

36. Gas technologies, 2011, ⬙The GasTechno® ProcessSkipping the Synas Step⬙ http://www.gastechno.com/gastechno-
process-technology.html
37. Gas technologies, 2015, ⬙GasTechno Signs Manufacturing Agreement with GENERON and Establishes $2 Billion
Gas Flaring Reduction Carbon Fund with Future Trends International Group, China⬙ http://www.gastechno.com/
GasTechno-Generon-Future-Trends.html
38. VERDIS Synthetic Fuels, ⬙The VERDIS Advantage: Our Patented Catalyst⬙ http://www.verdisfuels.com/verdis-
catalyst/
39. SYNFUELS International Inc., ⬙SYNFUELS GTL Technology ⬙ http://www.synfuels.com/GTL.html
40. PR Newswire, 2015, ⬙Jereh Forges Global Collaboration at Gastech with Primus Green Energy to Launch GTL
Solutions⬙ http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/jereh-forges-global-collaboration-at-gastech-with-primus-
green-energy-to-launch-gtl-solutions-537438521.html
41. Gal,E., Fang,H., Qin, M., Boyajian, G., Nan, L., 2015, ⬙Introduction to Primus’ STG⫹™ Technology⬙ http://
primusge.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Primus-Green-Energy-White-paper-STG-V3.pdf
42. Primus Green Energy Inc., 2013,⬙Primus Green Energy Commissions its up to 100,000 Gallon-per-Year Alternative
Fuel Plant⬙ http://www.primusge.com/?press-release⫽primus-green-energy-commissions-its-up-to-100000-gallon-
per-year-alternative-fuel-plant
43. Siluria Technologies, ⬙Press Releases⬙ http://siluria.com/Newsroom/Press_Releases
44. Siluria Technologies, 2014,⬙Demonstration Plant⬙ http://siluria.com/Technology/Demonstration_Plant
45. Siluria Technologies, ⬙TechnologyOverview⬙ http://siluria.com/Technology/Overview
46. Lane, J., 2015,⬙Fulcrum’s $200 million pick: Abengoa for EPC Contractor of First MSW-to-Jet Fuel Project in the US⬙
http://emergingfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/biofuelsdigest.com-Fulcrums-200-million-pick-
Abengoa-for-EPC-contractor-of-first-MSW-to-jet-fuel-project-in-the-US.pdf
47. Black & Veatch, 2014, ⬙ Black & Veatch, Emerging Fuels Technology Advancing Alternative/Renewable - Trans-
portaton Fuels Industry Through Combination Of Innovation And Epc Expertise⬙ http://emergingfuels.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Black-Veatch-and-Emerging-Fuels-Technology-Inc-EFT-are-combining-forces.pdf
48. Emerging Fuels Technology, ⬙Technology – The Basics⬙ http://emergingfuels.com/technology/the-basics/
49. Proton Ventures, ⬙NFuel:Mini Ammonia Units⬙ http://www.protonventures.com/images/PV0765%20-
%20NFUEL%20unit%20overview.pdf
50. Oberon Fuels, ⬙Production Units – Three Options for Output, Feedstock and Footprint⬙ http://www.oberonfuels.com/
products/production-units/
51. Greyrock, ⬙Greyrock Systems⬙ http://www.greyrock.com/products/greyrock-products
52. CompactGTL ⬙Commercial Demonstration Plant⬙ http://www.compactgtl.com/technology/petrobas/
53. Luc Roussière, T, ⬙Catalytic Reforming of Methane in the Presence of CO2 and H2O at High Pressure⬙, 2014
http://www.itcp.kit.edu/deutschmann/download/
2013_Roussiere_CatRefMethaneinPresenceofCO2andH2OatHighPress_Dr_rernat_KIT_final.pdf
54. Lyubovsky M., Roychoudhury S., LaPierre R., ⬙Catalytic Partial Oxidation of Methane to Syngas at Elevated
Pressures⬙, 2004 http://www.precision-combustion.com/High_Pressure_CPOX_methane.pdf