Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In:
MAGAZINE
VOL. 8 NO. 1
20
The
Economic
s of Gas
to Liquids
Compare
d to
Liquefied
Natural
Gas
by Michael J. Economides
Professor
University of Houston
Edit
ors
note:
This
article
is a
summa
ry of a
more
extensi
ve
report
supervi
sed by
Profess
or
Econo
mides
and
co-
World Energy
Vol. 8 No. 1
auth
ored
by
Mic
hael
Agu
irre,
Adr
ian
Mo
rale
s,
Sus
mit
o
Na
ha,
Hak
eem
Tija
2005
ni
an
d
Le
on
ar
do
V
ar
ga
s.
ec
na
ga
rap
em
as
pr
fu
th
wo
ec
,i
tra
ta
fro
so
to
m
ha
be
an
im
nt
is
su
e.
T
h
e
cu
rr
en
t
pr
ic
e
of
oi
l
is
o
nl
y
o
ne
fa
ct
or
World Energy
in
this
co
mpl
icat
ed
equ
atio
n.
You
mu
st
also
fact
or
in
the
far
larg
er
div
ersi
ty
of
nat
ural
gas
reso
urc
es
and
,
na
lly,
the
tra
nsit
ion
to
nat
ural
gas
and
the
imp
licit
dec
arb
oni
zati
on.
All
thes
e
fact
ors
carr
y
con
side
Vol. 8 No. 1
rable
envir
onme
ntal,
econo
mic
and
politic
al
capit
al.
T
he
way
liqu
ee
d
natu
ral
gas
(LN
G)
or
com
pres
sed
natu
ral
gas
(C
NG
) is
tran
spor
ted
bec
ome
s
imp
orta
nt
whe
n
con
side
ring
the
volu
me
of
gas
to
be
tran
spo
rted
and
the
dist
anc
2005
e
it
m
u
st
tr
a
v
el
.
T
h
es
e
c
o
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
s
fu
rt
h
er
af
fe
ct
t
h
e
at
tr
ac
ti
v
e
n
es
s
of
n
at
ur
al
g
as
re
se
rv
es
,
of
te
n
la
b
el
ed
as
"s
tr
an
de
d,
"
an
d
th
ei
r
m
o
n
et
iz
at
io
n.
T
he
siz
e
of
in
di
vi
du
al
res
ou
rce
s
is
im
po
rta
nt
in
th
e
sel
ect
io
n
of
th
e
tra
ns
po
rta
tio
n
m
od
e.
Fo
r
rel
ati
ve
ly
sh
or
t
di
sta
nc
es
(s
uc
h
as
2,
00
0
k
m)
and
relatively
small loads
(such as 500
MMCF),
CNG may
be preferable
to LNG.
The latter is
the
indicated
mode
otherwise,
subjected to
individual
project
economics.
The
conversion
of natural
gas to
liquid
(GTL) at
or near
the source
represents
another
way to
monetize
stranded
natural
gas. The
consumer
market
that this
process is
intended
to
compete
in is not
the
market for
natural
gas
(currently
used
almost
exclusively
in power
generation
). Instead,
it is
intended
World Energy
to play
a role in
transpor
tation,
namely
as a
replace
ment
for
gasoline
, diesel
and jet
fuel.
What
follows is
an
economic
compariso
n between
LNG and
GTL from
the
vantage
point of
the
natural gas
producer.
The study
takes into
account
the
technolog
y and costs
of
conversion
(liquefacti
on and
regasicati
on
in the
case of
LNG;
reaction
and
processin
g in the
case of
GTL)
and
respectiv
e
transpor
tation.
Vol. 8 No. 1
2005
World Energy
Vol. 8 No. 1
2005
Air
Natural Gas
Separation
Gas
Processing
Oxygen
O2
Gas
Synthesis
Methane
CH4
CO
H2
Long-Chain
Fisher-Tropsch
Process
Liquid
Hydrocarbons
Hydro
Cracking
Diesel
Naphtha
Wax
Gas to Liquid
The Fisher-Tropsch GTL (FT-GTL) process,
illustrated in Figure 1, is by far the most popular
technology for production of synthetic fuels. Beyond
the technology, the economics of the GTL process
remains the major element in the application of this
process. The major factors affecting the economics of
the GTL process are the gas price and the capital
cost.
$M/day
$/bbl
$MM/journey
Distance (km)
10,400
12,000
18,700
2.61
12,000
N
P
V
(
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
-1,000,000
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Qatar (25%)
Trinidad (15%)
45
$8
40
$7
$7
35
$6
Ga $6
s
Pri $5
ce $4
($/
M $3
SC
F) $2
G
$5 as
Pr
$4 ice
$3 U
S
30
25
20
15
$2
10
$1
-$1,000
GTL
$0
$1,000
LNG
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
NPV - (MM$)
LNG vs GTL
Liqueed natural gas is an alternative means to gas-toliquid for gas monetization from a producers vantage
point. For example, a great advantage of GTL is the
ease of product transportation. Hence the economic
viability of GTL plants will be most attractive when
compared with LNG projects for gas supply over long
distances. We consider here the relative economics of
LNG versus a GTL plant in Qatar supplying the Gulf
Coast.
LNG cost basis. A world-scale LNG plant produces
about 4 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA)
and consumes approximately the same amount of gas
as the
65,000 barrel-per-day GTL plant (650 MMCF/day). For
a long-haul GTL plant, such as the Qatar-to-United
States route of 18,000 km, 10 LNG carriers will be
required
at a capital cost of $1.4 billion. The liquefaction plant
is estimated to cost $800 million and the regasication
plant $240 million, representing a total capital outlay
of
$2.44 billion.
Feedstock gas price is assumed to be
$1.0/MCF. Operating costs for a 4 MMTPA
LNG plant are:
Liquefaction plant $1.0/MCF of gas processed
Regasication $0.3/MCF
Shipping costs $1.0/MCF due to the larger
number
of ships required for transporting over long distances
and the corresponding higher operating expense
Analysis results
The results of the LNG versus GTL comparison are
shown in Figure 3. The analysis provides a useful tool to
compare relative returns from the two projects. For
example, for
an NPV of $2.0 billion, a gas price of $4.7/MCF or a
crude oil price of $35/bbl are required. A more
$8
LNG
GTL
$1
$0
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70