IGCC

Reliance
Industries Limited

By
Parthasarathi Deb
Clean Coal Technology Conference
10
th
November,2009 - PDPU, Gandhinagar
2 of 67
Contents
History of Gasification: Global & Indian
Project formulation for Petcoke Gasification
Types of Gasifiers
Process of Evaluation
Reliance Strategy for Petcoke Utilisation
IGCC Salient features
Emerging Technologies
3 of 67
Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle
(IGCC)
Air
Separation
Unit (ASU)
Gasification
Island
Power Island
IGCC: Integration among the various Islands of Technology.

4 of 67
Block Flow Diagram of IGCC & Integration
options
Coal
Preparation
Gasification
Heat
Recovery
Gas
Cleaning
Gas
Turbine
Heat Recovery
Steam generator
(HSRG)
Steam Turbine
Air
Separation Unit
(ASU)
GASIFICATION ISLAND
Coal
Slag
N
2
O
2
Waste N
2
Air
Air
Water
Clean Gas
Sulphur
Fly Ash
Air
Feed water
COMBINED CYCLE
Water / Steam integration
Air side ASU-CC integration
N
2
side ASU-CC integration
Steam
5 of 67
Existing Coal-based IGCCs
Tampa (Florida)
6 of 67
Existing Coal-based IGCCs
Buggenum (Netherlands)
7 of 67
Existing Coal-based IGCCs
Wabash (Indiana)
8 of 67
Existing Coal-based IGCCs
Puertollano (Spain)
9 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Efficiency:
Technology
Gross
Efficiency,
LHV%
Net
Efficiency,
LHV%
IGCC
(according to gasification process)
ELCOGAS-Entrained
flow, dry-fed
47,1% 42,2%
SHELL (dry feeding) 48,3% 43,1%
TEXACO (no integrated) 51,6% 41,2%
E-GAS
TM
44,5% 39,2%
PC, pulverised coal (with FGD, ESP
and low NO
x
burners)
Subcritical (165 bar,
540
0
C)
37,5% 36,0%
Supercritical (240 bar,
565
0
C)
41,1% 39,6%
AFBC 37,5% 36,0%
NGCC, gas turbine F technology 57,3% 56,0%
10 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Environment:
Technology Emissions g/kWh By-products
/ solid waste
g/kWh(*)
SO
2
NO
X
Particl
es
CO
2
IGCC

(according to gasification
process / gas turbine)
ELCOGAS/ SIEMENS
V94.3
0.07 0.40 0.02 727

Slag: 210 Fly
ash: 2.0
Sulphur: 4.0
SHELL / SIEMENS V94.2 0.10 0.05 0.02 712
TEXACO / GE 7F 0.13 0.35 0.02 745
E-GAS
TM
/ GE 7F A 0.14 0.37 0.02 783
PC Subcritical
net
=36.0%
FGD (90%), LNB (50%),
2.50 2.30 0.30 852 Fly ash: 25.0
Gypsum
(FGD): 19.6
Supercritical
net
=39.6%
FGD (95%), SCR (95%),
ESP (99.2%)
2.15 1.10 0.27 774 Fly ash: 25.0
Gypsum
(FGD) : 18.8
AFBC 1.40 0.80 0.10 852 Fly ash
gypsum-
limestone:
52.9
NGCC,
net
=56.0% 0.007 0.54 0.02 350
11 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Environment:
1. SO
x
, NO
x
and Particles:
SO
x
, NO
x
and particulate emissions are comparable to or less
than those obtained in a combined cycle using Natural Gas
(NGCC).
2. Greenhouse effect gas CO
2 :
CO
2
emission is reduced by 20% in IGCC over conventional
boiler base power plant.
CO in syngas can be converted to CO
2
and production of Hydrogen can
be increased. Thus CO
2
can be captured directly using regular
commercial process at a higher pressure than extracting it from combustion gases
from conventional PC plant or NGCC plant.
3. Water consumption:
Specific consumption of water for the operation of IGCC plant is approx. half that of
conventional plant using gas cleaning system.

12 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Environment:
4. Other contaminants : Chlorine , Mercury, Heavy metals:
In IGCC operation,
Chlorine compounds are extracted from Gas by washing with water.
Heavy metals are almost entirely captured in the slag which is a vitrified, non
leachable, inert solid.
Mercury can be removed by absorption on a bed of active carbon for IGCC at a cost
of 1/12 that of PC power plant.
5. Solid by products:
Sulphur is recovered in a pure elemental state or as sulphuric acid.
Solid waste (slag) can be disposed as by products for manufacturing of ceramic
material, fiber glass, filling roads, manufacturing of cements, roof tiles or bricks.
13 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Fuel-multiple choice:
IGCC / POX :
1. Fossil Fuel:-
Natural gas
Petroleum coal
2. Alternative fuels:-
Petroleum coke
Biomass and waste products

The security of supply of fuel, stability in prices of fuel and multiplicity in choice of fuel, IGCC
Technology has clear cut edge over other technology / process for power generation.

14 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Global Situation:
Owner/ Location Commissioning Net output. MW
Other products
Fuel Combined
cycle
Gasification
Cool Water, USA 1984 120 MW Coal GE 107E Texaco
Nuon, Buggenum,
Holland
1994 253 MW Coal/
Wastes and
biomass
Siemens
V94.2
Shell
Wabash River, Indiana,
USA
1995 262 MW Coal/ pet-
coke
GE 7F E-Gas
TM
Tempa Electric, Florida,
USA
1996 250 MW Coal/ pet-
coke
GE 7F Texaco
ELCOGAS,
Puertollano, Spain
1997 282.7 MW Coal/ pet-
coke
Siemens
V94.3
Entrained
flow
SUV, Versova Chec
Republic
1996 350 MW, vapor Lignite 2 x GE 9E Moving bed,
Lurgi
SVZ, Schwarze
Pumpe, Germany
1996 40 MW, steam,
methanol
Lignite/Was
tes
GE 6B Noell
Sulcis, Sardinia, Italy 2006 450 MW Coal SHELL
Texaco El Dorado,
Kansas, USA
1996 40 MW, steam Petcoke GE 6B Texaco
15 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Global Situation:
Owner/ Location Commissioning Net output. MW
Other products
Fuel Combined
cycle
Gasificati
on
Motiva, Delaware,
USA
1996 240 MW, steam Petcoke 2 x GE
6FA
Texaco
Shell Pernis,
Rotterdam,
Holland
1997 127 MW, H
2
,
steam
Visbreak
er
reesidues
3 x GE
7FA
Texaco
ISAB, Priolo, Italia 1999 510 MW Asphalts Siemens 2
x V94.2 K
Texaco
API, Falconara,
Italy
2000 260 MW Visbreak
er
ABB 13E2 Texaco
SARLUX,
Sardinia, Italy
2000 550 MW, H
2
m
steam
Visbreak
er
residues
3 x GE 9E Texaco
16 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology

Investment Cost:
500
1997
1,500
0
1000
2000 2010 2015
$
/
k
w

Forecast development evolution IGCC power plants costs ($/kw)
17 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Cost Comparison among IGCC, PC and NGCC Power plant:

IGCC PC sub
critical
NGCC
base
NGCC peak
1
NGCC peak
2
Output MW 590 500 506 506 506
Production factor % 80 80 80 65 40
Met efficiency, HHV %
(LHV%)
41.0
(42.2)
35.0(36.0
)
50.5(56.0
)
48.7(54.0) 47.3(52.4)
Fuel cost /kWh 1.31(0.55) 1.31(0.55
)
3.56(1.50
)
3.56(1.50) 3.56(1.50)
Investment cost /kWh 1300 1186 496 496 496
Investment cts. /kWh 2.63 2.40 0.96 1.17 1.91
O&M cts. /kWh 0,71 0,68 0,32 0,33 0,39
Fuel cts. /kWh 1.14 1.33 2.57 2.67 2.74
Electricity cost cts.
/kWh
4.48 4.41 3.85 4.17 5.04
18 of 67
Features of IGCC Technology
Cost Comparison among IGCC, PC and NGCC Power plant:

1.14
1.33
2.57
2.67 2.74
0.71
0.68
0.32
0.33
0.39
2.63
2.4
0.96
1.17
1.91
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
IGCC PC sub
critical
NGCC
base
NGCC
peak 1
NGCC
peak 2

/
k
W
h
Investment cts. /kWh
O&M cts. /kWh
Fuel cts. /kWh
Coal price = 1.38 /MMBtu
Gas price = 3.74 /MMBtu
19 of 67
History of Gasification: Global & Indian
20 of 67
History of Gasification
PERIOD TECHNOLOGY

Before 1700 Major fuels were Wood and Charcoal

1700-1750 Industrial revolution Coal as fuel

1800-1900 Coal Pyrolysis Town gas supply
Water gas, Producer Gas

1920 Cryogenic air separation Oxygen replaces air

1926 Winkler Fluidized Bed Gasifier

1931 Lurgi Moving Bed Gasifier

1940 Koppers-Totzek Entrained Flow Gasifier

1950s Texaco and Shell develop Oil Gasification

21 of 67
PERIOD TECHNOLOGY

1970s Oil crisis

1973 Texaco develops Slurry Process for Coal Gasification

1974 Shell and Koppers-Totzek Pressure Gasification JV

1981 High Temperature Winkler Gasification

1984 Lurgi Slagging Gasifier (together with British Gas)

1999 Shell/Krupp-Uhde develops Pressurised Entrained
Flow (PRENFLO) Gasifier

Beyond 2000 Shell Gasification, GE Quench/PHR/FHR, Siemens,
Chinese, GPE, Plasma, Headwaters
History of Gasification
22 of 67
PERIOD TECHNOLOGY FEED LOCATION

1940s Wood Gasification Wood FACT - Cochin

1945-1950 Lurgi Fixed Bed Coal Sindri

1960s Winkler Fluidized Bed Lignite Neyveli

1960s Texaco Naphtha FACT - Cochin

1970s Krupp-Koppers Coal Ramagundam
Entrained Bed Atm. Talcher

1970s Shell Fuel oil Sindri

1980s Shell Fuel oil NFL - Bhatinda,
Panipat, Nangal

1980s Texaco Fuel oil GNFC - Bharuch
Gasification Indian Context
23 of 67
Types of Gasifiers
24 of 67
What Is Gasification?

Conversion of any carbonaceous fuel to a gaseous
product with a useable heating value.
The feed for Gasification can be
Gas (e.g., Natural gas)
Liquid (e.g., Light or Heavy oils)
Solid (e.g., Petroleum Coke, Coal, Lignite or
Biomass).
25 of 67
Combustion v/s Gasification
Combustion Gasification
Operating temperature Lower Higher
Operating pressure Usually atmospheric Often high pressure
Ash condition Often dry Often slagging
Feed gases Air Steam, oxygen
Product gases CO
2
, H
2
O CO, H
2
, CH
4
, CO
2
, H
2
O
Gas cleanup Postscrubbing Intermediate scrubbing
Pollutants SO
2
, NO
2
H
2
S, HCN, NH
3
, COS
Char reaction rate Fast (with O
2
) Slow (with CO
2
, H
2
O)
Oxidizer In excess (Oxidizing) Deficient (Reducing)
Tar production None Sometimes
Purpose High-temperature gas Fuel-rich gas
26 of 67
Types of Gasifiers
1) Moving/Fixed bed e.g., Lurgi

Counter-current
Co-current

2) Fluidized bed e.g., Winkler/KBR/U-GAS

3) Entrained flow

Dry pulverized solid fuel e.g., Shell/Prenflo/Siemens

Fuel slurry e.g., GE/Conoco-Philips

Atomized liquid fuel e.g., GE/Shell

27 of 67
Types of Gasifier
Coal (3-30 mm)
Gas
Fly Ash
Steam +Air / O2
Steam + O2
Coal (0.1 mm)
Gas
Coal (0.1 mm)
Steam + O2
Slag
Gas
Coal (1-5 mm)
Fly Ash
Moving Bed
(400-1,100
0
C, 10-100 bar)
Fluidised
(800-1,050
0
C, 10-25 bar)
Entrained
(1,200-1,600
0
C, 25-40 bar)
Steam +Air / O2
28 of 67
Temperature Profile of Gasifiers
FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIER
(800 1050
0
C, 10 to 25 bar)
MOVING BED GASIFIER
(400-1100
0
C, 10 to 100 bar)
ENTRAINED FLOW GASIFIER
(1200-1600
0
C, 25 to 80 bar)
29 of 67
Fluidised based gasifier
COAL
Inert Gas
LOCKHOPPER
SYSTEM
Injector
Screws
Fluidized
Bed
GASIFIER
Disengaging
Zone
Freeboard
SYNGAS
CYCLONE
Grid
Bottom Ash
Removal
AIR / STEAM
U-GAS Gasifier Schematic
COAL
Inert Gas
LOCKHOPPER
SYSTEM
Injector
Screws
Fluidized
Bed
GASIFIER
Disengaging
Zone
Freeboard
SYNGAS
CYCLONE
Grid
Bottom Ash
Removal
AIR / STEAM
U-GAS Gasifier Schematic
30 of 67
Equilibrium Exit Gas Composition
31 of 67
Reliance Strategy for Petcoke Utilization
32 of 67
Background Story of Petcoke Usage
First Refinery at Jamnagar started up in Q499. Petcoke production ~ 8500 TPD
During project engineering phase several options for petcoke usage were
discussed:
Thermal power plant CFBC Boiler + STG
Petcoke gasification to generate H
2
for refinery. Back up of coal feed during
start up
Storage of petcoke during intervening period between start up of refinery and
proposed units above
Focused effort for marketing of petcoke National + International Customers
Marketing efforts were so successful, that we didnt pursue any of the other
options.
33 of 67
Future Petcoke Scenario
Second Refinery at Jamnagar start up on Q408
Expected petcoke production: ~9000 TPD
Total Reliance petcoke generation: ~6.5 MMTPA
Expected additional generation of petcoke in India by 2012: ~10 MMTPA
This far exceeds captive demand of ~4 MMTPA
Surplus petcoke is available
Reliance considers petcoke gasification as opportunity for value addition
34 of 67
Transform Jamnagar into bottomless refinery
Exploit price delta between natural gas and petcoke
Replace natural gas with syngas, to manage the supply risk
Insulate the Jamnagar refinery from future energy cost escalation
Pursue reduction in GHG through possible CO
2
capture and
sequestration
Key Drivers for Petcoke Gasification
35 of 67
Project Formulation for Petcoke Gasification
36 of 67
PETCOKE QTY - 17500 TPD (Dry Basis)
19000 TPD (As recd. Basis)

OXYGEN

-

18,000 TPD

SYN. GAS PRODUCTION - 40,000 TPD
2/3
rd
FOR POWER
1/3
rd
FOR HYDROGEN/
CHEMICALS


POWER GENERATION - 1140 MW

HYDROGEN GENERATION - 900 TPD
Project Scope
37 of 67
Typical Fuel Composition
Component
Petcoke
(Wt%)
Lignite Orissa Coal (Wt%) *
Carbon 89.45 51.64 55.70
Hydrogen 2.80 4.6 4.78
Sulphur 7.49 7.5 0.67
Oxygen 0.01 17.68 7.32
Nitrogen 0.05 0.44 1.53
Ash 0.20 17.85 30.00
GCV (Kcal/kg) 8350 533 4567
* For reference of comparison only
38 of 67
Energy Content and Composition of Solid Fuels
Petcoke
39 of 67
Reactivity of Fuels as Function of Temperature
40 of 67
Why Entrained Flow Gasifier?
Ability to handle variety of solid fuels
High throughput because of high reaction rates/temperature
Opportunity for heat recovery
High carbon conversion
Syngas free of oils and tars
Low methane production

41 of 67
Salient Features of GE and Shell Technologies
Sr.
No.
Parameter GE Shell
1 Nature of feed Slurry Dry
2 Firing Top fired Side fired
3 Number of burners Single Multiple
4 Gasifier Pressure vessel with
refractory lining
Pressure vessel with
membrane wall
5 Operating
conditions

Temperature:1200-1500
0
C
Pressure: upto 80 bar
Temperature: >1600
0
C
Pressure: 36 bar
6 Gas/ Slag Flow
Path
Gas + Slag + Fine Ash all
flow down - single passage
Gas + Fly Ash goes up,
Slag flows down -
separate passage
42 of 67
GE Quench Gasifier Slurry Feed
1. Steel Pressure Shell
2. Insulation Layer
3. Castable Layer
4. Hot-face Refractory

1450
0
C
1000
0
C
550
0
C
300
0
C
280
0
C
1
2
3
4
43 of 67
Shell Membrane Walled Gasifier


50
0
C
8
1300
0
C
800
0
C
500
0
C
200
0
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Flowing Slag Layer
2. Solid Slag Layer
3. High Alumina Refractory Material
4. Metallic Studs (Incolloy)
5. Membrane Tube Wall
6. Free Space
7. Refractory Lining on Pressure Vessel
8. Pressure Vessel
1650
0
C
Syngas Cooler
44 of 67
Hydrogen
ASU
Gasifier
Gas
Cleaning &
Cooling
AGR
GT
HRSG STG
Sour
Shift
AGR
H
2
S
Sweet
Shift
PSA
Air
N
2
Air
Steam
O
2
Slag + Fine Ash
Power
Power
Steam
H
2
S
SRU
Sulphur
CO
2

Capture
Flue gases
AGR
CO
2
To SRU
Process Flow
Grinding
Coke
Feed
45 of 67
Typical Syngas Composition (Gasifier O/L)
Licensor GE Shell
COMPONENT (Mole%, dry basis)
CO 48
61
H
2
32
25
CO
2
16
4.5
CH
4
0.10
0.01
Ar + Rare gases 1.1 0.9
N
2
0.7
6.7
H
2
S 2
1.7
COS 0.1
0.3
HHV (Kcal/kg) 2500 2700
46 of 67

Retrofittings of GT (Frame 6 & Frame 9) for Syngas firing:
Piping:
Syngas
N
2
Purge
N
2
/ steam
Controls
MK 6
Software
Instrumentation (valves / flow meter)
Combustion
Fuel Nozzle
Liners
Syngas Skid
Syngas injection
Air Extraction (Optional)
N2 injection ( Optional)
Compartment modification
Off base enclosure
CFD modeling
Hazardous gas detection system
Retrofitting of existing assets
47 of 67
Carbon Source
Gasification
Synthesis Gas
Methanol
Methyl Acetate
Acetic Anhydride
Gasification: Ultimate Product Flexibility
Power & Steam
Naptha
Waxes
Fischer-
Tropsch
Liquids
Diesel/Jet/Gas Fuels
Synthetic Natural Gas
Acetic Acid
VAM
PVA
Ketene
Diketene &
Derivatives
Iron Reduction
Fuel/Town Gas
H2
Ammonia
& Urea
Dimethyl Ether
Ethylene
&
Propylene
Oxo Chemicals
Polyolefins
Acetate
Esters
48 of 67
Process of Evaluation
49 of 67
Process of Evaluation




Proposal from process licensors
Series of discussions with process licensors
Visit to plants of GE & Shell and discussion with plant operators:

Location Feedstock
GE
Coffeyville resources, USA Petcoke
Polk Power Plant, Tampa Coal + Petcoke
Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport Coal
Sarlux IGCC, Cagliari Vacuum residue
Wison Chemical Co, Nanjing Coal
Sinopec Nanjing Chemical Industries Co, Nanjing Coal
Shanghai Coking and Chemical Company Coal
GNFC, Bharuch Fuel oil
Shell
Nuon Power, The Netherlands Coal+ Biomass
Elcogas, Puertallano, Spain Coal + Petcoke
Yueyang Sinopec & Shell Coal Gasification Co Ltd, China Coal

50 of 67
Process of Evaluation (contd.)




Information and data available in the public domain.
CAPEX estimation based on:
PFD & sized equipment list provided by the licensors
Pre-engineering to estimate quantities of bulk materials
OPEX estimation for Jamnagar location
Personal experience of operating oil and coal gasifiers.
51 of 67
Parameters for Evaluation of Performance
OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS / RATIOS
No. of Gasifiers
Gasifier Temperature & Pressure
Oxygen Purity
O
2
/ Te of coal
Syngas / Te of coal
% (CO + H
2
) per Te of coal
Steam Water / Te of coal
Gas Composition
Calorific Value of Syngas
52 of 67
Parameters for Evaluation of Performance (contd.)
F-R-A-M-E (Flexibility, Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Efficiency)
Flexibility:
Feed
No. of burners (single vs. multiple)
Design margin
Turn down
Gasifier sparing
Gasifier downstream processing
Product
Reliability / Availability:
On-stream factor
Planned outage
Unplanned outage
Forced outage rate
53 of 67
Parameters for Evaluation of Performance (contd.)
F-R-A-M-E (Flexibility, Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Efficiency)
Maintainability:
Air compressor train
Grinding mills
Slurry feed pumps
Gasifier
o Burners, refractory, waste heat recovery
AGR
o Columns, heat exchangers, vessels, pumps etc.
SRU
Efficiency:
Carbon Efficiency: (Te of carbon in CO,CO
2
,CH
4
,COS)/(Te of C in feed)x100
Total Thermal Efficiency: (Cold gas energy + steam energy (LP/MP/HHP))/(input
energy of coal ) x 100
Cold Gas Efficiency: (LHV of cold gas x Te of syngas)/(LHV of coal x Te of coal)
x 100
Useful Gas Efficiency: (Ton of CO+H
2
produced)/(Ton of C+H
2
+O
2
in feed) x 100

54 of 67
Environmental Performance
SOx control
H
2
S & COS removal mature technologies available.
Captured acid gas to solid sulfur or sulfuric acid
>99% removal
NOx control
Minimize fuel nitrogen: NH
3
washes out of syngas with water
Minimize thermal NOx: moderate flame temperature in GT with diluent
injection (N
2
/steam)
PM control
Ash is converted to glassy slag which is inert and usable
Secondary removal of fine solids from syngas with barrier filters and water
scrubbers
55 of 67
Economics
Raw Material
Solid
Coke, Lignite
ASU
Number of trains
Oxygen purity (95.0 vs 99.7%)
Cold box operating pressure
Number of compressors
Drive for compressors (Motor vs Turbine)
Oxygen supply (liquid/gas)
Recovery of rare gases
Extent of integration with GTs
Grinding
Wet vs. Dry
Feed slurry pumping vs. pneumatic feed
56 of 67
Energy Requirement Vs Oxygen Purity
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
94 95 96 97 98 99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5
Oxygen Purity, %
E
n
e
r
g
y

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,

%

Going From 95 % to 99 % Purity, increases the energy by 5 %.
Going From 99 % to 99.5% Purity, increases the energy by another 5 %.
Energy requirement sharply increases beyond 99 %.


Source : Industrial Gas Handbook, Gas Separation & Purification, By Frank G. Kerry
Energy Requirement vs. Oxygen Purity
57 of 67
Gasifier
Type (Quench, FHR)
Pressure (low & High)
CO Shift
Sour vs. Sweet
Acid Gas Removal Unit
Chemical vs. Physical
Sulphur Recovery
Granulated sulphur vs. sulphuric acid
CO
2
capture
Sequestration vs chemical
Product Slate
Power, H
2
, NH
3
, Urea, MeOH, AA, MTO, DME, GTL etc.
Integration
Gas, Air, Nitrogen & Steam
Economics (contd.)
58 of 67
1. Steam generation with extracted air from GT compressor
2. Steam injection for NOx control / no Nitrogen injection
Syn Gas Temp
not < 200
0
C
HP Steam @
42 bara 391
o
C
10.2 bar
360
0
C
ASU

Steam
Generator
LP/MP/HP
Steam
BFW
ASU Compressor
8.1 bar
40
0
C
GT
Compressor
GT
Syngas
Preheater
Syn Gas
@ 40
0
C
Fuel
Mixer
Oxygen to
gasification
Steam
Air
Air
BFW
preheater
BFW Feed
Nitrogen
112 MW
Conceptual Scheme for GT ASU Integration
59 of 67
Technology Suppliers Considered
Unit Supplier
Air Separation Unit Air Liquide, Air products,
Linde, Praxair
Grinding L & T - MHI, Loesche,
Pfeiffer, Metso, Promac
Gasification GE, Shell
Acid Gas Removal Unit Linde, Lurgi, UOP, BASF,
Ineos, Shell, Amines &
Plasticizers, Black &
Veatch
60 of 67
Typical Capex Break-up for IGCC
Sections %
Gasification 39
ASU 21
Sour block 10
Power block 14
OSBL 7
Contingency 9
Total 100
61 of 67
Sensitivity Analysis
NG Price ($/MMBTU)
Petcoke price ($/T) 5 7 9 11 13 15
60 15.86 6.84 4.36 3.2 2.53 2.09
90 11.09 5.77 3.9 2.94 2.37
120 29.4 8.53 4.99 3.53 2.73
150 16.36 6.93 4.4 3.22
CAPEX/EBITDA (Years)
JAMNAGAR IGCC

Feedstock: 17500 TPD petcoke
Product: Syngas
CAPEX: Approximately USD 3.0 - 3.3 billion
62 of 67
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
63 of 67
Emerging Technologies
To summarise
Gasification Technology offers the cleanest and most efficient way to convert low
and / or negative value carbon based feed stock to syngas.
Syngas can ultimately replace natural gas for Industrial uses, electrical power
generation and basic raw material to produce chemical and fuel oil.
Commercial Success of Gasification Technology will depend on the advancement
of technologies such as :
Low cost oxygen production
Syngas cleanup and
Cost effective separation of Hydrogen from C
2

64 of 67
Emerging Technologies
Advanced and / or Novel Gasifier Technology
Hydrogen Separation (from H2 and CO2 mixtures) Membrane Technology
Solvent Absorption / Physical Solvent Technologies
Sulfur Conversion and Recovery Technology
Non-Cryogenic Oxygen (e.g. Membrane) Production Technology
Multi-Component Removal Technology
Gasification Integration
65 of 67
Emerging Technologies
New Gasifier designs:
1. GE global/ Unmixed fuel processor (UOP):
Elimination of Air Separation Unit (ASU)
High Temperature Syngas Clean up
Higher efficiency
Lower cost
2. KBR Transport Gasifier (TRIG
TM
):
Low rank, high-ash, high-moisture coal compatible
For power generation, air can be employed as the oxidant
Lower cost predicted
Higher availability predicted
Non-slagging, and refractory issues should therefore be minimal
Higher predicted efficiency
Lower emissions (due to higher efficiency)
Large scale up of the technology still required, by a factor of ~30
By 2010, this technology will be operating at the scale of E-Gas which has >20 years
experience already in 2007.
Lower temperatures and short gas residence time may lead to some methane formation,
which is detrimental in chemical applications.
Ash disposal problem if carbon conversion predictions are not met in commercial
apparatus.
66 of 67
Emerging Technologies
3. Catalytic Coal Gasification Bluegas
TM
:
Elimination of oxygen plant
For SNG objective, little or no catalytic methanation required
High thermodynamic efficiency potential
Catalyst cost and recoverability
Carbon conversion and methane production yields in the gasifier
Cost of applying the catalyst effectively to the coal
Inherently must be done in a fluidized bed which have not been scaled up to larger capacities
of entrained gasifiers (yet)
Interactions of catalyst with coal ash
Separation costs of syngas and methane cryogenic process
Excess steam requirements
Unsuitable for chemical synthesis processes due to CH
4
reforming requirement.

67 of 67