economic evaluation and upgraded implementation of the...

American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 http://www.aascit.org/journal/ajees ISSN: 2381-1153 (Print); ISSN: 2381-1161 (Online)

Keywords Natural Gas Conversion,

Liquid Fuel Production,

Membrane Reactor Technology,

Economical Assessments,

Shell Pearl Qatar Process,

Petroleum Engineering

Received: November 10, 2015

Accepted: December 2, 2015

Published: April 26, 2016

Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar

A. A. Panteloglou, S. P. Vasileiadis, Z. D. Ziaka

School of Natural Sciences and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patra, Greece

Email address [email protected] (A. A. Panteloglou), [email protected] (S. P. Vasileiadis),

[email protected] (Z. D. Ziaka)

Citation A. A. Panteloglou, S. P. Vasileiadis, Z. D. Ziaka. Economic Evaluation and Upgraded

Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar. American Journal of Environmental Engineering

and Science. Vol. 3, No. 3, 2016, pp. 80-89.

Abstract Natural gas that is discharged to the environment through flaring or is situated in areas

4000 km away from the final consumers and thus is not economically feasible to transfer

through pipelines can be further processed for producing liquid fuels. The process

studied in this paper is the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis, which is applied in the Shell

Pearl Qatar project. This project produces liquid fuels – naphtha, kerosene, diesel and

baseoil –in approximately 140,000 barrels/day. This paper is a feasibility study of Shell

Pearl Qatar project and its sustainability aiming to determine the price range for crude oil

over which an investment to a similar project can be profitable. An MS Excel Model was

developed in order to perform calculations having as a variable the crude oil price and

taking into account all the process and project’s financial data. The results of this model

showed that the project remains profitable in crude oil prices above $48.67/barrel. In the

price range $55 - $60/barrel, the payout of the project will be in about 9 years. In

addition, we proposed a new method for the improvement of the project’s financial

results. The use of membrane reactor technology to produce synthesis gas, after

appropriate modification, will increase the overall financial performance by about 35%.

The study of the new process showed that the project remains profitable in crude oil

prices above $30.78/barrel and the payout will be in 4.2 years.

1. Introduction

In recent years there has been great interest in the use of natural gas, on a global scale,

both as a source of energy and to produce useful chemicals. This interest becomes larger

when one considers environmental benefits compared with the use of crude oil.

It has been found that 5% of global gas supply is rejected through flaring, because it

cannot be further processed or sold as such [1]. The amount of gas that in 2014 was

rejected to the environment was about 140 billion m3. The World Bank has estimated that

the rejection of this quantity of gas through flaring corresponds to the release of 300

million tones of CO2 into the environment. Should this quantity be used to generate

electricity it would cover the annual needs of the entire Africa [1].

Correspondingly, the proven gas reserves worldwide have increased by 55% over the

last 20 years, as presented in Table 1 [2]. By proven hydrocarbon reserves we mean the

estimated quantities of hydrocarbons, which, on analysis of geological and engineering

data, can be recovered under existing economic and operating conditions. Estimates of

reserves change annually as new exploration discoveries come to light, existing

exploration areas are fully valued, existing deposits are mined, and the technological and

American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(3): 80-89 81

operational costs are constantly changing.

Table 1. Proven world gas reserves for the years 1993, 2003 and 2013 [2].

Year Natural Gas (in oil equivalent)

1993 106.6 bn. ton

2003 140.1 bn. ton

2013 167.1 bn. ton

The main commercial use of natural gas is burning, either

for electricity or heat production, from residential or

industrial consumers or for moving vehicles [31-38]. Before

its consumption the gas should be transferred from the

pumping space. It has been found that the transport of gas by

pipeline remains economically feasible when the total

distance of the pipeline does not exceed 4000 km [3]. Proven

natural gas reserves could be more if those found at a

distance more than 4,000 kilometers, have undergone process

to other useful products.

In conclusion, both for environmental and economic

reasons, natural gas can be used to produce other chemicals,

when it is distant from the final consumer or discarded into

the environment through flaring.

2. Scientific Background

Natural gas can now be compared to crude oil, as it is one

of the most important raw materials for the production of

other chemicals. “Cleaning” raw natural gas produces water,

hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, mercury, and other

hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane and butane (LPG).

Direct processing may produce many other useful products,

such as ethylene, acetylene, propylene and benzene.

Processing gas indirectly and after having produced synthesis

gas, as shown in Figure 1, the following chemicals can be

obtained [4]: hydrogen and ammonia, aldehydes, methanol,

hydrocarbons and olefins, formaldehyde, acetic acid, MTBE

etc.

Figure 1. Products manufactured by indirect process gas [12].

In this paper we dealt with the production of liquid fuels

via the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis process, SMDS.

Royal Dutch Shell plc. invested $19 billion for the

construction of the project Shell Pearl in Qatar, for the

production of liquid fuels from natural gas utilizing the above

process. The project and the process include the following

four steps [5] as shown in Figure 2 below:

1. The extraction of natural gas from 22 wells from the

marine space of Qatar through two unmanned

platforms. Natural gas is transported to land 60 km

away, where it is “cleaned”. The daily volume of gas

processed is 45.31 million cubic meters.

2. Production of synthesis gas by the non-catalytic partial

oxidation of methane with pure oxygen in gasifiers

(Shell Gasification Process, SGP). The reactions taking

place within the gasifiers are:

CH4 + ½O2 ↔ CO + 2H2 (∆Ho = -36 kJ/mol) (1)

CH4 + 1,5O2 ↔ CO + 2H2O (∆Ho = -519 kJ/mol) (2)

CH4 + 2O2 ↔ CO2 + 2H2O (∆Ho = -802 kJ/mol) (3)

CH4 ↔ C + 2H2 (∆Ho = 74,6 kJ/mol) (4)

CO + H2 ↔ C + H2O (∆Ho = -131 kJ/mol) (5)

2CO ↔ C + CO2 (∆Ho = -172 kJ/mol) (6)

The desired chemical reaction (1) of partial oxidation of

methane with pure oxygen is slightly exothermic and from

the reaction stoichiometry, the ratio of oxygen to methane

should be 0.5: 1. In real conditions the ratio of oxygen to

methane is 0.7: 1, so that some of the methane is consumed

in reactions (2) and (3), which are very exothermic and

generate large amounts of heat. The amount of energy

produced is consumed in the remaining part of the process

and make the entire process self-sufficient. This requires very

good temperature and pressure control of the reactor and the

reaction conditions are: temperature of 1300° - 1400°C,

pressure of 1 - 65 bar and yield of 35 - 40% [7]. Due to the

very high temperatures of the reactor the side reactions (4),

(5) and (6) may occur, which lead to carbon formation.

Finally, the oxygen is produced in air separation units (Air

Separation Units. ASU), which are the most energy

consuming unit operations.

1. Heavy Paraffin Synthesis, HPS, through the Fischer –

Tropsch reactions. The reactor used is a tubular fixed

bed reactor and the catalyst carrier is alumina or silica

or a mixture of both. The active centers of the catalyst

consist ofcobalt molecules and smaller quantities of

zirconium, titanium and chromium. The typical Shell

composition of the catalyst system is 3-60 parts by

weight cobalt with 0.1 to 100 parts by weight

zirconium, titanium and/or chromium, per 100 parts by

weight alumina/silica carrier. The catalyst is prepared

by conventional impregnation methods, or kneading.

Finally, the presence of the catalyst in the reactor is in

the form of fixed bed, the catalyst bed has an external

surface 5 – 70 cm2/ml and an internal surface of 100 –

400 m2/ml. The catalyst activation requires contact with

hydrogen or a gaseous stream containing hydrogen at a

temperature of 200° - 350°C [8]. Finally, the reactor

operating conditions are: temperature of 175° - 275°C

and pressure of 10 - 75 bar.

82 A. A. Panteloglou et al.: Economic Evaluation and Upgraded Implementation of the Project: Shell Pearl Qatar

The reactions that take place in this reactor are:

Methane:

3H2 + CO → CH4 + H2O (7)

2H2 + 2CO → CH4 + CO2 (8)

4H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2H2O (9)

Paraffin:

(2n+1)H2 + nCO → CnH2n+2 + nH2O (10)

(n+1)H2 + 2nCO → CnH2n+2 + nCO2 (11)

(3n+1)H2 + nCO2 → CnH2n+2 + 2nH2O (12)

Olefin:

2nH2 + nCO → CnH2n + nH2O (13)

nH2 + 2nCO → CnH2n + nCO2 (14)

3nH2 + nCO2 → CnH2n + 2nH2O (15)

Alcohols:

2nH2 + nCO → CnH2n+1OH + (n-1)H2O (16)

3nH2 + nCO2 → CnH2n+1OH + (2n-1)H2O (17)

The reactions that are thermodynamically favored are

reaction (11) for the production of paraffin and reaction (14)

for the reaction of olefin [13].

The industry of Shell in Qatar includes 12 heavy paraffin

reactors, each of them comprising 200 tones catalyst and

each weighing a total of 1200 tones.

2. Heavy Paraffin Conversion, HPC, to finished products

in a diffusion reactor (trickle bed reactor) in the

presence of a catalyst. The catalyst comprises one or

more noble metals of group VIII of the periodic table of

elements. Specifically, the catalyst system used in the

SMDS process consists of 0.2 to 1% by weight

platinum or palladium on alumina – silica carrier. The

reactor operating conditions are: temperature of 250° -

350°C and 10 - 75 bar pressure. The product of this

reactor is subjected to fractionation in a traditional

distillation column. The lightweight products of

distillation are recycled to the HPC reactor.

Figure 2. Simplified process flow diagram SMDS [6].

Due to the low quantity of syngas production, we

recommend using a different reactor technology, which will

increase the total efficiency of the process. Such as potential

technologies to contribute can be membrane reactor

technology or pressure swing adsorption technology. We

present and analyze here the use of membrane technology,

which can be applied after appropriate modificationsto the

conventional processes. The membrane reactors in chemical

engineering concept integrate reaction and separation

processes in a single process. This technology is utilized in

reactions limited by thermodynamic and kinetic phenomena,

to increase conversion efficiency or selectivity of the overall

reaction. The operation of such a reactor is either to eliminate

the production of a byproduct or to transfer a byproduct out

of the reaction or to remove the main product from the

reactor, as shown in Figure 3. All these lead to a lower

temperature reaction and reduced deactivation of the catalyst,

thus longer catalyst life and higher energy savings.

The membrane reactor is a device in which,

simultaneously, taking place chemical reaction and

separation, due to membrane, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Diagram function of the membrane [15].

The types of membrane reactors that are widely used in

industry, depending on the function and location of the

membrane, are shown in Figure 4. In general, these reactors

may be categorized as follows:

• Fixed Bed Permreactor, FBP: In this type of reactor the

catalyst particles are arranged in a fixed bed in a tubular

reactor. Around the catalyst is the membrane, usually

made of ceramic material to withstand the high

pressures of this type of reactor. The membrane is non

catalytic, thus does not play the role of catalyst.

• Catalytic Permreactor, CP: There is no catalyst in the

tubular reactor, but the film itself plays the role of the

catalyst, as it has been impregnated with the catalyst

liquid.

• Catalytic Fixed Bed Permreactor, CFBP: This reactor is

a combination of the two described above, as the

catalyst particles located in a fixed bed in a tubular

reactor enclosed by the membrane, which has also been

impregnated with catalytic material [16].

The process that we propose includes methane steam

reforming to produce synthesis gas and carbon dioxide. The

reactions that take place are shown below. The reactor used is

the Fixed Bed Permreactor. The membrane reactor is sol - gel


hollow cylindrical reactor made of aluminum. The film

consists of three microporous levels, which are made by

using sol – gel technique, the first made of gamma-alumina

and the other two of alpha-alumina. The catalyst is a 15% by

weight nickel supported on calcium aluminate. The catalyst is

in the form of particles of diameter 0.92 mm [16]. With this

method, the reactor performance is expected to increase to 65

- 70%, which will lead to increased production of the desired

products.

CH4 + H2O(g) ↔ CO + 3H2 (∆Ho = 206 kJ/mol) (18)

CO + H2O(g) ↔ CO2 + H2 (∆Ho = -41 kJ/mol) (19)

CH4 ↔ C + 2H2 (∆Ho = 74,6 kJ/mol) (4)

CO + H2 ↔ C + H2O (∆Ho = -131 kJ/mol) (5)

2CO ↔ C + CO2 (∆Ho = -172 kJ/mol) (6)

The selection of the membrane materials is based upon the

selectivity of the appropriate products in order to achieve the

desired conversion of the process.

Figure 4. Classification of membrane reactors in accordance with the

function and location of the film [12].

3. Feasibility Study

A feasibility study incorporates financial terms that need to

be explained as follows [9]:

• Capital: the commodity expressed in monetary units,

which has the capacity to produce other goods.

• Capital Cost: in industry, is the cost of all fixed assets

(land, machinery, other services) of an investment.

Often referred to as the compensation required by

investors or lenders to convince to provide funding to

an investment, since investment must return at least the

cost of capital, and ideally an amount greater than the

cost.

• Annual Operating Costs: the cost of operation covers

the whole production process in relation to the nature of

the product, and general selling expenses,

administration, etc.

• Annual Revenue: income generally equals to the product

of the sale price of the product multiplied by the annual

production.

• Payout: Payout is the accounting statement of the

damage caused to the asset value of the use or over

time. The practice of payout consists of removing a

specific amount from the gross profits annually until the

sum of annual payout is equal to the market value of

assets. Usually, the rate of payout is 20%.

• Interest: performance (increase) of capital for a certain

period of time.

• Interest Rate: the interest on capital for a monetary unit

at a specific time period.

• Inflation: expresses the reduction in the purchasing

power of money, i.e. the fact that over time the same

amount can buy increasingly fewer goods.

• Discount Rate: is used to calculate the future value of a

current amount or the present value of a future amount.

In the case of reducing an amount in future value, the

discount rate is often called and compound interest rate,

whereas in the case of calculating the present value of

an amount, the discount rate is referred to as the

discount rate.

• Future Value, FV: suppose an amount K, which invested

today (time 0) with discount rate e. The value of this

amount K after a year is K * e and the amount will

increase to K+K*e or K*(1+e). Following the practice

of capitalization of interest, the future value of the

initial amount K after t years at an annual interest rate e

will be:

FVκ = Κ*(1+e)t (20)

• Present Value, PV: if you are going to pay a X amount

after t years, then the value of the amount currently (at

time 0), called Present Value will be:

PVx = Χ*(1+e)-t (21)

• Cash Flow, CF: the cash flow of the project is defined

as the algebraic sum of all the years of life investment.

However, since financial flows take place at different

times, it is necessary before realized the sum of cash

flows to calculate the present value of each cash flow.


• Net present value, NPV: defined as the difference

between the present value of annual income less the

present value of annual expenses, including initial and

subsequent investment in the project. The NPV is given

by:

NPV = 0

1 (1 )

CF

e

ντ

ττ =

− Ε+∑ (22)

Where NPV = Net Present Value,

CFτ = Cash Flow for year t,

Ε0 = initial investment in year 0,

ν = the lifetime of the project, and

e = the discount rate.

• Internal Rate of Return on capital IRR: when the

discount rate for a particular cash flow increases, the

NPV value of cash flows is reduced. The IRR of the

EBA capital can be defined as the discount rate that

resets the cash flow, i.e. the rate that equates the initial

investment value of all future cash flows. The formula

that gives the IRR is:

NPV=0 = 0

1 (1 )

CF

IRR

ντ

ττ =

− Ε+∑ (23)

Where IRR = the internal rate of return for NPV = 0.

When considering a project, regardless of the options, then

the terms of acceptance or rejection in relation to the NPV or

IRR are as follows:

A. For NPV:

• NPV> 0, The investment is considered advantageous,

• NPV = 0, the financial result of the investment is

marginal,

• NPV< 0, the investment is rejected.

B. For IRR:

• IRR>the minimum acceptable discount rate, the

investment is considered advantageous,

• IRR = the minimum acceptable discount rate, the

investment is considered marginal, applicable when

there is no better alternative,

• IRR<the minimum acceptable discount rate, then the

investment is rejected.

The financial analysis aims in calculating the cash flows

arising from the implementation of the future project. Cash

flow is defined by the difference of two ratios: the cash

inflow and cash outflow. This difference may be positive or

negative. Cash flow refers to a specific period of operation,

usually annually. Therefore, for an investment project a list of

annual cash flows should be made for the economic lifetime

of the investment [9]. The list of cash flows of an investment

project is in the following format:

4. Results

This paper aims to carry out a financial study of the Shell

Pearl Qatar project in relation to the price of crude oil. The

crude oil prices variation from 1950 to date is presented in

Figure 5, where it seems that in the last 15 years the price has

not fallen below the $40/boe.

Figure 5. Oil prices (boe), historically from 1950 to date [14].

The Shell Pearl Qatar products consist of: methane LPG,

condensate, naphtha, kerosene, gasoil and baseoil and the

total production amounted to 260,000 barrels/day, as shown

schematically in Figure 6. This production, according to the

density and energy of each component may be converted to

an oil equivalent. Table 3 shows the annual production of

Shell Pearl Qatar in oil equivalent.

Figure 6. The Shell Pearl Qatar project’s products.

Table 2. A typical table of cash flows of an investment project [9].

0 1 2 v

(1) Capital Cost

(2) Annual Revenue

(3) Annual Operating Cost

(4) Gross Profit = (2) – (3)

(5) Payout (20%)

(6) Interests

(7) Taxable Income = (4) – (5) – (6)

(8) Taxes = (7) * Tax Rate

(9) Net Profit after tax = (7) – (8)

(10) Installment Credit

(11) Internal Rate of Return = (9) + (5) – (10) – (1)


Table 3. The annual output of products Shell Pearl Qatar, in oil equivalent.

Product Barrels/day

(bbl/d)

Oil equivalent

barrel/day (boe/d)

Oil equivalent

barrel/year (boe/yr)

Ethane 30,000 30,000 9,855,000

LPG 30,000 21,450 7,046,325

Condensate 60,000 56,130 18,438,705

Naphtha 35,000 30,835 10,129,297.50

Kerosene 25,000 25,425 8,352,112.50

GasOil 50,000 48,650 15,981,525

BaseOil 30,000 34,500 11,333,250

Total: 260,000 246,990 81,136,215

The completion of the cash flow table in Figure 5 includes:

• The total investment capital. For Shell Pearl Qatar the

total investment cost is $19 billions [10].

• The annual operating costs. The operating costs are

$2,500,000/day or $821.25 million annually [11].

• The annual revenue. The project revenues depend

exclusively on oil prices. The annual production, shown

in Table 2 must be multiplied by the price of oil per

barrel in order to calculate the annual income of Shell

Pearl Qatar. The price of WTI oil on 10/30/2015 was

$46.59/barrel. So the annual revenue of the project, if

this was the average price of oil throughout the year, is

$46.59/bbl x 81,136,215 barrels/year =

$3,780,136,256.85/year. Table A1 in Appendices

presents the annual project revenues compared with the

price of crude oil. It must be emphasized that the

working days/year is considered to be 90% of the time

or 328.5 days / year. The remaining days of the year

maintenance is carried out.

• The payout of the project is 20%.

• We suppose that interest does not exist, since the $ 19

billion cost of capital, is given by the construction

consortium of the project, i.e. the State of Qatar and the

private company Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

• The State of Qatar tax is 10%.

• Finally, it is assumed that the annual inflation will be

3% and the discount rate is 8%.

Figure 7. The Net Present Value of the project Shell Pearl Qatar with

respect to the price of oil.

The financial study showed that the Shell Pearl Qatar

project is profitable as long as the oil price is above $ 48.75 /

bbl, as shown in the graph of Figure 7. With oil prices below

this, the project is not profitable. Conversely, oil prices

exceeding $100/barrel of oil will gain more than $55 billion,

over the project life of 20 years. Finally, payout of the project

for crude oil prices between $ 55-60/barrel will be in about 9

years, as shown in Figure 8.

The final analysis to be made has to do with the IRR of

the project. For this analysis the oil price of $50.93/barrel

was used, which is the 2015 average WTI oil price.

According to the theory presented above, the IRR is the

discount rate that makes the Net Present Value NPV = 0.

Figure 9 shows the graph of the NPV versus IRR. We can

see that IRR = 9.1% is than the minimum acceptable

discount rate = 8%. Therefore, the investment is considered

advantageous.

Figure 8. The Net Present Value over the years of project operation.

Figure 9. NPV versus IRR, when the oil price is $50.93/barrel.

The manufactured products that will result from the

membrane reactor are presented in Table 4. From this table

we observe an increase in total manufactured products of

50%.

The data shown in Table 4 will be used to carry out the

same feasibility study in order to investigate the

significant economic effects of the new process. Figure 10

presents the Net Present Value of the new process versus

the oil prices and it can be seen that the project remains

profitable for oil prices over $ 30.78 / barrel. Payout of the

project for crude oil prices between $ 55-60/barrel will be

in about 4.2 years, as shown in Figure 11. Finally, Figure


12 shows the graph of the NPV versus IRR for the

membrane technology. We can see that IRR = 22.5% is

than the minimum acceptable discount rate = 8%.

Therefore, the investment is considered advantageous. In

Table A2 in Appendices presents the annual expected

revenue of the new proposed process with membrane

technology with respect to oil prices.

Table 4. The expected results of the proposed production process using

membrane reactor.

Product Barrels/day

(bbl/d)

Oil equivalent

barrel/day (boe/d)

Oil equivalent

barrel/year (boe/yr)

Ethane 30,000 30,000 9,855,000

LPG 30,000 21,450 7,046,325

Condensate 60,000 56,130 18,438,705

Naphtha 71,220.93 62,745.64 20,611,942.59

Kerosene 50,872.09 51,736.92 16,995,577.76

GasOil 101,744.19 98,997.09 32,520,545.06

BaseOil 61,046.51 70,203.49 23,061,845.93

Total: 404,883.72 391,263.14 128,529,941.30

Figure 10. The Net Present Value of the new process with membrane reactor

with respect to the price of oil.

Figure 11. The Net Present Value over the lifetime of the project using the

membrane reactor.

Figure 12. NPV versus IRR for the membrane technology, when the oil price

is $50.93/barrel.

5. Discussion

The first observation to be made has to do with the

resulting products of the Shell Pearl Qatar project. The

process Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis can be altered so as

to yield either light products, i.e. larger amounts of naphtha

and kerosene, or larger amounts of heavy products, i.e. diesel

and baseoil are more than the others. The Shell Pearl Qatar

project, from the commencement in 2011, is set to produce

more heavy products. Whenever the need arises can change

the settings and produce more light products.

To study the financial viability of Shell Pearl Qatar we

created an MS Excel model. The model was constructed so

that there is only one variable, the price of crude oil. The

purpose of this approach is to determine under what

conditions, specifically the crude oil price, is economically

feasible to build a similar project, such as Shell Pearl Qatar.

It is easily understood that for very low oil prices, investment

in the exploitation of remote natural gas resources, similar to

Shell Pearl Qatar, will not be viable.

The results of the model showed that the project studied

will remain profitable as long as the oil price will be above

$48.67/bbl. According to historical oil price data of Figure 5

and because of the great geopolitical tensions in major oil

producing countries it is almost certain that oil prices will not

fall below $ 50/barrel for long periods of time. Therefore,

investments in the exploitation of remote natural gas

resources can be made utilizing the Shell Middle Distillate

Synthesis process will be viable as long as the oil price will

be above $48.67/bbl.

Finally, using the proposed membrane reactor, where the

efficiency reaches 70%, the sustainability of the project is

maintained and the project remains profitable as long as the

oil price is above $ 30.78/bbl.

6. Conclusions

The quantities of gas released into the environment during

the extraction of crude oil, by flaring, along with the

quantities of natural gas reserves, which are remote from the

final consumer and is not economically feasible to exploit,

together constitute a vast source of mineral wealth which can


be used to produce other useful products. In this paper we

studied the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis process, used in

the Shell Pearl Qatar project, as a solution to the above

problem. This process includes, after the cleaning of natural

gas from coastal area of Qatar, the non-catalytic partial

oxidation of methane to synthesis gas and then the Fischer -

Tropsch process in order to produce liquid fuels, which

include naphtha, kerosene, diesel and baseoil. Financial study

of the project was implemented in order to establish under

what crude oil prices it remains viable.

Simultaneously, due to the low yield of synthesis gas we

proposed a new process that utilizes a membrane reactor,

which can yield up to 70%. Financial study of the proposed

new process was, similarly, implemented. The Table below

presents the analysis of the two processes.

Table 5. Overall comparison of the two processes.

Shell Pearl Qatar

project

New Proposed Process

with Membrane Reactor

Mass gas at the inlet

(kg/d) 4,244,003,69 4,244,003.69

Efficiency of

gasification reactor 34.40% 70%

Effciency of FT

reactor in diesel 42% 42%

Productsα:

Ethane (bbl/d) 30,000 30,000

LPG (bbl/d) 30,000 30,000

Condensate (bbl/d) 60,000 60,000

Naphtha (bbl/d) 35,000 71,220.93

Kerosene (bbl/d) 25,000 50,872.09

Diesel (bbl/d) 50,000 101,744.19

BaseOil (bbl/d) 30,000 61,046.51

Products in Total

(bbl/d) 260,000 404,883.72

Financial Results:

Oil Price for

profitability ($/bbl) 48.67 30.78

Process profits after

20 years ($) 6,415,868,178 26,830,498,470

Payout (years) 9.0 4.2

To conclude, the purpose of this paper is, through

studying the Shell Pearl Qatar project, to provide the

information for anyone interested to investigate whether

there is possibility for return in an investment in a similar

process. An in-depth financial study is necessary which will

take under consideration the data of the process and social

and political factors of the area where the investment will

take place.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Prof Christos Kordoulis for his

scientific discussions and Mrs. Aspasia Davakou for her

valuable and in-depth professional contribution and support.

Appendices

Table A1. The ratio of the price of crude oil compared with the expected

annual revenue of the project Shell Pearl Qatar.

Oil price in $ / barrel Annual expected revenue in $ / year

10 811362150

20 1622724300

30 2434086450

40 3245448600

50 4056810750

60 4868172900

70 5679535050

80 6490897200

90 7302259350

100 8113621500

110 8924983650

Table A2. The ratio of the price of crude oil compared with the expected

annual revenue of the proposed process using membrane reactors.

Oil price in $ / barrel Annual expected revenue in $ / year

10 1285299413

20 2570598827

30 3855898240

40 5141197653

50 6426497067

60 7711796480

70 8997095894

80 10282395307

90 11567694720

100 12852994134

110 14138293547

120 15423592960

130 16708892374

140 17994191787

150 19279491201

References

[1] Fielden K. 2015. Fixing Flaring. The Chemical Engineer (October 2015), 26–30.

[2] BP (2014) BP Statistical Review of World Energy – June 2014, British Petroleum, London, United Kingdom.

[3] Cornot – Gandolphe S., Appert O., Dickel R., Chabrelie M.F. and Rojey A. 2003. The Challenges of Further Cost Reductions for New Supply Options (Pipeline, LNG, GTL). 22nd World Gas Conference.

[4] Roussiere T. L., 2013. Catalytic Reforming of Methane in the presence of CO2 and H2O at high pressure. Dissertation, Faculty of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.

[5] Tijm P. J. A., 2001. Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis: The process, the plant, the products. Shell International Gas Ltd.

[6] Hoek A., 2006. The Shell GTL Process: Towards a World Scale Project in Qatar: the Pearl Project. Shell Global Solutions International.

[7] Maurstad O., 2005. An overview of Coal based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology. Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


[8] Post, M. F. M. and S. T. Sie, 1986. European Patent Application: 0167215. Shell International Research, European Patent Office.

[9] Kaliampakos D. And D. Damigos (2008) “Course Notes: Economics of environment and water resources - financial and socio-economic evaluation of investments”, Graduate Program: Water Resources Science and Technology, National Technical University of Athens.

[10] Van Rijssen P. (2011) “The delivery of Pearl GTL”, 16th Turkmenistan Oil & Gas Conference, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

[11] Shuster E. (2013) “Analysis of Natural Gas – To – Liquid Transportation Fuels via Fischer – Tropsch”, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

[12] MacLeary E. E., J. C. Jansen and F. Kapteijn (2006) “Zeolite based films, membranes and membrane reactors: Progress and prospects”, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, Elsevier.

[13] Korili S. (1994) “Hydrogenation of carbon monoxide in Neolithic nickel catalysts, cobalt and ruthenium”, Doctoral Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessloniki.

[14] Macrotrends “West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Prices: Historical oil prices”, Macrotrends LLC.

[15] Thien C. Y. (2006) “Development of a catalytic membrane reactor for the production of ethylene using oxidative coupling of methane (OCM)”, Master of Science Thesis, University of Science of Malaysia.

[16] Ziaka Z. D. and S. P. Vasileiadis (2009) “Membrane Reactors for Fuel Cells and Environmental Energy Systems”, XLibris Publishing Corporation.

[17] Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with emphasis on the potential for Biomass – Derived Syngas – Technical Report”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

[18] Van Vliet O. P. R., A. P. C. Faaij and W. C. Turkenburg (2009) “Fischer – Tropsch diesel production in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost analysis”, Energy Conversion and Management, 50, 855–876, Elsevier.

[19] Tsotsis T. T., A. M. Champagnie, S. P. Vasileiadis, Z. D. Ziaka and R. G. Minet (1992) “Packed bed catalytic membrane reactors”, Chemical Engineering Science, 47, 2903–2908, Pergamon Press Ltd.

[20] Chen Y., Y. Wang, H. Xu and G. Xiong (2008) “Efficient production of hydrogen from natural gas steam reforming in palladium membrane reactor”, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 80, 283–294, Elsevier.

[21] Sammels A. F., M. Schwartz, R. A. Mackay, T. E. Barton and D. R. Peterson (2000) “Catalytic membrane reactors for spontaneous synthesis gas production”, Catalysis Today, 56, 325–328, Elsevier.

[22] Wood D. A., C. Nwaoha and B. F. Towler (2012) “Gas-to-Liquids (GTL): a review of an industry offering several routes for monetizing natural gas”, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 9, 196–208.

[23] Spath P. L. and D. C. Dayton (2003) “Preliminary screening – Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to

Fuels and Chemicals with emphasis on the potential for Biomass – Derived Syngas”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory.

[24] Fleisch T. H., R. A. Sills and M. D. Briscoe (2002) “2002 – Emergence of the Gas-to-Liquids Industry: a Review of Global GTL Developments”, Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry, 11, 1-14, Science Press.

[25] Cornot – Gandolphe S., O. Appert, R. Dickel, M. F. Chabrelie and A. Rojey (2003) “The challenges of further cost reductions for new supply options (pipeline, LNG, GTL)”, 22nd World Gas Conference, Japan.

[26] Guettel R and T. Turek (2009) “Comparison of different reactor types for low temperature Fischer – Tropsch synthesis: A simulation study”, Chemical Engineering Science, 64, 955–964, Elsevier.

[27] De Swart J. W. A. and R Krishna (2002) “Simulation of the transient and steady state behavior of a bubble column slurry reactor for Fischer – Tropsch synthesis”, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 41, 35–47, Elsevier.

[28] Sajjad H, H. H. Masjuki, M. Varman, M. A. Kalam, M. I. Arbab, S. Imtenan and S. M. A. Rahman (2014) “Engine combustion, performance and emission characteristics of gas to liquid (GTL) fuels and its blends with diesel and bio-diesel”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 961–986, Elsevier.

[29] Kim Y. H., K. W. Jun, H. Joo, C. Han and I. K. Song (2009) “A simulation study on gas-to-liquid (natural gas to Fischer – Tropsch synthetic fuel) process optimization”, Chemical Engineering Journal, 155, 427–432, Elsevier.

[30] Wood D. A., C. Nwaoha and B. F. Towler (2012) “Gas-to-liquids (GTL): A review of an industry offering several routes for monetizing natural gas”, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 9, 196–208, Elsevier.

[31] Panteloglou A. A., (2015), “Catalytic production of liquid fuels from natural gas”, MSc Thesis, HOU, Greece.

[32] Vasileiadis S., Z Ziaka, M Dova, (2012), “Methane and methanol steam reforming in a membrane reactor for efficient hydrogen production and continuous fuel cell operation”, International Journal of Engineering and Technology 2 (4), 630-636.

[33] Vasileiadis S., Z. Ziaka, and M. Tsimpa, (2011), “MCFC- Electricity Generation from Biogas to Syngas Renewable Process via a Membrane Reactor”, International Transaction Journal Of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, Volume-2, No.1.

[34] Vasileiadis S. and Z. Ziaka, (2004), “Efficient catalytic reactors-processors for fuel cells and synthesis applications”, Separation and Purification Technology Journal, Vol.34, pp. 213-225.

[35] Vasileiadis S. and Z. Ziaka, (2010), “Small Scale Reforming-Separation Systems with Nanomembrane Reactors for Direct Fuel Cell Applications”, Journal of NanoResearch, Vol 12, 105-113.

[36] Vasileiadis S., Z. Ziaka, M. Tsimpa, E. Vasileiadou, (2012), “New Biogas Renewable System For Combined SOFC-Electricity Generation With A Membrane Reactor”, Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, USA.


[37] Ziaka Z. D. and S.P. Vasileiadis, (2000), “Reactor-membrane permeator process for hydrocarbon reforming and water gas shift reactions” USA Patent, No:#6,090,312.

[38] Vasileiadis S. and Z. Ziaka, (2005), “Permreactor and Separator type fuel processors for the production of hydrogen and hydrogen, carbon oxides mixtures”, USA patent, No.# 6,919,062 Β1.

economic evaluation and upgraded implementation of the...

Documents