Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Startup turning natural gas glut into gasoline
Fuel Fix ^ | March 11, 2013 | David R. Baker

Posted on 03/11/2013 11:02:28 AM PDT by thackney

America is awash in natural gas, thanks to the controversial practice of fracking.

Now a San Francisco startup company, Siluria Technologies, has a new way to turn that gas into chemicals, jet fuel and gasoline.

The ability to make liquid fuels from natural gas has existed since the 1920s. But up to now it hasn’t been cheap, requiring high heat and pressure to work. Siluria’s technology needs less heat and less energy — and therefore costs less. The company is gearing up to build its first demonstration plant. And it has hired a new chief executive officer with deep experience in the chemical industry to guide Siluria out of the lab and into the marketplace.

“There’s going to be this long period of time when we have this excess gas,” said Edward Dineen, the new CEO. “If you believe that, and I do, then having technologies that give you better options for that gas would make sense.”

Dineen most recently served as CEO of LS9, a renewable fuel and chemical company in South San Francisco. He also held executive positions at LyondellBasell Industries and Arco Chemical Co. Siluria has raised $66 million in venture capital to date, from such investors as Bright Capital, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Lux Capital.

Siluria is looking to capitalize on America’s natural gas boom. The process of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, has unlocked large gas deposits trapped in shale rock beneath Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other states. Natural gas prices have plunged as a result.

Companies are now trying to build export terminals that could ship the gas abroad in liquid form. But until those terminals materialize, prices will likely stay low.

Enter Siluria.

The company was founded in 2008, spun out of another called Cambrios Technologies Corp. Its 40 employees now operate out of an office in Mission Bay, near UC San Francisco’s hive of medical research.

Siluria’s conversion technology uses chemical catalysts picked by a screening system that can test hundreds of potential catalysts each week. Through a process known as oxidative coupling of methane, the catalysts help combine methane molecules into ethylene. The ethylene molecules can then be strung together in chains to produce gasoline, jet fuel or polymers.

The most common process for making liquid fuels from natural gas or coal, a process known as Fischer-Tropsch, needs temperatures on the order of 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Dineen won’t specify the temperature needed for Siluria’s process, but says it is far lower. It is also less complex, requiring less-specialized equipment.

As a result, Siluria may turn natural gas into a direct competitor with oil. The startup’s process may be able to make chemicals and fuels at a cost competitive with — or lower than — the cost of similar products made from crude. The company plans to open a demonstration plant next year, although it has not yet announced a location.

“The key challenge for us now is scaling up,” Dineen said. “This is certainly a technology that has global applications.”


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gasoline; naturalgas; news

1 posted on 03/11/2013 11:02:28 AM PDT by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney
Natural Gas..... heat..... pressure...... gasoline.

What could go wrong?

(on the other hand, I think that a well managed nuclear facility is ok....)

hypocritical? maybe nuts?

ok, don't answer that.

2 posted on 03/11/2013 11:06:07 AM PDT by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I am in a wait and see mode on this one.
Waiting to see if they “need government assistance” to get this process off the ground.
If the process is viable, they will not need any government assistance.


3 posted on 03/11/2013 11:08:59 AM PDT by Tupelo (Old, Bald, Ugly, Fat and Broke in Arizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyb

And... I live less than a mile from an underground gasoline pipeline.

And... one of my frequent work locations is 700 feet away from that same pipeline.

Maybe I should write a book: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Gas.


4 posted on 03/11/2013 11:09:41 AM PDT by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: garyb

San Francisco, there fore eath quake prone destruction, therefore bad


5 posted on 03/11/2013 11:09:56 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Why would anyone want to change the properties of a product that is already efficient and useful in it’s natural state?


6 posted on 03/11/2013 11:10:38 AM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyb
Natural Gas..... heat..... pressure...... gasoline.
What could go wrong?

Just like a Crude Oil Refinery, it works well when kept inside the pipes.

7 posted on 03/11/2013 11:10:59 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doc91678
Why would anyone want to change the properties of a product that is already efficient and useful in it’s natural state?

Because it is far more valuable as liquid transportation fuel. The value per BTU is 8~10 times higher as gasoline.

8 posted on 03/11/2013 11:13:05 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Doc91678

Probably the installed base of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines has something to do with it. A lot easier (goes the thinking) to change gas into gasoline than to retrofit every vehicle out there to work on natural gas.


9 posted on 03/11/2013 11:21:37 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thackney

They will be based out of Texas in the next year or so. The regulations Kalifornia will impose on them will put them out of business.


10 posted on 03/11/2013 11:22:53 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Got a problem? Nothing a drone strike can't fix.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Turn the American genius on to this problem and in a few years the Greenies and hate-America types will be going crazy with frustration.


11 posted on 03/11/2013 11:28:37 AM PDT by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyb

If the germans were doing it... for a profit, I’d have no problem. But with all the “green incentives” being tossed around like candy by our criminal govt, every upstart energy project/company should be looked at with suspicion, since they are most likely simply collecting free government money.


12 posted on 03/11/2013 11:30:16 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Anybody got an idea how this impacts the carbon issue? I would assume gasoline would release the same carbon whether it was made from NG or oil.


13 posted on 03/11/2013 11:31:49 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The best part is that it won’t be too much longer that the middle east and Venezuela for that matter will be awash in crude, with no where to go with it. Get me my violin. :)


14 posted on 03/11/2013 11:36:22 AM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Natual gas is C1..... Gasoline is complex blend generally C5 through C12. NG has a general combustion of 1030 btu/scf, and if my memory serves correctly (and with liquid to gas conversion) gasoline has significantly less latent heat of combustion, ie therefore many more carbon atoms needed to get the same result.

But also remember.... 99+% of vehicles in the US do not run on NG. And from my persepctive, I am not too hip on having a NG cylinder strapped to my vehicle.

If the technology is truly there to cost effectively convert NG to gasoline..... this will be a true game changer.

15 posted on 03/11/2013 11:43:29 AM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957; thackney

I would think “cost effectively” is the key term here. Conversion of natural gas to gasoline in a pilot plant is one thing, conversion on a commerical scale to make it worthwhile is a different matter.


16 posted on 03/11/2013 11:50:35 AM PDT by henkster (I have one more cow than my neighbor. I am a kulak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thackney

still sounds like Fischer-Tropsch to me...that’s been around >60 years.


17 posted on 03/11/2013 11:55:02 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster
I would think “cost effectively” is the key term here. Conversion of natural gas to gasoline in a pilot plant is one thing, conversion on a commerical scale to make it worthwhile is a different matter.

The crux of their whole proposal is the break-even point in cost comparison to gas refined from oil, and the whole future of the company depends on assumptions on future oil prices; they have to hope that increased tight oil production won't simply drop the cost of crude so much that it doesn't make sense to make gasoline from natural gas.

I definitely wouldn't invest in these guys unless it was play money. All their technology could be brilliant and work perfectly, but their business model could be destroyed by a massive crude price collapse to $50 a barrel or something. And they have no control over that.

18 posted on 03/11/2013 11:55:46 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
The most common process for making liquid fuels from natural gas or coal, a process known as Fischer-Tropsch, needs temperatures on the order of 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Dineen won’t specify the temperature needed for Siluria’s process, but says it is far lower. It is also less complex, requiring less-specialized equipment.
19 posted on 03/11/2013 12:14:37 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: henkster; catfish1957
I would think “cost effectively” is the key term here. Conversion of natural gas to gasoline in a pilot plant is one thing, conversion on a commerical scale to make it worthwhile is a different matter.

Cost effective in the US. Under our price and regulation conditions. Shell, Sasol and I think some others already have commercial scale Gas-To-Liquid plants in other countries. Both have been looking to bring it to the US, if it can be done economically.

Example:

About Shell > Our strategy > Our major projects > Pearl GTL
http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/our-strategy/major-projects-2/pearl.html

20 posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:28 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Team’s Work Uses a Virus to Convert Methane to Ethylene
http://siluria.com/admin/Resourcesfiles/4e6a10889621fnyt.pdf

Not Fischer-Tropsch


21 posted on 03/11/2013 12:18:04 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
The most common process for making liquid fuels from natural gas or coal, a process known as Fischer-Tropsch, needs temperatures on the order of 600 degrees Fahrenheit.

A power producing gas turbine at say 25% efficiency can produce electricity from natural gas with copious exhaust gas at 900 DEGF.

Plenty of heat for a back end Fischer-Tropsch catalyst.

22 posted on 03/11/2013 12:39:59 PM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cicero2k

Yes, but also plenty of heat for an expander or some other use of the “waste heat.”

Keep in mind this is talking about a different process.


23 posted on 03/11/2013 12:44:04 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

They’re more likely to get government interference.


24 posted on 03/11/2013 12:46:08 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

The only ‘Government assistance’ they will get is to stop them from what they are trying to do...............


25 posted on 03/11/2013 1:12:44 PM PDT by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

***** “I definitely wouldn’t invest in these guys unless it was play money” ******

I invested play money in Turkey Guts to Gas and lost Boardwalk and Park Place.

TT


26 posted on 03/11/2013 1:25:59 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Idiocracy used to just be a Movie... Live every day as your last...one day you will be right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“Dineen most recently served as CEO of LS9, a renewable fuel and chemical company in South San Francisco”

That is all I need to know. Renewable=Subsidy.


27 posted on 03/11/2013 2:03:29 PM PDT by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
but their business model could be destroyed by a massive crude price collapse to $50 a barrel or something.

Exactly. Case in point, in the early 80's oil recyclers and reclaimers were booming, rolling in the dough, and living the good life. By the mid '80's most of them became industrial metal graveyards and superfund sites.

28 posted on 03/11/2013 3:59:04 PM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Most operating crackers have a nameplate capacity in the 3-5 B lb. range per year. That would be a lot of hard working viruses there.


29 posted on 03/11/2013 4:02:32 PM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Fischer-Tropsch predates WWII, where the Germans used it.

It has been used by Sasol in South Africa, since the 1950s.

Now this guy promises a pilot plant next year, has raised $66 million.

As a fellow Californians, and not wanting to be too cranky, I wonder if this South San Francisco venture is science or finance?

It doesn’t seem like super high tech, and I would expect the major oil and refining companies would be all over it, if it really makes sense and cents.


30 posted on 03/11/2013 4:32:53 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

I’m all for the use of natural gas. The use of LP gas is used within the U.S. exisiting gasoline powered vehicles are easily converted to use LPG. BTW I heat my home with it. Seems it’s more efficient than fuel oil and a Hell of a lot cheaper.


31 posted on 03/11/2013 8:32:25 PM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thackney; All

Japan LNG imports in 2012 ranged from about $15 to $18 per million BTU (MMBTU).

WTI crude oil is about $93/bbl, at 5.8 MMBTU/BBL = $16/MMBTU.

Brent crude at $110/BBL = $19/MMBTU.

So there is a reasonable match in the cost of LNG shipments to Japan, versus the world crude prices.

Now to Natural Gas versus Gasoline in North America.

Natural Gas at the Henry Hub is running about $3.50 per MMBTU.

Gasoline is generally 8 gallons per MMBTU, so at $3.50 a gallon that is $28 per MMBTU

So natural gas is 1/8th the cost of gasoline per MMBTU.

Liguid gasoline is roughly worth 8 times more than natural gas.

This leaves a good amount of margin for a cost-effective NG to Gasoline conversion process here at home.

THIS is also why we need to develop LNG exports, there is a big market for this as well. All in all, exporting LNG and bringing $’s into the US is a good thing.


32 posted on 03/11/2013 8:39:06 PM PDT by muffaletaman (IMNSHO - I MIGHT be wrong, but I doubt it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Anybody got an idea how this impacts the carbon issue?”

Quit parroting the BS that was fed you in the public doctronazation system and smarten up, CARBON ISN/T AN ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


33 posted on 03/11/2013 8:49:32 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muffaletaman
WTI crude oil is about $93/bbl, at 5.8 MMBTU/BBL = $16/MMBTU.

Brent crude at $110/BBL = $19/MMBTU.

So there is a reasonable match in the cost of LNG shipments to Japan, versus the world crude prices.

WTI is the price at land-locked Cushing, Oklahoma. If you bring the same grade oil to the coast, it rises in value about ~$20/barrel. WTI has not represented world prices of light sweet for years. Brent is the new world standard and now trades a higher volume than WTI.


34 posted on 03/12/2013 5:44:29 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I know.

That is what it is now.

That is part of the point, these are the current economic conditions.

I’ve been in the oil business since 1977 so I’ve seen all the booms and busts in natural gas and crude prices for a while...

;-)


35 posted on 03/15/2013 7:42:44 PM PDT by muffaletaman (IMNSHO - I MIGHT be wrong, but I doubt it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

“I invested play money in Turkey Guts to Gas and lost Boardwalk and Park Place.”

What ever happened to that technology? It looked really promising.


36 posted on 03/17/2013 9:28:49 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Doc91678
Because the current infrastructure supports another technology that has been in place for over 100 years ? therefore more easy to get it to the market place and can make a profit on it ? i.e. the gasoline internal combustion engine.
Your right, why convert natural gas in it's natural state that can be used in vehicles anyway ?
Because there are more internal combustion engines that run on gasoline than natural gas and many people can't afford to covert their cars, trucks over to running on natural gas.
Yes, there are inherent dangers in running both but I still feel safer running gasoline in my car that running natural gas.
37 posted on 08/27/2013 11:16:04 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
In the near or far future at some point the business case won't matter and the need for any kind of fuels to run cars will take priority.
Can't have a economy without oil at this time.
Yes, I know that you can't work for free but also said is ? can't live without water, the same goes with fuel, gasoline.
38 posted on 08/27/2013 11:23:00 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cicero2k
Would garbage incinerators produce the same amount of heat ?
What about bio-mass incinerators ? bio-mass power plants ?
Wood pellet power plants ?
In one of those western states there is a woman CEO that claims that their bio-mass/garbage incinerator that operates on the gasification process can produce high grade " Racing Fuels " for race cars... would it not also be able to produce high grade jet fuels also ?
39 posted on 08/27/2013 11:28:42 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

If it can be produced from a heat source of the bio-mass/gasification process that uses bio-mass or garbage then it would be carbon neutral to make the environmental wackos happy.


40 posted on 08/27/2013 11:30:55 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doc91678

This makes as much sense as turning Hostess Fruit Pies into Hostess Twinkies.

Rig your engine to burn natgas and move on.


41 posted on 08/27/2013 11:33:16 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

You appear to get a lot of your exercise jumping to conclusions. Please point to anywhere I’ve said I believe carbon emissions are a major problem.


42 posted on 08/27/2013 1:02:36 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

I agree with you. In fact an engine can be setup to run on either ‘natgas’ or gasoline, or diesel.


43 posted on 08/28/2013 9:01:04 AM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Doc91678

It would be a better use of capital to invent a type of pump you could deploy at a ‘gas’ station, that would dispense natural gas almost the same way you can get gasoline or diesel.

Set the pump up next to the others, and then provide a paid up license for the IP to all the car manufacturers that would allow for the connection of the new pump to a new nipple. You click the new hose fitting into the nipple, which seals around it, and then squeeze the handle like you would for gas.

Once the natgas tank is full, the pump shuts off automatically and processes the receipt - no ability to top off.

The company makes money selling the pumps to the gas station owners. It wouldn’t be long before the oil companies either bought nat gas interests, or a bunch of independent gas stations started popping up once you put the gallon price of nat gas (about $2.20) next to the price of gasoline ($4.00).

You cut the balls off of any politician that makes a move to tax it, and then every environmentalists wet dream comes to pass - cars running on cleaner fuel - only this time the average joe wins too when their commuting bill gets cut in half.

You’d also see the price of a gallon of gas drop through the floor.

The states would start screaming about their tax revenue losses, of course, never once wondering where all the extra retail sales tax revenue was coming from.

Gas taxes and cell phone taxes are the biggest scams going. Anybody that says government can do good things for people only have to have their noses rubbed in what could only be called bald-faced consumer fraud style taxation on their cell phones.

In fact, I’m shocked that gas stations never went to putting the retail price of gas up on their boards, followed by the tax price per gallon right underneath it. No law saying they can’t, they just don’t.


44 posted on 08/28/2013 10:12:25 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
They do that every time they refill the Bullet in my back yard. The solution is to use a pressure vessel that could also do double duty. The pump is already available, haven't refilled your barbecue propane tanks?
45 posted on 08/28/2013 12:41:56 PM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Doc91678

I have, but if you want granny to be able to fill her little car at a ‘gas’ station, the natgas pumps have to be as easy and safe to use as gasoline pumps.

The ones they use today require gloves, present a freezing hazard, and other issues.


46 posted on 08/28/2013 4:20:10 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

No discussion there. Absolutely. It would have to be dummy proof.


47 posted on 08/29/2013 12:39:27 PM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson