I believe the technology also produces some significant volumes of high vapor pressure liquids that could not travel in the same pipeline, ethanes and other natural gas liquids.
So then for the same volume you are probably talking about a $35~40 billion dollar plant and still have to build another pipeline and export terminal facilities.
I worked on the design of the plant (at Parsons) and the pipeline (at Fluor) back in the early 1980’s. Seems like about time to actually build it.
Much less
Sasol, an integrated energy and chemicals company, is about to start construction on a Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) facility and ethane cracker with downstream derivatives at its Lake Charles site in south-west Louisiana.
The total cost for the construction of the GTL facility is expected to reach ***$14bn***, while the ethane cracker will need an investment of about $7bn.
The GTL facility, upon commissioning, will have a production capacity of 96,000 barrels per day (bpd) of transportation fuel. The ethane cracker will produce 1.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of ethylene. The ethylene producing facility is expected to come online in 2017, whereas the GTL facility will be commissioned in 2018.
And
Despite its long and successful history, there has never been , nor is there on the horizon, an example of an FT facility exploiting stranded natural gas at a remote location, nor of an independent gas producer (i.e., not integrated with a refining complex) monetizing gas via the FT process. All North Slope (Alaska) gas is stranded gas.