Velocys, Waste Management, NRG Energy and Ventech form JV for small-scale gas-to-liquids plants
24 March 2014
Velocys plc, a developer of smaller-scale microchannel gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology, has entered a joint venture (JV) with Waste Management, NRG Energy (NRG), and Ventech Engineers International (Ventech) to develop gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants in the United States and other select geographies.
The JV will pursue the development of multiple plants utilizing a combination of renewable biogas (including landfill gas) and natural gas. Waste Management intends to supply renewable gas and, in certain cases, project sites. All four members will work exclusively through the JV to pursue the intended application (GTL using renewable gas, optionally in conjunction with natural gas) in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and China.
As its first commercial facility, the JV is targeting a plant to be located at Waste Management’s East Oak landfill site in Oklahoma, US. Waste Management has developed a GTL program over many years and selected Velocys technology after completing engineering studies showing it to be the leading smaller scale Fischer-Tropsch technology, said Joe Vaillancourt, Vice President Corporate Venturing at Waste Management.
Detailed engineering for this first project is being completed, while final draft permitting documents for the facility have been submitted. The JV intends making a final decision to proceed on this first plant this year. Development activities for additional facilities are expected to commence shortly.
Waste Management is North America’s leading provider of comprehensive waste management services and the 200th largest company in the Fortune list. NRG owns the largest and most diverse competitive power generation portfolio in the United States and is a Fortune 500 company. Ventech is a global leader in the design and construction of modular refineries.
Velocys holds a minority interest in the JV. Its principal financial commitment to the JV arises after a decision is made to proceed with the first project, which the Company believes it can comfortably accommodate from its current balance sheet. Velocys and other members each have the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the funding of additional future plants.
This project is a milestone in the development of GTL in the US. Smaller scale GTL has the potential to achieve significant installed capacity in North America a long time before any large scale conventional facility comes on stream.
—Roy Lipski, CEO of Velocys
This joint venture is the latest in a series of significant steps we have taken to advance smaller scale GTL. Ventech is committed to this market, which we see accelerating on the back of this first of many projects we intend developing at Waste Management sites utilizing Velocys technology.
—Kevin Stanley, CEO of Ventech Engineers International
Do somebody know when I gonna be able to buy something else than petroleum gasoline for my dodge neon. Im tired of waiting endlessly and im getting old. Since I drive back 35 years ago I had to buy always the same thing that is polluting and the price have jump from 40 cents a gallon to up to 5 dollars a gallon here in Canada. This make no sence. Hurry up for some replacement product at a better price and no importations from abroad. These scientists and business mans are dubious at best and are late and are responsible of the extinction of half the species on earth. Me I try to consume the less possible conventional gasoline by driving a small car at low speed and doing few mileage overall. Im sure that here half the bloggers drive fast very often with large suvs of did buy costly complicated big hybrid cars just to brag about it and in the winter are doing tourism in the south via airplanes and in the summers are gointg far in Europe for tourism by airplanes again.
Posted by: gorr | 24 March 2014 at 01:51 PM
@gor, true - politicians have had OVER FORTY years since OPEC doubled prices at a whim in 1973 and did ~nothing, besides pocket lobby oil money/vote subsidies and lie since.
Review their voting records and adjust their taxpayer paid salaries/pensions accordingly.
Posted by: kelly | 24 March 2014 at 02:04 PM
Consider Russia on the world oil market since the 90s, getting LOTS of money when the price of oil more than quadrupled in 2008 and now having a $500 billion surplus in their government treasury then invading Crimea.
Now consider what the price of oil would be if we and others had started a synthetic fuels program in 1980 when Carter wanted to. Simple economics with demand/supply/price models would tell us that OPEC could not put the screws to the world when there is an alternative.
Posted by: SJC | 24 March 2014 at 08:32 PM
"Consider Russia on the world oil market since the 90s, .." add Gulf oil wars to list also..
Posted by: kelly | 25 March 2014 at 07:15 AM
The Gulf war in 1991 and invasion in 2003 increased the price of oil, that is my point. Russia benefited greatly from those price increases, then invaded Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014.
The price of oil has strategic and economic importance. The price of oil is partly affected by demand/supply and OPEC price fixing, as well as market speculators. If we and the world have alternatives, OPEC can restrict supply and we just use more alternatives. If there are no alternatives we can not use them.
Posted by: SJC | 25 March 2014 at 09:45 AM
Instead of continuing to sink money into a new fighter plane, we should divert that money to building clearn energy production. The Defense Department could put solar panels on the roofs of every low income home in America and solve a number of problems, including deaths from polution referenced in another post.
Posted by: JMartin | 25 March 2014 at 12:06 PM
Sounds good to me.
Posted by: SJC | 25 March 2014 at 02:46 PM
SJC:
"The Gulf war in 1991 and invasion in 2003 increased the price of oil"
As for the Gulf War: not really. In the first 6 months of 1990, oil varied from roughly USD12-18/bbl. It spiked in August with Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of Kuwait up to as high as USD30 or so, but by the time the UN resolution was signed in March 1991 it had settled around USD16.00, and from then until the US bubble of mid '99 it varied from as low as US8.50 or so to a few spikes into the very low USD20's. Generally the price was quite low and stable in most of the decade following Desert Storm. (All prices shown are US Crude Oil First Purchases.)
And from your earlier post, oil actually did NOT quadruple in 2008. It went the other way. The price went from a peak of USD127 in July to under USD36 in December (again, USFCO -- spot prices showed an even more extreme spread). All this had very little to do with the Iraq conflict; rather, speculation and an overheated world economy pumped up prices beyond rational levels.
Of course, I do not disagree that dependency is not a good thing.
JMartin:
You do NOT want the DoD having anything to do with home construction, modification or for that matter anything beyond their basic mission of defending the nation. Period. SERIOUSLY.
Posted by: Herman | 25 March 2014 at 11:18 PM
Herman, all conflict in the middle east bring a risk premium now or later.
You missed the point, higher oil prices give more money to Russia for their military
Posted by: SJC | 26 March 2014 at 04:09 AM
SJC:
Wouldn't you agree that it's better to support one's point with correct assertions? I didn't miss your point; your "facts" were just wrong -- grossly so, to be blunt.
Posted by: Herman | 26 March 2014 at 07:34 AM
Herman,
My assertion was that 1991 and 2003 contributed to the rise in the price of oil.
That is debatable, but putting it bluntly, you are off base. Don't start arguments here, that is not what this forum is for.
Posted by: SJC | 26 March 2014 at 01:12 PM