Coal gasification liquid fuel conversion sept 2011 master final

Uploaded on


More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Coal Gasification, LiquidFuel Conversion (CTL),and Cogeneration Prepared By: Farid Seif / CEO DuTemp Corporation 1
  • 2. Table of Contents Introduction DuTemp Corporation Section I Introduction to Plasma Arc Technology Section II Current Gasification Technologies Section III Plasma Arc Reactors Section IV Plasma Arc Process Section V DuTemp Business Model & Costs Section VI DuTemp Plasma Arc Flow Charts Section VI Case Study – Illinois 2
  • 3. Who We AreDuTemp Corporation provides the owners representative management function normally provided byexecutives of major oil refining companies addressing all of the applicable and typical issues and phasesinvolved in a project of this nature. Our capabilities come from years of working in refining related areas.These areas include: refinery project development; greenfield and revamped refinery project startup; crude and product supply and coordination; refinery operations, maintenance, staffing and organizational development.With this function, significant expertise is provided in areas of refining markets, grass roots refiningconfiguration and project development, efficient manning and operations, and possibly most important,refining engineering problem solutions not addressed by other engineering firms.This expertise consists of smaller issue-specialized analytical capabilities derived form former oilexecutives, refinery managers, engineering managers and project construction executives who are willingto contribute to the projects success. A number of our individuals have prior greenfield refinery projectdevelopment experience in major refining complexes around the world. 3
  • 4. DuTemp’s “Performance Guarantee” DuTemp Corporation will GUARANTEE the Performance of its Plants against the Benchmarks set by FEED Study; In the event of Plant Performances not meeting the Benchmarks set by FEED Study, DUTEMP RETURNS 100% OF INVESTMENT WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS; DuTemp’s Financial Guarantees are Tradable Instrument from “AA” Rated Bank. The said instrument maybe any of following:  Bank Guarantee (BG)  Bank Promissory Note  Medium Term Note (MTN) with up to 7.5% interest coupon  Equal to Amount of Investment (DuTemp’s Choice) DuTemp builds its Plants under “Standard Guarantee” requirements mandated by the Hosting State/Country; DuTemp Corporation is the ONLY Company in the World that provides “Performance Guarantee” and “Financial Guarantees” towards Plasma Arc Reactor. DuTemp’s Plant’s design exceeds all emission mandates set by US- EPA, European Union, IMF, World Bank and WTO and will meet all ISO Certifications. 4
  • 6. Plasma Arc TechnologyWHAT IS PLASMA? Fourth State of Matter, Ionized Gas Created by Converting Electrical Energy into Thermal Energy, Creates Extremely High Temperature / Energy Levels, Thermal Arc at 30,000 to 33,000 Degrees Fahrenheit, “Fourth State” of Matter, Ionized Gas at High Temperature Capable of Conducting, Lightening is an Example from Nature. 6
  • 7. Chemistry Basic Chemistry Plasma ChemistryMatter is made up of molecules With these high temperatures (above 2,250 Degree Fahrenheit), Molecules are two or more molecules exposed to a plasma are atoms held together ionized and broken into individual atoms.Atoms are held together AtomicBonds These atoms can then be re- combined into simple compounds when temperature is lowered. Atomic Bonds have a certain amount of energy – the Bond Energy It does not matter what molecule is exposed to plasma, all will dissociate. If the Bond Energy is exceeded, the Bond Breaks 7
  • 8. Plasma Arc TechnologyPYROLYSIS: Without Oxygen, materials in furnace don’t combust, Pyrolysis – Dissociation of Compounds into their elemental atoms and reforming them into a fuel gas-referred as “Reversed Nano Gasification”. Oxygen is a by-product and not part of Process versus Incineration /Atmospheric Gasifiers that requires Oxygen (all others). Oxygen is not part of the process but a by-product. 8
  • 9. Plasma IS More Efficient Plasma is more efficient than older methods of gasification.  The Carbon to Carbon Bonds are more difficult to break. This can not be done easily in conventional Atmospheric Gasifiers due to their low temperatures – that is why Char is formed. Plasma breaks these bonds so all of the carbon is converted.  The Plasma Reaction is Endothermic. Therefore, all of the Energy required for the process is available for recovery later. 9
  • 10. Plasma Arc Technology Remediation Experience Heavy Metals  Chemical Wastes Radioactive Wastes  Medical Wastes Industrial Sludges  Plastics Municipal Solid Waste  Used Tires Electric Arc Furnace Dust  Coals (Hi Sulphur / Low Grade) Liquid / Solid Organic Wastes  Heavy Crude Oil PCB’s  Bio Hazardous Spent Fuel (Rods)  Bio-Radioactive Asbestos 10
  • 11. Syngas By-Products The following is a short list of products directly derived from Syngas:  Middle Distillates:  107 to 125 Octane Near Pure Bio-Gasoline  75 to 77 Cetane Near Pure Bio-Diesel  Jet Fuel 1 to 8 Near Pure Form  Naphtha, Paraffin, LPG  Ammonia  Urea  Ammonium Sulfate  Hydrogen  Dimethyl Ether  Ethanol  Various Ox chemicals Used in Paint Manufacture  Butyraldehyde  Butanol  2-Ethylhexanol  Di-octyl-phthalate  Carboxylic Acids  Polymers: Ethyl, Ethylene, Polyethylene, Propylene, Polypropylene, Styrene, etc.. 11
  • 14. Atmospheric Gasifier or Hybrid Incineration using Flameand Starved of Oxygen Atmospheric Gasifier or Hybrid Incineration using flame and starved of Oxygen manufactured by: GE, Shell, Conoco, Chevron, Texaco, Sasol, Eastman Kodak, Chinese Low Temp, Gasifier, (hereinafter: others) cannot meet EPA mandates and requires CO2 sequestering. Low rate of conversion – up to 32% of Carbon Molecules’. Operating Temperature is less than 1700 degrees Fahrenheit producing Furans, Dioxins, CO and CO2 during gasification process. System could go in reveres at any time that will cause shut down and re-starting. Requires land-filling, massive scrubbing and gas cleanup. Produced Syngas is not clean. Use of Amine unit for CO2 separation considered very challenging/expensive as the impurities in produced Syngas will shut down the Amine Unit. Finished products contain contamination and not very clean. 14
  • 15. Atmospheric Gasifier or Hybrid Incineration uses PlasmaTorch and Starved of Oxygen Atmospheric Gasifier or Hybrid Incineration uses plasma torch and starved of Oxygen manufactured by: Westinghouse currently owned by “Plasco Energy Group” of Canada and marketed by “Green Energy Technologies” of Florida, (hereinafter: others) CANNOT meet EPA mandates and requires CO2 sequestering. Low rate of conversion- up to 32% of Carbon Molecules’. Operating Temperatures is about or less than 1700 degrees Fahrenheit producing Furans, Dioxins CO and CO2 during gasification process. System could go in reveres at any time that will cause shut down and re-starting. Requires land-filling, massive scrubbing and gas cleanup. Produced SynGas is not clean. Use of Amine Unit for CO2 separation considered very challenging/expensive as the impurities in produced SynGas shut down the Amine Unit. 15
  • 16. Plasma Torch Technology with enclosed Reactors andGasification in Absence of Oxygen Plasma Torch Technology with enclosed Reactors and Gasification in absence of Oxygen marketed by others, can meet all EPA mandates and does not require CO2 sequestering. Excellent systems for small applications when quick “On and Off” (such as Hazmat) is required Operating temperatures is over 2650 degrees Fahrenheit thus Furans, Dioxins will not form. Conversion rate of Carbon Molecules’ is 88% or better and does not require land-filling. All by-products are saleable. Produced Syngas is very clean and near pure form. Amine unit works properly to its maximum life expectancy. System could go in reveres seldom that will cause shut down and re-starting. 16
  • 17. DuTemp/ATONN Systems: Pyrolysis in absence ofOxygen within Enclosed Reactor: ATONN system: Pyrolysis in absence of Oxygen within enclosed reactor, jointly developed in NASA and U.S Government’s labs. Patents were released by year 2000. Can meet/exceed all current/future air and water permit requirements/mandates. Excellent system for large operations where the reactor can stay on continuously for a year or more. Conversion rate of Carbon Molecules’ is 98% or better and does not require land-filing. All by-products are saleable. Produced Syngas is very clean and near pure form therefore Amine Unit works properly to its maximum life expectancy. U.S Government has been the primary user of ATONN Reactors with over 30 years experience. Massive Data for different applications including Coal processing has been collected by DOE, DOD, EPA, NASA, Los-Alamos Lab. Current use by U.S Government. 17
  • 18. DuTemp CTL Plants DO NOT Differentiate Betweenthe Quality of the Coal DuTemp CTL plants do not differentiate between the quality of coal. Our concern is the actual chain of Carbon Molecules. Our process is not combustion but Pyrolysis or the dissociation of molecules or breaking apart of “Molecular Bonds”. 18
  • 20. Standard Atmospheric Gasifier by “Others”,NOT Plasma Arc Enclosed Reactors 20
  • 21. Some of the Advantages of Plasma Arc Reactor DOES NOT Differentiate between the Quality of Feedstock; ANY TYPE of Carbon is Considered Feedstock; Moisture in Coal is a Plus in this Process; Coals BTU’s are NOT Important in this Process since it is NOT Combustion; In the Absence of Primary Feedstock, Plant can Switch to Other Sources of carbon base materials Feedstock without Limitation; Can Produce Electricity, Liquid Fuels or BOTH; The Plant can be easily Expanded without Major Transformation of Original Installations. 21
  • 22. Plasma Torch in Enclosed Reactor Can meet the US-EPA Emission Guidelines, Produces NO Greenhouse Gas, Produces 10% or more Slag (pending % of in-organics) for Every Ton of Feedstock that Converts to Rockwool, Has the Ability to Recover Metals in Slab Form, $42,000 Per Barrel on Gasifier Only, Extremely High Maintenance and Expense Due to Short Life Cycle of Torch, Operating Cost for MSW is $440 per Ton and for Coal is $800 per Ton, Maximum Life Cycles are:  30 Days on Torch to Replace the Copper-Head and Torch Replacement,  Every 6 to 12 months the Torch must be Revamped,  Every year the Reactor must be Maintained,  Reactor Life-cycle is 30 plus years, 30 Months to Implement 22
  • 23. Plasma Arc Enclosed Reactors (Controlled Process) Exceed All the Current US-EPA Emission Guidelines; Zero Emissions from Reactors, Zero Wastewater Discharges; Produce 10% b to 30% slag (pending % of in-organics) for every Ton of Coal that Convert to Rockwool or Gypsum; Metal Recovery is Viable when its Presence is 2% plus in the feedstock; Every Liquid fuel/Polymer By-Products from Syngas are Near Pure (with Exception of Trace Elements of Catalysts from the Conversion of Syngas to Liquid Forms in PPM/PPB); Construction cost is $33,000 per Barrel on Reactor Facilities Only; Extremely Low Maintenance Cost Due to the Long Life Cycle (50 years); Maintenance Cost Less Than $2.0 Million per Reactor per year (1000 MT/Day); Operating Cost for MSW is between $17 to $22 per MT and Coal is up to $65 per MT but can be reduced significantly in larger operations; Maximum Life-cycle is 50 years before major revamp; Every 12 to 18 months requires Maintenance and Graphite Rods replacement in a 12 day Maintenance Shut Down; Manufacturing and Installation is between 24 to 30 Months. 23
  • 24. Plasma Arc Technology The End Product from the Reactor are Always the Same. The Ratios may Vary depending on Changes in Chemistry or carbon chains. WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT..  ORGANICS: Turn to Syngas as a Fuel or Chemical Raw Material;  INORGANICS: Turn to Vitreous Slag that is Non-Leaching and exceeds EPA Tests;  METALS: Are Recoverable in Ingots or Billets in Reducing Environment. 24
  • 25. Plasma Arc Process and Its Finished Products  SYNGAS: Mainly Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide. Significant Raw Material;  SLAG: Can be Spun into Rockwool for Insulation, Fibers have Multiple Uses (Hydroponics, Tiles, etc), Turn to Frit for Blasting Media, Cast into Tiles or Used as Aggregate;  METALS: Pig Iron, Billets. Very Easy to Analyze and Provide Chemical Certification. 25
  • 26. Coal the Most Abundant Fossil Fuel in the World.. LOCATION OF THE WORLD’S MAIN FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES 26
  • 27. Section IVPLASMA ARC PROCESS 27
  • 28. Heat Balance The Carbon content of average Coal (on net basis) will dissociate or thermally depolymerise into 180,000 to 196,000 cubic feet of synthesis gas per net ton, having an energy value of 300 BTU per standard cubic foot of gas. The heat rate for ATONN combined cycle power generating system is expected to be about 42.277 or lower, generating 8,160 kW per ton of Coal that is processed. The processing of 1000 tons of Net Coal per day or 41 tons per hour will release 8,118,000 cubic feet of synthesis gas per hour with a total BTU value of 2,435,400,000 BTU/HR. At a heat rate of 7,277 the ATONN combined cycle gas turbine system will generate a gross of 334.56 Megawatts of Electricity per hour, twenty-four hours a day. When we deduct 104 Megawatts of this electric current to maintain the plasma arc and for other plant requirements, we are left with available supply to the grid of 230.56 Megawatts per hour (5,533.44 Megawatts per day). Heat Recovery through Freon Driven Turbines are added value and can increase the power production between 5% to 7%.  Disclaimer: All above numbers must be verified through FEED Study and Turbine selection. 28
  • 29. CO2 Capturing Gas separation occurs 2 times during the Syngas production process: right after gasification itself and during burning the Syngas for power generation purposes. DuTemp Reactors will separate most impurities up front during the gasification itself. Therefore, there are less pollutants in produced Syngas versus the Atmospheric Gasification which cannot scrub out any impurities during first phase of gasification and must goes through expensive clean-up in a later phases through scrubbing techniques that are proven too costly. In the said system (by others), produced Syngas (only up to 32% conversion rate based on the carbon molecules) is highly contaminated with all different components including lots of CO, CO2, Sulphur and Metals due to uncompleted process. The presence of such impurities make it very difficult and expensive to manage the Syngas Clean Up. In order to separate the CO2 from the smoke-stack, the plant must be equipped with:  Alkyl base Amine Unit , or  Membrane Base Amine Unit Both type of Amine Units will shut down with the presence of impurities, especially metals in the processed gas. The gases produced in our power plants would not effect the performance or efficiency of Amine Units as there are no impurities present in the gas (Impurities are scrubbed out upfront and in the reactor and water filtration). 29
  • 30. CO2 Capturing (cont’d) CO2 separation success rate in in ATONN systems power generation Smoke-Stack is 98% or better that it is far below US-EPA mandates. All other known systems including Atmospheric Units (such as GE, Duke, Shell, Texaco, Sasol, Conoco, Chinese Gasifies, Eastman Kodak) or those using Atmospheric Units with Plasma Torch (Westinghouse Systems and most others claiming they are selling Plasma Technologies(, cannot use the Amine Units efficiently due to impurities in their produced Syngas (first phase) and in their Smoke Stack (second phase) that will cause Amine shut down quickly. The captured CO2 requires sequestering process due to hi contaminants and difficulties with Amine process. CO2 sequestering is experimental, expensive and not a viable solution for 21 st century. When the costs of Scrubbing and sequestering are added to a project value (CAPEX), the project financially is bankrupt. It is our opinion that the U.S Government shall not be responsible for CO2 Sequestering or its associated costs as it will permit bad practices. 30
  • 31. How to Eliminate Nox, reduce CO2 Foot Print and IncreaseEfficiency in Power Plants? DuTemp will consider using the following blends of gases in its power generation units:  40% Syngas  12% Hydrogen  48% Pure Oxygen  No Air is permitted in the Power Plant’s fire chamber thus no Nox.  With Using this Model, your finished products from the Smoke-Stack are:  Near Pure Water that will be recycled back to the Plasma Reactor or Hydrogen Plant for self consumption;  Steam through use of Freon Driven Turbines, its heat is extracted to produce electricity and also the steam will be condensed to produce more water.  Near pure CO2 will be captured by Amine Unit for sale. If no market for sale, CO2 will be recycled back to Plasma Reactor.  This balance is not possible with any other fuel for power generation except near pure Syngas produced in DuTemp’s Reactors. 31
  • 32. Leach ability of Vitrified Coal Residue (TCLP) by US-EPAMetal Permissible Measured Concentration (mg/l) Concentration (mg/l)Arsenic 5.0 <0.1Barium 100.0 <0.5Cadmium 1.0 <0.02Chromium 5.0 <0.2Lead 5.0 <0.2Mercury 0.2 <0.01Selenium 1.0 <0.1Silver 5.0 <0.5 32
  • 33. Syngas Properties By US-EPA Total VaporFlow rate Lbmol/hr 3731.9294 3731.9294Molecular Weight 13.2391 13.2391Enthalpy Btu/lbmole 473.6162 473.6162Entropy Btu/lbmo/R 2.4659 2.4659Cp Btu/lbmol/R 7.0096Cv Btu/lbmol/R 5.0181Cp/Cv 1.3969Density Lb/ft3 0.034993Z-Factor 1.0005Flow rate (T-P) Ft3/sec 392.2015Flow rate (STP) Mmscfd 33.9839Viscosity cP 0.014973Thermal Conductivity Btu/ft/hr/F 0.054064Critical Temperature (Cubic EO) F 705.2Critical Pressure (Cubic EOS) psia 3198.8Heating Value (gross) Btu/scf 307.89Heating Value (net) Btu/scf 277.35Dew Point Temperature F 100Bubble Temperature F -379.67 33
  • 34. Sample Emissions Data From Plasma Treatment Process TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER CONCEN TRATION (mg/dscm) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Plasma Terminal Typical Incinerators US EPA Treatment System Regulations SYSTEM DATA OBTAINED FROM PLASMA TREATMENT OF MEDICAL WASTE BY US-EPA 34
  • 35. Section VBUSINESS MODELS & COSTS 35
  • 36. Business Model - I Coal Conversion Plant through Plasma Arc Reactor to convert 2000 to 3000 MT/day of net Coal and produce 530 MWH to 720 MWH Electricity, (all numbers are assumptions and not valid until evaluated through FEED Study); The Coal Conversion facilities will be designed for 24/7/365 operation by using one spare additional Reactor for maintenance; Total Reactors are either 5 x 1000 MT/day or 7 x 1000 MT/day (Size of Reactor’s processing capacities are based on MSW. When consuming Coal, processing will be reduced by 50% of its actual feeding capacity but the SynGas production is 4 to 6 times higher); One Reactor is on Standby for the maintenance of Other Reactors working on-line; Power Generation Equipment may vary, but for this assumption, we propose 3 x GE Frame- 7FA or Dual GE Frame-9FA Power Plants; Secondary Power Generation through Freon/Propane Driven Turbines are viable and increases the yield between 5% to 7% (additional investment required). 36
  • 37. Business Model - I / Advantages Near Zero Emission from Plasma Reactors; Very Low Emissions from the Power Plants; Zero Fly Ash, No Mercury, etc. Produced CO2 from burning the Syngas in Power Plant are free of any impurities and 98% of CO2 can be captured for sale in pure form or can be recycled back into the Plasma Reactor as feedstock in absence of market demand; No Land-filling, No Residuals, All By-Products are Marketable; No need for Cooling Towers and thus, less Water Consumption; Water quality for usage is not important. 50 years Life Expectancy on Plasma Reactors; Price Tag is about $1.2 Million to $1.4 Million per MW of Power or between $720 Million to $840 Million for Plant with Power Generation capacity of 530 MWH to 720 MWH (must be verified through FEED Study); The Cost of Implementation is 1/3 less than IGCC configuration with Atmospheric Gasifier by Others such as Sasol, Shell, GE, etc.. 37
  • 38. Business Model - II Two Step Construction of a 250,000 bbl/day Coal to Liquid (CTL) Facility; Feedstock: “ any types of Coal Deposits” First Phase: 8000 MT/day Net Coal to produce 50,000 bbl/day Liquid Fuels and 100 MW/HR Electricity for export to the Grid; Second Phase: Additional 26,000 MT/day Net Coal to produce 200,000 bbl/day of Liquid Fuels and 300 MWH Electricity; Types of Fuels in First Phase: All Bio – Diesel, Gasoline, Jet Fuel Second Phase Fuel Production: Additional Core Products including C-3 to C-15 for secondary manufacturing. Plant’s required land is between 220 acres to 500 acres with Buffer zone mandated by Local Codes and State Regulations. 38
  • 39. Plasma CTL Process by DuTemp Preliminary Flow DuTemp Coal To Liquids Plant DuTemp Corporation PROJECT P102 Power Plant Diagram CCR Platformer BY JH SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM DATE 11/01/07 CoalFeeder + 11-T-101 11-T-101 Fame 7FA Steam Turbine 210-1556 PC FC PC 623 Slurry PSA Plasma Unit 11-T-101 ADSORBER 11-T-101 BEDS Fame 7FA Steam Turbine 660 FV HP Steam 210-1403 MCC Recycle from FT Reactors Fischer-Tropsch A A A A A A 1 5,1 1 5,1 1 5,1 Quench 2 2 82 2 82 6 6 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 82 6 6 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 6 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 ID ID ID PC 2 4 2 0 FV 2 4 2 0 2 4 2 0 210-1107 B 91 5 52 55 B 91 5 52 55 B 7, 91 5 52 55 1 7, 7, 1 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 0 4 5 5 0 4 5 5 0 FV 1 5 2 5 1 5 2 5 T 1 5 2 5 T T TV a B a n B a n B Diesel n 5 g 5 B g 5 y B g y B y e D e D E e D E Gasoline nt E nt nt Amine Unit s1410 % CW Compression Unit s1416 210-1385 s1407 . From Amine Unit 210-1110 210-1511 LV 210-1230 210-1231 LV PV FV PV s1412 + 210-1202 OFFGAS s1419 s1420 LV % PV CW To Amine Unit 210-1556 210-1555 s1421 210-1335 210-1326 OFFGAS LV To Flare s3015 210-1536 210-1537 39
  • 40. Size Does Matter No Other Company is proposing gasification plants using plasma over 1500 barrels per day production from processing 300 MT/day Coal due to their reactor size restrictions. Such an operation is not feasible to the market place and does not impact it in any way or shape. DuTemp proposes to start with a 50,000 barrels per day production unit through processing 8000 MT/day of net Coal that can easily be ramped-up to 250,000 barrels per day plants using 33,000 MT/day net Coal. Such an implementation would gets the market’s attention as it is making a statement with its operational size. The most difficult aspect of fuel production after producing near pure Syngas is the “Compression Units” prior to “FT” process (Liquid Phase). This has been solved by DuTemp while still a major obstacle for others; Bigger Plants are more efficient due to the ability to use larger frame power plants. When comparing the GE LM6000 with Frame-9FA, the Frame-9FA is 300% more efficient with while consuming the same amount of SynGas. 40
  • 41. Cost of Construction Per Plant $33,000+ plus per Barrel on Reactors $22,000+ plus per Barrel on GTL Vessels First Phase Investment: $2.45+ Billion Second Phase: $4.8+ plus Billion (can be self-financed against the income of first phase after 6 months in operation) Total Cost for 250,000 bbl/day: $7.25+ plus Billion Storage Facilities: 15 days Storage Target Capacity: 90 Days through additional investment. 41
  • 42. Conversion on $$ Basis One Ton of average Quality Coal is up to $50 USD delivered to Plant; One Ton of Standard Specs Liquid Fuel being made from Crude Oil is about $700 USD/Ton; One Ton of CTL Fuel with Near Pure Specs is above $1500+ USD/Ton; GTL Products are being made from Natural Gas (NG) only at this time; The Three Major Producers of GTL Products in the world are: Qatar, Iran & Saudi Arabia while U.S. is a net importer of these products at this time, There has been Limited Production of GTL in the World due to the High Price of NG in the past; GTL/CTL Products are Primary Additive Components for Refiners as Octane and Cetane boosting components; Octane and Cetane boosting processes in Refineries are the most costly and dangerous part of refining; Refiners are the Main Importers of GTL Fuels around the World; CTL Plant can complement the Refiners Daily Operations and Reduce their cost of Importation that will be passed to their consumers; Coal to Liquid Plants compete directly with Gas to Liquid Plants (GTL); CTL production costs are 1/3 less than GTL production costs due to lower price of feedstock. 42
  • 43. Strategic Storage Facilities If and When the Investor can build and maintain 90 days fuel storage base on 5.0 Million bbls/day usage, it will become a strategic reserve in and around the world; 50 million barrels storage facility would control the prices in the market place, Governments and Refiners may consider a monthly rental agreement for such reserves in excess of $10.0 Million plus per month; Storage Shelf Life: Diesel Gasoline Jet-Fuel From Refineries: 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months From CTL Plants: 8 Years 8 Years 8 Years Biodegradable from Standard Refineries: NO Biodegradable from CTL Plant: YES 43
  • 44. Other Components From Syngas Downstream Productions The ox synthesis process is also known as hydroformylation. It involves the reaction of CO and H2 with olefinic hydrocarbons to form an isomeric mixture of normal and isoaldehydes. It is an industrial synthetic route for the conversion of olefins (in the C3- C15 range) to produce solvents, synthetic detergents, flavorings, perfumes and other healthcare products, and other high value commodity chemicals. Over 2000 components can be made from these chains; Toys made from Syngas components are free of all hazardous materials. This is a $33.0 Billion USD per year industry. 44
  • 45. Production Costs Comparison Production Costs Comparable with Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia Exxon Valero CTL Feedstock Costs $2 bbl $18 bbl $65 bbl $7 bbl Processing Costs $7 bbl $6 bbl $5 bbl $7 bbl Transportation $4 bbl $3 bbl $0 bbl $1.5 bbl Total $13 bbl $27 bbl $70 bbl $15.5 bbl Return on Investment from CTL Plants is minimum 85% per year. This is a A+ rated project. 45
  • 46. Comparative Diesel Qualities & StandardsProduction Ratio from CTL Plant ITEM Commercial CA CTL Diesel US-EPA 2006 Cetane Index > 32 > 48 > 70 > 46 Aromatics (vol%) < 35 < 100 0 < 35 Sulphur (wt%) < .30 < .050 0 < .0015 Ratio of Products from CTL Plants. Diesel: 60% Gasoline: 35% Jet Fuel: 15% There are up to 15% other components from FT process such as NAPHTHA and Paraffin that is being recycled back to the Plasma Reactor in the first phase plant. Part of the process to remove Sulphur from Coal is through adding Oxidants/Fluxes such as Lime or Limestone, etc. However, one of the best components for this portion of the process is the use of sludge from waste water that we hope to be used in our plant. 46
  • 47. Section VIDUTEMP’S FLOW CHARTS 47
  • 48. Table of Contents Bio-Radioactive Waste to Electricity Coal to Electricity General Feed Stocks to Liquid Fuels MSW Tires Oils to Electricity Coal to Ethanol Coal to Liquid Fuels Hudson River Sludge / PCB Mercury Treatment Plant Municipal Solid Waste of Coal to Diesel via Cobalt Catalyst Turning Municipal Solid Waste / Tires to Liquid Fuels Pet Coke Liquid Fuels 48
  • 49. 49
  • 50. 50
  • 51. 51
  • 52. 52
  • 53. 53
  • 54. 54
  • 55. 55
  • 56. 56
  • 57. 57
  • 58. 58
  • 59. Section VICASE STUDY: ILLINOIS 59
  • 60. Comparative Diesel Qualities & StandardsProduction Ratio from Illinois PlantItem Commercial California CTL Diesel US-EPA 2006Cetane Index >32 >48 >70 >46Aromatics <35 <100 0 <3(vol%)Sulphur <0.30 <0.050 0 <0.0015(wt%) 60
  • 61. Ratio of Products from Illinois Diesel: 60% Gasoline: 35% Jet Fuel: 15%There are up to 15% other components from FT process such asNAPHTHA and Paraffin that is being recycled back to the PlasmaReactor in the first phase plant.Part of process to remove Sulphur from coal is through addingOxidants/fluxes such as Lime or limestone, etc. However, one of thebest components for this portion of process is the use of sludge fromwastewater plants that we hope to be used in our plant. 61
  • 62. Summary DuTemp proposes to conduct a Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) study for Illinois Coal, Part of FEED study would be to gasify 1 Metric Ton of Coal in a Plasma Reactor and log all data, Produce computer modeling for plants’ operation to verify the viability of processes and set all the performance benchmarks, Cost to produce the FEED study is equal to 1.5% of project’s value + $2.5 M USD, To produce the FEED study for Illinois CTL plant’s first phase, a funding requirement of $27.0 M is needed from the Government or others or; To produce the FEED study for Illinois power plant’s first phase, a funding requirement of $12.0 M is needed from the Government or others , Duration for this study is 6 to 8 months, This study will be conducted by DuTemp and will be re-stamped by Jacob, Fluor or Stone & Webster, DuTemp will reimburse this cost upon conclusion of financing. However, through support of Coal Bond or Industrial Revenue Bonds, this fee is paid by bonds in advance or; DuTemp is willing to assume 50% of its cost if the structure is base on JV Partnership with the Government, DuTemp is open to dialogue. This is just a scenario and it is not final position of DuTemp. We request a check to DuTemp. 62
  • 63. During the FEED, The Following is Completed: Control SystemsProcess Quotes for DCS and SIS Systems Major Equipment Definition Quotes on All Inline Instruments Process Simulation and Modeling 10% Estimate on All Instruments Process Flow Diagram Development Mechanical Equipment Data Sheet Development Process Written Description Electrical Preliminary Process Data MCC Preliminary Design Preliminary Line List Quote from Powel or GE on the Building with All Equipment Inside Develop P & IDs Rough Count of All Motors, Cables, and Cable Trays 10% EstimatePiping Preliminary Estimate of Large Bore Pipe Participate in P & ID Development Computer Modeling Computer Modeling will Verify the Performance of Valve Drag for Estimate All Equipments and Validate the Process in Real Get Quotes on Pipe and Valves Time Operation. This Report, will establish All PerformanceMechanical Benchmarks, Processing Data, Air Emission, and Prepare RFQ and Issue for Major Equipment Water Quality Benchmarks for Permitting to be submitted to EPA. Get Quotes from Vendors on All Major Equipment All Guarantees are Issued based on Results from this Report.Civil Preliminary Pile Counts Estimating Preliminary Drawings for All Major Structures Adds Construction Costs, including Labor, Grey Steel Estimate Transportation, and All Field Expense Rolls, All Cement Estimate Disciplines Estimates to One Total Installed Cost Estimate Including: Engineering, Material Costs and Construction. 63
  • 64. World Energy Facts There is only one empire in World’s Energy Markets – Middle East CTL Plants can offset this balance when it reaches the processing capacity of 150,000 plus Metric Ton Coal per day; Eventually the current price of Crude will tumble with these new alternative plants; To permanently defuse OPEC influence in world energy, Investors must investor in one million barrels per day production of CTL components; Total fuel consumption will be over 40% Bio-Fuels by year 2020; Upon the first implementation, the stock market will shift its financial resources toward Coal Gasification; We forecast the implementation of over 1.0 Million bbl/day CTL plants by the year 2015 with proper funding that can consume 150,000 MT/day low quality Coal; DuTemp has manufacturing capacity to reach this goal by year 2018; Secondary manufacturing will obsolete China as a major exporter to the U.S; Investors can offer high paying jobs and still compete with China and S. Korea manufacturers; Investors will be able to reach the entire North America through its Hub Networks; Investors combined in CTL projects will create up to 2.0 Million high scale manufacturing jobs by 2018 in other manufacturing sectors when it is planned correctly; Same combined projects will create additional 6,000,000 jobs in service industry by 2018; Region’s main income will be based on export and the health of the economy will be guaranteed until year 2050; CTL combined projects when all completed, will increase the Export on manufactured products by 30%. 64
  • 65. Power Generation by Others MORE PROOF THAT COAL AIN’T CHEAP Duke wins approval for a $3100 / kW Plant Posted by Sean Casten at 1:54 PM on 27 Nov 2007 From E & E News ($ub req’d): Indiana has approved a $2 Billion, 630 MW integrated gasification / combined cycle coal plant. Two Billion divided by 630 MW = $3,174 / kW If we assume that Coal Equity Investors expect to recover their investment over 20 years with an eleven percent return, that works out to 5.7 cents / kWh just to pay off the capital for the power plant. Add in another 3 cents or so for transmission and distribution, and a couple cents for fuel and operating costs, and this plant will work out to be over 10 cents in retail prices. This in a state where the current average retail electric rate is 6.79 cents / kWh. So why was it approved? Simple:  “In the Midwest, Coal is plentiful and low-cost, and finding ways to burn it cleanly is fundamental to meeting our customers’ demand for power,” Duke Energy Indiana President Jim Stanley said in a statement. The head spins. Excerpts of the story below the fold. Indiana utility regulators approved Duke Energy’s proposed $2 billion coal-fired power plant equipped with advanced pollution controls about 100 miles southwest of Indianapolis. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission decision followed more than two years of planning by Duke’s Indiana subsidiary and its predecessor, Cinergy/PSI Indiana, which was acquired by duke in May 2006. The 630-megawatt, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant, which still must obtain permits from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, could begin construction in Knox County early next year with an expected startup in early 2012, Duke Officials said. Note: Please se financial figures of $3.1 Million USD per MW power plant’s cost but recently was increased again. 65
  • 66. Thank you for your time… For additional information contact: DuTemp Corp. Phone: 832-358-2600 Email: 66