Gas-to-liquids is a risky investment

Nao Nakanishi/Reuters/File
A plant which will produce oil from coal, known as coal-to-liquid (CTL), nears completion in Erdos, in China's Inner Mongolia region, in this 2008 file photo. CTL is a proven technology but its long-term economic prospects are still risky.

A news story recently proclaimed the benefits of gas-to-liquids technology:

A Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) backed company and Oxford Catalysts Group (OCG:London) are planning U.S. factories to make diesel, gasoline and jet fuel from gas, which fell to a decade-low price this year. Their goal is to make motor fuels more cheaply and easily than oil-based products produced at giant refineries, and all within two years.

Oxford Catalysts claims that with natural gas at $3.89 per million Btu, they can produce diesel for $1.57 per gallon. But investors should be cautious.

Without a doubt the technology is proven. Natural gas and coal have been converted into diesel for decades. Coal to liquids (CTL) was used during World War II by the Germans, when they needed fuel for their military but had limited access to petroleum. 

Likewise, South Africa during apartheid turned to CTL. With sanctions restricting its petroleum supplies, South Africa used its large coal reserves to produce liquid fuel. South African Coal, Oil, and Gas Corporation -- Sasol (NYSE: SSL) -- still operates a number of gasification facilities, including the 160,000 barrels per day (bpd) Secunda CTL facility in South Africa.

Shell (NYSE:RDS.A) is a major developer of gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology. Shell has operated a GTL plant in Bintulu, Malaysia, since 1993 (which I visited in 2010), with a current capacity of nearly 15,000 bpd. In 2011, Shell commissioned the 140,000 bpd Pearl GTL plant in Ras Laffan, Qatar-by far the largest GTL plant in the world.

But there are two reasons to avoid companies whose primary focus is GTL, CTL, or BTL (biomass-to-liquids), and Shell's experience with their Pearl GTL plant is instructive. The two major problems with any of the XTL technologies are that capital costs are extremely high, and a long-term, cheap feedstock supply must be secured. Shell's initial estimate for the plant was $5 billion, but by the time the project was completed the costs were estimated to be around $20 billion.

With capital costs this high, a GTL plant needs 25 or more years of low natural gas prices, or at least a high oil/natural gas price ratio over that time. In Shell's case, they are getting the natural gas inputs for free in Qatar, and they based their investment decision on an expectation of oil at $40/bbl. Certainly the economics for their project look good at current oil prices. In a case where natural gas prices have the potential to go substantially higher -- and we can't say what the situation in the U.S. will be in 25 years -- the economics for the process become much more uncertain.  

Thus, while a GTL plant is a bet on high oil prices and low natural gas prices, in most cases investors should be very cautious because of the possibility that natural gas won't be cheap relative to oil for 25 more years. You could make an exception for Sasol, given that the capital for their plants was sunk when oil prices were far lower than they are today (and capital costs were lower), and therefore the rising ratio of oil prices to natural gas and oil prices has made their CTL and GTL assets very profitable.

  This article is a modified version of a story in Energy Trends Insider, a free subscriber-only newsletter that identifies and analyzes financial trends in the energy sector. It's published by Consumer Energy Report 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Gas-to-liquids is a risky investment
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today