% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Syntroleum Anonim Ortaklık Message Board

  • aniluh aniluh May 22, 1999 8:54 PM Flag

    low pollution fuels

    Just an interesting observation--on the local tv
    news they showed how specially treated vegetable oil,
    yes vegetable oil, was being used as motor oil in
    some city's public transportation vehicles. The
    special process adds three to four cents per gallon? I
    accidentally caught the brief news blurb but I know they are
    already using it, so far with success. Perhaps someone
    else caught this story and can provide more details?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • fanatics the Bureau of Strategic Planning has map
      pin located every blowhole capable of jetting over 10
      ft3/min with intent to nationalize during next asteroid
      threat..will pump in extra air and ignite�all blowholes on
      selected longitudinal quadrant�with
      intent of altering
      earth�s path as required�.so forget alchemy of gas to
      liquid�keep you eyes to the heavens and invest in cruise
      lines,gambling and internet stocks

    • Solidaxel--your question on the patent issue is
      more timely than ever. May we presume that Chevron
      looked over the Syntroleum process and patents before
      they chose Sasol? Looking on the positive side, if the
      Agees agreed to a buyout by a large oil company like
      Exxon that has extensive cobalt catalyst patents, could
      the combination be synergistic? Couldn't Exxon then
      agressively sell their their GTL technology to others and
      easily pay for the cost of a Syntroleum buyout many
      times over? One could see this combination as a win win

    • my understanding is that the risks with Exxon
      depend a lot on reactor type. I think Sasol's slurry
      reactor is the bubble column type (I haven't gone back to
      check their web page on this yet), which might be
      sufficiently different from the reactor types used by Exxon to
      give some comfort.

      How much exposure do you
      think SYNM faces on the Exxon patent issue? Presumably,
      ARCO would be highly sensitive to this and presumably
      they did their due diligence and got comfortable, at
      least with the reactor type they are currently testing
      at Cherry Point. Any thoughts?

    • Thanks for the information, solidaxel. This still
      begs the question, however, of Sasol's possible
      infringement upon Exxon's cobalt catalyst systems and how
      their FT is able to make usable gasoline at all. I'm
      almost certain that if Sasol had a cobalt slurry reactor
      up and running somewhere they'd be hearing from
      Exxons's lawyers about it. Perhaps their work with cobalt
      catalysts remains in the lab for now.

      Chevron partnership with Sasol for the conversion of
      natural gas into clean synthetic fuels remains both a
      breakthrough for GTL technology and a curiousity for now. I
      hope more information concerning this agreement is
      forthcoming soon.

    • here is an excerpt from Sasol's web site (follow
      Dooper's link in a recent message), note in particular the
      last sentence:

      Two new types of Fischer-Tropsch
      conversion technologies have been developed and operated by
      Sasol. One utilises the Sasol Slurry Phase reactor to
      produce waxes and middle-distillate fuels. This
      technology was developed from the conventional Arge tubular
      fixed-bed reactor technology. The other technology uses the
      Sasol Advanced Synthol reactor to produce mainly light
      olefins and gasoline fractions. Sasol has developed high
      performance cobalt-based and iron based catalysts for these
      processes based on extensive research as well as many years
      of commercial experience. Sasol produces its own
      catalyst for commercial use. Sasol�s new-generation cobalt
      catalysts, in particular, will enable further operational

    • You guys are the foundation of this message
      board, I know many appreciate your efforts--thank you.
      The only input I can offer today about the price
      action of SYNM is that being a NASDAQ specialist who
      controls a stock is a license to mint money for yourself
      often at the expense of shareholders. Cherry Point
      results could come out at any time, without warning and
      it would seem unwise to try to trade the stock to
      gain a point. I hope the MM is short when the news
      hits the wires.

    • It has been their policy from the beginning to
      license the technology only for the lighter products
      which naturally are directed primarily at the fuels
      market. Waxes and lubricants can be marketed only by Synm
      or its partners in proprietary projects. The
      Sweetwater project is one example, as was the Texaco, Brown
      & Root barge. This makes sense because although, as
      you say, the margins for heavy products are
      potentially much higher, the markets for these products are
      very small. Only a handfull of lubes plants can be
      built worldwide before the market would be crushed.
      They may as well be Synm projects. Also, because these
      markets are small, the competing technology providers,
      Exxon, Shell, Sasol, etc, all of whom rely on large
      scale to achieve acceptable capital costs/bbl of
      production, can't realistically target new projects to these
      markets. Sasol would risk its already lucrative synthetic
      wax and specialty chemical businesses; Shell would
      ruin the economics of its plant in Bintulu, which at
      12,500 BD was apparently profitable despite its
      $70,000/BD capital cost (prior to the explosion that shut it
      down). Government acceptance of F-T diesel as an
      alternative fuel has the potential to significantly improve
      the economics of the lighter products, at least in
      this country.

    • Solidaxel.....if cobalt-based GTL is so much more
      efficient than iron-based for the conversion of natural gas
      to clean liquid fuels, why did Chevron go with Sasol
      for their global venture instead of SYNM? Further,
      Sasol always demands a partnership deal to keep
      complete control of the GTL side of things. Don't you
      think that SYNM could have given them a better
      licensing deal to boot?

    • Thanks for yor response, I always enjoy whatever
      you have to say. Just a thought--Mark Agee says GTL
      momentum has really increased with Chevron's June 9
      announcement it will build a 30,000 barrel a day GTL plant to
      come on stream in in 2003 and they will seek to
      license their GTL technology to other companies. Here's
      what I speculate: Other large oil companies without
      GTL technology would prefer not to pay royalties to a
      competitor and be at their mercy. It would be behove them to
      acquire a GTL technology NOW. If a large company bought
      SYNM the potential from licensing to others would pay
      for the cost of SYNM many times over. Why NOW?
      Because as Chevron is aware, the success in licensing the
      technology to others will be greatly enhanced by the 30,000
      barrel per day plant they will build and can then
      demonstrate. It takes several years to design and build a
      plant so any other oil company that would like to
      license its own GTL technology needs to compete
      reasonably within Chevron's time frame. I hear that the
      current annual market potential for GTL technologies is
      estimated at $175 billoon worldwide. What do you think--a
      SYNM buy out?

    • is not a GTL process itself. It is a process for
      cracking and isomerizing heavy hydrocarbons. It can be
      used with Fischer-Tropsch waxes, such as those
      produced by Sasol, Syntroleum, Exxon, Shell, etc. to
      produce top quality liquid lubricants. Chevron's
      technology is not competitive with Syntroleum's: Sasol's is.
      But we already knew that.

    • View More Messages