Ram,
I've started to follow GTL technology very closely and find it to be an area of tremendous future potential as well as entertaining corporate intrigue. Syngas actually appears to be the ultimate feedstock of the future with the ability to not only serve as the energy source of stationary fuel cells, but also be routed into FT reactors for the production of "green fuels" and feedstock for mobile fuel cells of the future. The problem is that no one really understands the ongoing dynamics currently at play here or the ultimate ramifications for the oil and gas industry in the future (although it looks like BP/Amoco certainly does). Here's an interesting excerpt from an industry review which expands on Exxon's current patent issues:
"According to Rocco A. Fiato, Senior Engineering Associate with Exxon, Exxon has been involved in numerous patent interference actions with several companies including Shell—14 times in Europe over patent issues relating to FT in which Exxon prevailed 14 times. Exxon has also brought a suit, filed March 26, 1998, against the United States of America in the United States Court of Federal Appeals. Exxon alleges in this suit that the U.S., "through its Department of Energy…and DOEs authorized contractors and subcontractors, has used Exxon's patented [AGC-21] technology to make liquid hydrocarbons and further the economic interests of Exxon's competitors."
In summary, the background of this suit is that the DOE has an FT research facility at La Porte, Texas and DOE authorized Shell Synthetic Fuels, Inc., an operating unit of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and others to "engage in gas-to-liquids conversion…using processes and techniques patented by Exxon."
The two specific patents Exxon alleges were infringed were patent No. 5,348,982 entitled "Slurry Bubble Column" and patent No. 5,292,705 entitled "Activation of Hydrocarbon Synthesis Catalyst." Exxon also says in the suit that perhaps more of its patents were infringed.
While Exxon will not generally comment on the specifics of pending legal actions, what we have been able to discern by talking to various industry players is that Exxon is seeking to protect its rights to its cobalt catalyst used in a slurry reactor.
While we have not been able to confirm this with Exxon, what we have been told by others in the FT field is that Exxon originally filed patent applications in Europe covering use of a slurry reactor and both cobalt and iron catalysts. While Exxon was granted the patents with respect to cobalt and the slurry reactor, it was denied the patent with respect to an iron catalyst and a slurry reactor. Further, when Exxon filed its patents in the United States, it did not receive patent protection on the use of an iron catalyst in a slurry reactor."(end)
He who controls the front end of things may eventually control the end product as well. Instead of a "Hydrogen Economy" perhaps it should be termed a "Syngas Economy". People definitely underestimate the importance of syngas (if they know what it means at all) and the current and future impact of the DOE's EPACT program. To once again paraphrase myself, he who controls the feedstock of the future will ultimately control the future itself.
Bradpalm1
|
