Valves are a critical component in the production of various fuels that are currently being used to replace Russian oil and gas. The free world is united in a program to eliminate Russian energy purchases. People are motivated in a way not seen since the OPEC oil embargo in 1973. At that time an alternative fuels program was immediately launched. In retrospect the technology choices made at that time were not optimum. To achieve a more optimal outcome today, it may be best to turn to the system and component suppliers, who are in an ideal position to respond quickly to industrial needs, for guidance.
By Robert McIlvaine, President & Founder – The McIlvaine Company
A Brief Look Back
The U.S. faced a similar situation in 1973 when OPEC banned oil exports to a country supporting Israel. A number of technology choices were made without access to an organized evaluation system. Highest on the priory list were:
• oil shale (not shale oil)
• new coal fired power plants
The plan was to make Colorado the oil capital of the world with a technology used for tar sands in Canada. Huge construction sites were built in a short time and electric heat was to replace gas heat. 85,000 MW of new coal fired power plants were ordered by the U.S. utilities. Six months later, however, the oil embargo was lifted. No oil shale plants were built in Colorado. In the 50 years since the big coal plant orders less than 30,000 MW of new coal plants have been built.
In similar crisis situations Germany and South Africa made a different choice. Germany opted for coal to liquids (CTL) which produced most of the airplane and tank fuel during World War II.
During the apartheid era, South Africa built a huge Sasol complex to make both fuels and chemicals. Today that technology is being extensively employed in the Chinese chemical industry.
The only U.S. relic of the 1973 program is the Great Plains plant in North Dakota. It has produced coal gas, ammonia, and hydrogen from coal. It has also piped CO2 for enhanced oil recovery to Canada. The plant is being revamped to use shale gas to produce hydrogen and ammonia.
If it had not been for the inventions around shale fracturing in the 1990s the failure of the U.S. to develop an alternative fuels program would have resulted in USD $200/barrel oil, and a Russia and OPEC oil dominance. The free world cannot afford to make the same haphazard decisions made in 1973.
Current Oil and Gas Distribution Disruption
In 2021, Russia crude and condensate output reached 10.5 million barrels per day (bpd), making up 14% of the world’s total supply. Russia has oil and gas production facilities throughout the country, but the bulk of its fields are concentrated in western and eastern Siberia. In 2021 Russia exported an estimated 4.7 million bpd of crude to countries around the world. While China is the largest importer of Russian crude (1.6 million bpd), Russia exports a significant volume to buyers in Europe (2.4 million bpd).
Russia is also the world’s second-largest producer of natural gas, behind the United States, and has the world’s largest gas reserves, making it the world’s largest gas exporter. In 2021 the country produced 762 bcm of natural gas and exported approximately 210 bcm via pipeline.
With a wide-reaching gas export pipeline network, via both transit routes through Belarus and Ukraine, and pipelines that send gas directly into Europe, including: Nord Stream, Blue Stream, and TurkStream pipelines, Russian natural gas accounted for 45% of imports and almost 40% of European Union gas demand in 2021.
Without European purchasers, it will be more difficult for Russia to sell its gas and while oil is more easily delivered, oil sold to China or India at a discount will substantially reduce Russian revenues. One of the many consequences of this situation is that Russia’s valve production will likely become less efficient.
In response to the current situation, many countries have begun to look for alternative fuels. Valves will play a major role in providing alternative fuels for Europe and other free countries.1
Alternate Fuel Options
Carbon Capture and Storage
The largest potential for alternative fuel is bioenergy with carbon sequestration. For example, the 4,000 MW Drax power plant in the UK is now burning wood pellets primarily imported from the U.S. It is also currently completing a project to sequester CO2 in the North Sea; this is a carbon negative technology.
A 4,000 MW bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plant reverses its CO2 contribution to the atmosphere. The significance of this process is twofold.
• Even though a temporary alternative fuels program can add CO2, there is no tipping point. BECCS can bring down CO2 levels in the future.
• Any BECCS will offset carbon producing options. So 4,000 MW of conventional coal plant life extension plus 4,000 MW of BECCS is equal to 8,000 MW of carbon neutral electricity.
One of the principal BECCS practices to sequester CO2 is the use of oxycombustion. This process has the advantage of eliminating nitrogen and simplifying the CO2 purification; it also uses a number of valves for the CO2 recirculation.
LNG
A number of pipeline valves will be needed for, among other things, the transmission of LNG. To aide with the new demand, Germany has committed to building regasification terminals. Another option will be to deliver LNG and syngas via transport trucks. In China, for example, there are systems that use coal gasifiers followed by gas liquefaction in order to deliver LNG, via truck, to industrial sites for electricity and steam generation. The conditions when gasifying solid fuels often involve high temperatures, high pressures, abrasive particles, and corrosive gases. Continuous reliable operation for months or years is also necessary.
Trial Format for Optimal Results
In order to ensure rash decisions are not made, as they were in pervious energy conflicts, it is best to turn to the system and valve suppliers. They have the capability to determine the best options to meet the needs in the necessary time frame. An example of how these suppliers can succeed is the trial format. Because a body of organized evidence is available, a jury can make quick decisions. In this case the supplier is the claimant, the competitors are the respondents, and the purchaser is the jury. The claimant needs to determine what raw data is important to making a decision and to include that data in predicate evidence, see Figure 1.
For each of the many specific valve applications in the alternative fuels program, the claimants have to determine which raw data is really significant and should be included in predicate evidence. It is likely that the respondent can supply 316 L stainless construction. This therefore becomes a non-issue and does not need be addressed in predicate evidence. If there are new hard coatings and only the claimant has experience, however, then it should be included in the predicate evidence.
As part of the disputed evidence the claimant can show how the novel coating is creating longer life and lower cost in similar applications. To the extent that actual experience can be included in the disputed evidence the more convincing the presentation.
Valves in Alternate Fuels
There are several newer valve designs to insure reliability, limit leakage, and provide the needed isolation or control response time. There are also new materials and hard coatings which can make a significant difference in total cost of ownership.
For example, molecular sieves are widely used in the purification of fuel gases. So the selection of the lowest total cost of ownership (LTCO) valve is important.
There is lots of disputed evidence relative to valves used in molecular sieve switching. Three valve designs are usually found in switching valve service: (1) metal-seated ball valves; (2) metal-seated, triple offset butterfly valves; and (3) metal-seated, non-contacting, rising stem ball valves. Some rotary valve options such as the triple offset butterfly valves are relatively inexpensive to purchase and may perform adequately. There are however, concerns about sealing capability, expected service life and total cost of ownership. Process disruption, high MRO expense and the inability to deliver a minimum of five years of continuous service between planned shutdowns, are all negatives raised by respondents.
Historically the rising stem ball valve (RSBV) has been used in molecular sieve switching, but as the selection is complicated, it depends to some extent on the severe conditions existing. Zero-leakage carbide coated metal seated ball valves are an option in particularly severe service according to one claimant.
Final Thoughts
The suppliers focused on supplying the LTCO products are the ones who will profit from this selection process. They can effectively use the media, exhibitions, conferences, speeches, and webinars to address the disputed evidence and make the case that they have the lowest total cost of ownership solutions.
REFERENCE
1. Valves: World Markets published by the McIlvaine Company.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bob McIlvaine founded the McIlvaine Company in 1974 and oversees the work of 30 analysts and researchers. He has a BA degree from Princeton University.
