SPE 94380
Economics of GTL Plants
F.T. Al-Saadoon, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and
Evaluation Symposium held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 3 – 5 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A unique approach for assessing the economic viability of gas
to liquid (GTL) plants is utilized. The capital expenditures
(“CAPEX”) are based on the production of one barrel of
hydrocarbon liquid per day (BLPD) whereas the annual
operating expenditures (“OPEX”) are expressed as
percentages of CAPEX. Both expenditures cover the range of
costs envisioned by various venders/investigators. It is
assumed the overall thermal efficiency of GTL plants is about
60% and the plant operates 330 days per annum. The capital
expenditures utilized in this study are 20,000, 25,000, 30,000,
35,000, and 40,000 USD/BLPD. The annual operating
expenditures utilized are 5%, 6%, and 7% of CAPEX. Thus,
the range of operating expenditures utilized is 3.03 to 8.48
USD per barrel of liquid hydrocarbon produced.
Two measures of profitability are utilized in assessing the
economic viability of GTL plants, namely, rate of return
(“ROR”) and undiscounted pay-out time (“POT”). Rates of
return used in this study are 10%, 15%, and 20% whereas pay-
out times used are 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years. Construction periods
of 3 and 4 years are considered in the analysis. It is
determined, for a 3-year construction period, that when crude
oil prices are in the range of 10.27 USD/Bbl (for 20,000
USD/BLPD in CAPEX, 3.03 USD/Bbl in OPEX, and 10% for
ROR) and 37.76 USD/Bbl (for 40,000 USD/BLPD in CAPEX,
8.48 USD/Bbl in OPEX and 20% for ROR), GTL plants are
profitable. Likewise, it is concluded that when crude oil
prices are in the range of 10.48 USD/Bbl (for 20,000
USD/BLPD in CAPEX, 3.03 USD/Bbl in OPEX, and 8 years
for POT) and 38.32 USD/Bbl (for 40,000 USD/BLPD in
CAPEX, 8.48 USD/Bbl in OPEX, and 4 years for POT), GTL
plants are profitable. For a 4-year construction period, crude
oil prices range between 10.64 and 40.87 USD/Bbl rather than
10.27 and 37.76 USD/Bbl, respectively. Crude oil prices as
function of undiscounted pay-out times, however, remain
unaffected by the change in the construction period. It should
be noted that it is assumed the premium on GTL products
offsets the cost of feed stock gas. A general survey of GTL
processes is also included.
Introduction
The conversion of natural gas to liquids (“GTL”) using the
Fischer-Tropsch (“F-T”) process was first effected in 1923
with the conversion of synthesis gas (“Syngas”) (CO + H2)
into synthesis fuels (“Synfuels”). The conversion is based on a
three-step process: Syngas generation, F-T synthesis, and
product upgrading. The liquid products are stable at
atmospheric temperature and pressure and may be transported
using pipelines and/or standard tankers.
Syngas Generation. The Syngas generation step involves a
chemical reaction, reforming, wherein the hydrocarbon
molecules of natural gas are broken down and stripped of their
hydrogen atoms. Oxygen, introduced either as steam, air, or
pure gas, produces a mixture of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. The production of the ideal Syngas calls for an
H2/CO ratio of about two and both catalytic and non-catalytic
processes have been developed. If necessary, the reforming
step may be preceded by a feed pre-treatment step to remove
sulfur compounds such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S). In addition,
other secondary/side reactions may proceed simultaneously
during the Syngas generation step yielding undesirable
products and thereby they must be controlled. (1) These
reactions may include:
CO + CO Æ 2C + O2 (carbon formation reaction)
CO + H2 Æ C + H2O (carbon formation reaction)
CO + H2O Æ H2 + CO2 (water gas shift)
There are three basic types of reformers: the Steam
Methane Reformer (“SMR”), the Partial Oxidation Reformer
(“POX”), and the Auto-Thermal Reformer (“ATR”). (2) A new
plasma reformer has also been developed for the production of
Syngas from natural gas whereby electricity provides the
reaction energy for the endothermic process. (3)
In the SMR, natural gas feedstock and steam at 20
atmospheres and 500˚C (with an exit temperature of about
800oC) pass over a nickel catalyst contained in tubes within a
firebox. The heat of reaction is supplied by burning some of
the feedstock. The SMR produces a Syngas having an H2/CO
ratio much higher than 2.0 and is thereby not ideally suited for
producing Synfuels. The theoretical H2/CO ratio is 3.0 (CH4+
2 SPE 94380
H2OÆ CO + 3H2) but the actual H2/CO ratio is 5.0 (75% H2,
15% CO & 20% CO2). (1)
In the POX, natural gas and oxygen are directly reacted
without a catalyst. The POX produces a Syngas having an
H2/CO ratio much lower than 2.0 and is thereby not ideally
suited for producing liquid fuels. It operates at an exist
temperature of about 1400oC. (5) The theoretical H2/CO ratio is
2.0 (2CH4+O2Æ 2CO + 4H2) but the actual H2/CO ratio is 1.8
(62% H2, 35% CO & 3% CO2). (1)
In the ATR, natural gas, steam, and oxygen at 1200 –
1500oC (with an exit temperature of about 800 – 1000oC) pass
over a bed of nickel in the reaction vessel. The combustion
reaction is rapid and exothermic and, therefore, auto-thermal.
Since the ATR results in an H2/CO ratio of about 2.0, the
process is best suited for the production of Synfuels. To
provide oxygen, an air separation plant or other special
provision may be required to resolve nitrogen-related
problems. The theoretical H2/CO ratio is 2.3
(3CH4+H2O+O2Æ 3CO + 7H2) but the actual H2/CO ratio is
2.0 (64% H2, 32% CO & 4% CO2). (1)
Table 1 provides a summary of the advantages and
disadvantages of the various Syngas generators. (2,4)
F-T Synthesis. The conversion of Syngas into Synfuel is
based on F-T catalytic synthesis, which, ideally, calls for an
H2/CO ratio of about 2.0. The reaction is strongly exothermic
and thereby significant heat must be removed. It may be
represented by the following reaction. (1)
nCO + 2nH2Æ n (-CH2-) + nH2O
There are three basic types of reactors: the tubular fixed-
bed, the fluidized-bed, and the slurry bubble.
In the tubular fixed-bed reactor, also called the Arge-type
reactor, Syngas flows downward through vertical tubes packed
with catalyst. The heat of reaction produces steam via
removal through the tubes’ walls. Iron, which is relatively
cheap and works well with a wide range of Syngas
compositions, is one of the first catalysts used and produces
light hydrocarbons. Cobalt, which is more expensive and
must be supported on an inert material such as alumina or
silica, produces a heavier, waxier hydrocarbon that requires
less eventual upgrading.
In the fluidized-bed reactor, the Syngas is blown upwards
through solid catalyst particles causing the particles to become
fluidized. The heat of reaction produces steam via cooling
coils.
In the slurry-bubble reactor, Syngas is bubbled through
slurry of liquid wax and dispersed catalyst, typically cobalt.
Heat is also removed from the slurry via cooling coils to
produce steam. The effluent products are sent to a condenser
for the recycling of unconverted Syngas.
Product Upgrading. The raw products are further treated to
maximize their sales value or to meet particular market needs.
The treatment may entail: thermal or hydro cracking of the
waxes to produce only naphtha and diesel; vacuum separation
of the waxes into distinct, high specialty products; distillation
of the combined naphtha/diesel stream into multiple
separation products including mineral spirits, white oils,
kerosene, and jet fuels.
Some of the companies involved in the development and
licensing of GTL process technology include: Rentech Inc.,
Shell, Exxon, Sasol Ltd., Syntroleum Corporation, British
Petroleum/Davy Process Technology, Conoco, and Reema
International.
Table 2 provides a summary of the competing
technologies utilized by five companies.
Economics of GTL Plants
Capital Expenditures. The capital expenditures (“CAPEX”)
of GTL Plants are estimated to be 20,000 to 40,000 U.S.
Dollars per bbl of liquid produced per day or USD/BLPD.
The CAPEX depends on many factors including: type of
technology utilized, geographical location of the facility,
products work-up/slate, economies of scale, learning curve
cost improvement, and local infrastructure availability.
Distribution of capital expenditures among the three GTL
processes is estimated as follows: 60% for Syngas generation,
30% for F-T Synthesis, and 10% for product upgrading.
Oxygen generation is a significant portion of Syngas
generation and thereby CAPEX and is important to explore for
purposes of cost reduction. Geographic location of the
proposed facility also weighs heavily on CAPEX. Table 3
provides Construction Cost Indices (CCI) for LNG plants in
many international locations using the onshore U.S Gulf Coast
as a basis, i.e., onshore U.S Gulf coast CCI = 1.00. GTL
plants are generally assumed to follow CCI trends similar to
those for LNG plants.
Economies of scale relate CAPEX to plant capacity and
may be expressed as follows:
Cost Ratio = (Capacity Ratio) Y
Cost = Base Cost * (Capacity/ Base Capacity) Y
= Constant * (Capacity) Y
Wherein Y reflects the degree to which a particular
process facility benefits from economies of scale. A value of
1.0 implies the facility does not benefit from economies of
scale. For example, the construction of parallel trains (instead
of larger trains) would yield Y values approaching 1.0. Y
values for refining and petrochemical plants are typically 0.5
to 0.8. The Y value for GTL plants is estimated at 0.66 as
reflected by the following estimates:
Plant Capacity, Total Cost, Unit Cost, Y
BLPD Billion USD USD/BLPD
20,000 0.6 30,000 -
50,000 1.1 22,000 0.6615
100,000 1.7 17,000 0.6615
SPE 94380
Product work-up governs the design basis and, therefore,
the cost of a plant. For example, a plant designed for the
production of distillates (about 80% diesel and 20% naphtha)
is less costly than one designed for the production of specialty
waxes.
Cost Improvement (i.e., the reduction in a product unit’s
cost as the industry-wide cumulative production increases) is
affected, in large part, by a learning curve that leads to
technical innovations to reduce production costs. The rate of
cost improvement can be described mathematically as follows:
Cn = C1(N) B
where Cn = Cost of the nth (Last) unit
C1 = Cost of first unit
N = number of the unit being cost estimated or
cumulative production
B = Learning Curve exponent
= -0.4383 for the organic chemical
production industry
Thus, each time cumulative production capacity doubles,
i.e., N equals 2.0, the cost improvement rate is about 0.738 or
73.8%. In other words, it costs 26.2% less to produce
products than prior to the doubling of the cumulative
production capacity.
E.P. Robertson cited several references which estimated
the capital expenditures, of generic GTL plants to be in the
range of 12,000 – 35,000 USD per daily barrel of liquid
(USD/BLPD). (5) He has elected to use a capital cost for the
U.S. Gulf coast of 24,000 USD/BLPD, i.e. equal to the capital
cost for Exxon’s 50,000 BLPD Qatar project. Vosloo also
cited a capital expenditure of 24,000 USD/BLPD. (6)
The CAPEX’s used in this analysis will be 20,000 to
40,000 USD/BLPD evaluated in 5000 USD/BLPD increments,
i.e., CAPEX’s to be analyzed are 20,000, 25,000, 30,000,
35,000, and 40,000 USD/BLPD.
Annual Operating Expenditures. The non-feed stock annual
operating expenditures (“OPEX”) for large projects have been
estimated at 5 to 7% of CAPEX. Accordingly, factors of 5%,
6%, and 7% are used to estimate annual OPEX for GTL
plants. These expenditures, amounting to 3.03 – 8.48 USD per
barrel of liquid produced, include operation and maintenance
of facilities, overhead costs, environmental compliance,
payroll, etceteras. They do not, however, include feedstock
cost. This range of operating expenditures, encompasses other
estimates of 4.00 – 5.50 USD/ BbL. (1,5,6)
Net Cash Flow Analysis of GTL Plants
The two measures used to assess the economic viability and
profitability of GTL plants are pay-out time (“POT”) and rate
of return (“ROR”). The un-discounted POT is the time
required in years, as of the start-up date of the plant, to pay
back the un-discounted initial investment, before income tax.
The ROR is the discount rate at which the net present value
(“NPV”) is equal to zero. Un-discounted POT’s of 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8 years, and ROR’s of 10 %, 15%, and 20 % are used in
this analysis. To assess the profitability of GTL plants, a
simple mathematical approach utilizing the concept of profit
mark-up, profit margin, or tariff rate per barrel of GTL
products, is introduced. The mark-up rate is defined as
follows.
3
Mark-up rate per Bbl of GTL product = Sale
price of one Bbl of GTL Product
- Cost of feed stock required to produce one
Bbl of GTL product
The following assumptions/parameters are also used in the
analysis:
25 years for plant life
3 years for plant construction
20,000, 25,000, 30,000, 35,000, and 40,000 USD/BLPD
for CAPEX, equally-divided over the 3-year construction
period
5, 6, and 7% of CAPEX for annual OPEX
100% for owner’s equity
0% for rate of inflation
91.5% for on- stream factor
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years for pay-out periods
10, 15, and 20% for ROR with mid-year compounding,
and
60% for overall thermal efficiency
The assumption that overall thermal efficiency is 60%
implies 10 Mscf of 1000 Btu/scf gas are required to produce 1
Bbl of GTL products. The parameters used for the base case
are 30,000 USD/BLPD for CAPEX, 6% of CAPEX for annual
OPEX, pay-out time of 6 years, and ROR of 15%. For the
Base Case, mark-up is 20.36 USD/BLPD at a pay out time of
6 years, and 21.47 USD/BLPD at an ROR of 15%.
The following rate of return to un-discounted pay-out time
equivalencies can be deduced from Tables 4 and 5:
1. ROR of 10% is equivalent to a POT of about 8 years,
2. ROR of 15% is equivalent to a POT of about 6 years,
and
3. ROR of 20% is equivalent to a POT of about 4 years.
For a 4-year construction period, the mark-up rates as a
function of un-discounted POT are unchanged and thereby
exactly as shown in Table 4. The mark-up rates as a function
of rates of return, however, are higher than those shown in
Table 5. Table 6 presents the incremental increase in mark-up
rates due to the one-year increase in the construction period.
The increase in mark-up rates amounts to 3.45%, 5.9%, and
8.5% at discount rates of 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively.
GTL Product Value
The wholesale prices of gasoline and No. 2 fuel oil average
about 8 USD/Bbl and 6 USD/Bbl higher than crude oil,
respectively. In addition, GTL products are more valuable
than those derived from crude oil due to their higher quality.
GTL products are ideally suited to meet low-emission
regulations for diesel. This superiority equates to more than a
2 USD/Bbl premium over oil-derived distillates. Overall, the
premium for GTL products over crude oil is about 10
USD/Bbl or more.
For a GTL plant with an overall thermal efficiency of
60%, ten Mscf of 1000 Btu/scf natural gas is required to
produce 1 barrel of GTL products. Thus, to ensure GTL plant
profitability, the minimum or break-even crude oil price in
USD/Bbl is
= (Mark-up rate – 10) +
(10)*(Natural Gas price, USD/Mscf)
4 SPE 94380

Thus, for the Base Case,
Crude oil price, USD/Bbl ≥ (20.47 – 10) +
(10)*(Natural Gas price, USD/MMBtu)
≥ (11.47) + (10)*(Natural Gas price,
USD/MMBtu)
Accordingly, for a natural gas price of 1.00 USD/Mscf
(i.e., 1.00 USD/MMBtu), the minimum or break-even price of
crude oil for the base case must equal or exceed 21.47
USD/Bbl for the GTL plant to be profitable. Table 7
summarizes the minimum crude oil prices needed for GTL
plant profitability at a natural gas price of 1.00 USD/MMBtu.
It should be noted that all tabulated values are identical to
those in Table 5. Thus, for the worst-case scenario (40,000
USD/Bbl for CAPEX, 7% for OPEX, and 20% for ROR), the
minimum crude oil price is 37.76 USD/ Bbl. A detailed NCF
analysis for the Base Case (with 1.00 USD/MMBtu) is shown
in Table 8 to illustrate the reliability of the simplified
approaches utilized in Tables 4 and 5.
Conclusions
The economic viability of converting natural gas to liquids
depends on four major factors, namely, capital expenditures,
operating expenditures, natural gas (feed stock) prices, and
crude oil prices. The mark-up rate, i.e., the mark-up required
to cover both capital and operating expenses, ranges between
10.48 and 38.32 USD/BLPD for pay-out times of 8 to 4 years
and between 10.27 and 37.76 USD/BLPD for rates of return of
10 to 20%.
Low natural gas prices coupled with high crude oil prices
will ensure the economic viability of GTL plants. For a
natural gas price of 1.00 USD/MMBtu, crude oil prices must
range, at least, between 10.48 and 38.32 USD/Bbl for pay-out
times of 8 to 4 years, and between 10.27 and 37.76 USD/Bbl
for rates of return of 10 to 20%. Stranded natural gas,
especially associated gas in regions with a zero flare policy, is
an ideal feed stock for GTL plants. With current crude oil
prices over 40 USD/Bbl (first quarter 2005), GTL plants are a
viable alternative to crude oil derived fuels.
References
1. Gaffney, Cline & Associates, “ Potential of and future
prospects for a Gas-to-liquid (GTL)
Industry in Australia “, Report submitted to the
commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and
Resources (DISR), Australia, 2001.
2. Doshi, M.,” Conversion of Natural Gas to Liquids using
GTL Technology: Process Comparisons and Process
Economics”, A Graduate Research Project, Texas A&M
University-Kingsville (August 2002).
3.Blutke, A.S., Bohn, E.M., and Vavruska, J.S., “ Plasma
Technology For Syngas Production For Offshore GTL plants”,
managing associated offshore natural Gas (April 28-30,1999).
4.Wilhelm, D.J., Simbeck, D.R., Karp, A.D., and Dickerson,
R.L., “ Syngas production for Gas-to-Liquids Applications:
Technologies, Issues and Outlook”, Fuel Processing
Technology 71 (2001) 139-148.
5.Robertson, E.P.,” Options for Gas-to-Liquids Technology in
Alaska”, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,
INEEL/EXT-99-01023 (December 1999).
6. Vosloo, A.C.,”Fischer-Tropsch: a Futuristic View”, Fuel
Processing Technology 71 (2001) 149-155.

Table 1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Syngas Generation Reformers

SMR POX ATR
Parameter Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
1. Units in Operation High Low Low
2. Operating Temperature Low High Medium
3. H2 to CO ratio High Low Favorable
4. Feedstock Requirement Limited (CH4) Unlimited Limited (CH4)
5. Oxygen Requirement No Yes Yes
6. Steam Requirement Yes No No
7. External Heat Requirement Yes No No
8. Catalyst Requirement Yes No Yes
9. CO2 Production High Low Low
10. CO2 Recycling Yes No or Low No or Low
11. Sulfur Tolerance None Yes None
12. Methane Slippage High Low Low
13. Operational Difficulty High Medium Low
(Start/Stop)
14. Coking No Yes Yes
SPE 94380 5

Table 2. GTL Technology Utilized by 5 Major

Competing Companies
F-T
Sr. No. COMPANY SYNGAS GENERATION REFORMERS SYNTHESIS REACTORS CATALYSTS

1 Rentech Inc SMR/POX/ATR Slurry- Bubble Iron

2 Shell SMR/POX/ATR Fixed Bed Cobalt
3 Exxon SMR/POX/ATR Slurry- Bubble Cobalt
4 Sasol Ltd. SMR/POX/ATR Slurry- Bubble Cobalt/ Iron
5 Syntrolem SMR/POX/ATR Fixed Bed Cobalt

Table 3. Construction Cost Index

(CCI) for LNG Plants
REGION CCI

Trinidad/Venezuela 1.10

Persian Gulf/South Pacific 1.15

Algeria/Eastern Offshore
Canada/ Egypt/ 1.20
Western South America

Nigeria/ Angola 1.25

Mackenzie Delta/
North Slope/Sakhalin 1.30

N. Australia/ W. Siberia 1.35

Bangladesh 1.40
East Caspian 1.45
6 SPE 94380

Table 4. Mark-Up Rates as Function of Pay-Out Times

CAPEX, USD/BLPD

Pay-
20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Out
Time,
Years Annual OPEX, % Of CAPEX

5% 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 5% 6% 7%

4 17.96 18.56 19.16 22.46 23.2 23.95 26.95 27.84 27.74 31.44 32.49 33.53 35.93 37.13 38.32

5 14.97 15.57 16.17 18.71 19.46 20.21 22.46 23.35 24.25 26.2 27.25 28.29 29.94 31.14 32.34

6 12.97 13.57 14.17 16.22 16.97 17.71 19.46 20.36 21.26 22.7 23.75 24.8 25.95 27.15 28.34

7 11.55 12.15 12.75 14.44 15.18 15.93 17.32 18.22 19.12 20.21 21.26 22.31 23.1 24.29 25.49

8 10.48 11.08 11.68 13.1 13.85 14.6 15.72 16.62 17.51 18.34 19.39 20.43 23.35 23.35 23.35

Table 5. Mark-Up Rates as Function Of Rates Of Return

CAPEX, USD/ BLPD

20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

ROR Annual OPEX, % of CAPEX

% 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7

10 10.27 10.87 11.47 12.84 13.59 14.34 15.41 16.31 17.21 17.98 19.03 20.08 20.55 21.75 22.95

15 13.71 14.31 14.91 17.14 17.89 18.64 20.57 21.47 22.37 24 25.05 26.1 27.43 28.63 29.83

20 17.67 18.27 18.87 22.1 22.85 23.6 26.52 27.42 28.32 30.94 31.99 33.04 35.36 36.56 37.76

Table 6. Incremental Increase in Mark-Up rates due to a longer construction period

CAPEX, USD/BLPD

ROR % 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

10 0.37 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.75

15 0.84 1.27 1.27 1.48 1.69

20 1.56 2.33 2.33 2.72 3.11

SPE 94380 7

Table 7. Minimum (Break- Even)

Crude Oil Prices

CRUDE OIL PRICES, USD/BBL

20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

ROR Annual OPEX, % Of CAPEX

% 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7

10 10.27 10.87 11.47 12.84 13.59 14.34 15.41 16.31 17.21 17.98 19.03 20.08 20.55 21.75 22.95

15 13.71 14.31 14.91 17.14 17.89 18.64 20.57 21.47 22.37 24 25.05 26.1 27.43 28.63 29.83

20 17.67 18.27 18.87 22.1 22.85 23.6 26.52 27.42 28.32 30.94 31.99 33.04 35.36 36.56 37.76
8 SPE 94380

Table 8. Detailed NCF Analysis of The Base Case (Basis: 1 BLPD)

Annual Annual *Cumulative Discounted **Cumulative

CAPEX, Undiscounted
Year Annual OPEX, USD Cost, Revenue, Undiscounted NCF, Discounted NCF,
USD NCF, USD
USD USD NCF, USD USD USD

1 10,000 ---- --- --- -10,000 -10,000 -9,323 -9,325

2 10,000 ---- --- --- -10,000 -20,000 -8,109 -17,434
3 10,000 ---- --- --- -10,000 -30,000 -7,051 -24,485
4 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 -24,629 3,293 -21,192
5 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 -19,258 2,864 -18,328
6 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 -13,887 2,490 -15,838
7 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 -8,516 2,165 -13,673
8 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 -3,145 1,883 -11,790
9 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 2,226 1,637 -10,152
10 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 7,597 1,424 -8,729
11 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 12,968 1,238 -7,491
12 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 18,339 1,077 -6,414
13 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 23,710 936 -5,478
14 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 29,081 814 -4,664
15 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 34,452 708 -3,956
16 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 39,823 616 -3,341
17 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 45,194 535 -2,806
18 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 50,565 465 -2,340
19 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 55,936 405 -1,935
20 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 61,307 352 -1,584
21 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 66,678 306 -1,278
22 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 72,049 266 -1,011
23 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 77,420 231 -780
24 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 82,791 201 -579
25 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 88,162 175 -404
26 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 93,533 152 -252
27 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 98,904 132 -119
28 --- 1,800 3,340 10,511 5,371 104,275 115 -4
Sum 30,000 45,000 83,500 262,775 104,275 935,575 -4
* Pay-out time = 5.6
** ROR = 15%