Process Technology Selection
The right technology decision, before it becomes an expensive one to reverse.
Where technology decisions are made, and where they go wrong
Selecting the right process technology is one of the most consequential decisions in any energy or industrial project. Made well, it sets the foundation for a plant that performs reliably, operates cost-effectively, and can be supported throughout its lifecycle. Made poorly, or made by parties whose priorities don't align with the end user's, it creates problems that no amount of engineering or operational effort can fully fix.
Auryx Energy provides independent process technology selection support for energy producers and asset owners — from early-stage evaluation that informs the investment decision, through to technology selection as part of project execution.
Pre-FID and post-FID, where we add value
Before the investment decision (pre-FID)
Technology selection is frequently part of the feasibility and concept phase, the stage where the project is still being shaped and the investment case is being built. At this point, the choice of technology directly influences CAPEX estimates, OPEX projections, risk profile, and ultimately whether the project proceeds. Independent evaluation at this stage ensures the investment decision is built on a realistic and defensible technology basis.
After the investment decision (post-FID)
Once a project is sanctioned, technology selection moves into procurement territory — shortlisting licensors, issuing RFQs, evaluating bids, and making a final recommendation. This is where technical rigour, commercial discipline, and an understanding of what vendors will and won't tell you unprompted all matter.
What independent means in practice
Process technology licensors and vendors are commercially motivated. Their proposals are structured to present their solution favourably, which is entirely reasonable — but means the evaluation needs to be conducted by someone whose interests are aligned with the buyer, not the seller.
EPC contractors, who frequently lead technology selection on behalf of clients, are primarily optimising for project delivery and CAPEX. Their evaluation horizon ends at commissioning. The end user's horizon extends across the full operational life of the plant — often 20 to 30 years.
Auryx Energy works exclusively on the buyer side. Our evaluation is structured around what matters to the asset owner, not what is easiest to procure or most familiar to a project team.
What we evaluate
Technical fit and process performance
Does the technology actually deliver what is claimed under the specific conditions of this project — feedstock composition, capacity, operating envelope, and site constraints? We assess licensor performance data critically, not at face value.
Total cost of ownership
Capital cost is only part of the picture. We evaluate the full cost profile across the asset lifecycle — CAPEX, OPEX, maintenance requirements, catalyst and chemical consumption, utility demand, and end-of-life considerations. A lower-CAPEX technology that carries higher OPEX or maintenance burden over 25 years is rarely the right choice.
Business Case & TCO analysis is covered in depth as a dedicated service.
Service level and aftercare — the factor most often underweighted
Once a plant is operating, the relationship with the technology licensor becomes critical. Spare parts availability and pricing, response times for technical support, the depth of the licensor's service organisation, and the terms of the licence and support agreement all directly affect plant reliability and operating cost. This is the area buyers and EPC contractors most commonly underweight during selection, and the one operators feel most acutely once the project team has moved on. We assess service capability as a core part of the evaluation, not an afterthought.
Licensor track record and reference installations
How many plants of this type and scale are operating? What do reference site operators actually say — not what is in the brochure? We go beyond published references to build a realistic picture of technology maturity and operational performance.
Licensing terms and long-term exposure
Licence fees, royalty structures, exclusivity of spare parts supply, and restrictions on modifications or third-party servicing all affect the long-term cost and flexibility of operating a licensed technology. We review these terms as part of the evaluation.
Sectors and technologies we work in
Our process technology selection experience covers:
- Ammonia synthesis
- Acid gas treatment
- Biogas upgrading
- Carbon capture (CCUS)
- Desulfurization
- Gas processing
- Gasification and syngas
- Hydrogen production
- LNG and gas liquefaction
- Methane processing
- Methanol production
- Nitrogen and air separation
- Steam reforming (SMR / ATR)
- Sulfur recovery
Who we work with
Energy producers and asset owners
Requiring independent technology evaluation to support an investment decision or drive a procurement process.
Project developers and investors
Needing a credible, independent technology assessment as part of project feasibility or due diligence.
EPC contractors
Where the client requires independent verification of technology recommendations.
Operators
Evaluating technology upgrades or replacements for existing plant.