TurtleTree
FEL-1
Site Selection
AACE Class 5-4
TurtleTree produces lactoferrin through precision fermentation. Roebling built an integrated techno-economic model of the process and used it to run TurtleTree's site selection, product and technology trade-offs, and buy-vs-build economics through to a fundable FEL-1 design basis, without switching tools or re-deriving the cost basis at each stage.
500+ scenarios
across sites, products, and technology selections, evaluated on one basis, not the one or two a typical firm has time to study
6 weeks
to complete the model, site selection, and pre-development plan, where a typical engineering firm would take 3 months
90 sites
narrowed to a final shortlist of four: two greenfield, one brownfield, and one CDMO
Challenge
TurtleTree faced several interlinked open questions on its scale-up roadmap: which site and delivery model to use (greenfield, brownfield, or CDMO), which product purity to target, and what those choices meant for capital cost, operating cost, and carbon footprint. Answering any one in isolation risked locking in a design that looked good on one axis but fell apart on another.
Solution
Roebling built a fully integrated techno-economic model linking mass and energy balance, equipment sizing, and CapEx directly to OpEx and the financial model, so every scenario ran through one connected system. That model drove a structured site selection from 90 candidates down to a final shortlist of four.
Results
TurtleTree converged on the greenfield site most cost-effective at its achievable scale, backed by a full FEL-1 package: a basis of design report, process flow diagrams, a sized and priced equipment list, and an integrated project schedule, all carried forward from the same model.
"Working with the team has been nothing short of exceptional. They built a full TEA of our process to produce lactoferrin. They helped us evaluate different greenfield sites, brownfield sites, and CDMO options. The insights helped us better understand the cost curve of our lactoferrin, so we can speak to customers and investors a lot more confidently."
Fengru Lin
CEO, TurtleTree
The Approach
From a 90-site long list to a fundable design basis, on one model.
Roebling narrowed the candidate list from 90 sites to a top eight, then to a final four (one brownfield site, one CDMO option, and two greenfield sites), evaluating all four in the TEA model to compare cost and feasibility on a consistent basis:
Two product purity levels were compared for the trade-off between lower sales price and lower CapEx and OpEx at lower purity, with CapEx modeled across separation technology options for each level.
A buy-vs-build analysis showed the scale at which it makes sense to move off a CDMO and into an owned facility, a threshold that shifts depending on which product is being produced.
Carbon footprint was compared across process routes and candidate sites, with sensitivity analysis identifying the cost drivers that mattered most.
Following site and design basis selection, Roebling delivered a pre-development planning report and a full FEL-1 engineering package on the same model, so nothing had to be rebuilt between phases.
What the teams say
We value your privacy
We use cookies to improve site functionality. Some cookies help us understand how visitors use our site.