You are on page 1of 12

OTC 4786

Offshore Methanol Production: Selection of Carriers for


Different Plant Capacities
by G.C. Widbom and C.O. Thorsson, Swedyards Development Corp.

Copyright 1984 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 16.lh Annual oft in Houston, Texas, May 7-9,1984. The material is subject to correction by the author, Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT The above has been said concerning oil produc-


tion offshore. This paper will deal with offshore
Methanol production is considered a feasible methanol production but the two products may in the
alternative to flaring associated gas or develop- future often be mentioned together. Maybe one way
ment of marginal gas fields. In order to fully of producing oil economically is - by also pro-
appreciate the problems for a floating process ducing methanol.
plant, a series of scale model tests and theoreti-
cal calculations were carried out for different
type of barges for petrochemical process plants For marginal gasfield developmen~ or instead
designed for operation offshore. Motions and forces of flaring associated gas in connection with oil
caused by waves, wind and current are compared with production many alternative uses of the gas have
those for semi submersibles and tankers as other been studied, such as generation of electric power,
potential carriers of process plants. Further, refrigeration to LPG and LNG, conversion to
extensive tests were performed to evaluate the methanol or ammonia. Swedyards Development Corp.
technical feasibility of operating a methanol-water has concentrated on conversion of the gas.
distillation process subject to wave-induced ir- Especially concerning floating offshore production,
regular motions. methanol has been of special interest with regard
to its predicted growing market.
Coneeptual designs and cost estimates are made
for methanol plants ranging from 100 MTPD to 3 000 METHANOL PROCESS
MTPD with natural gas or associated gas as feed-
stock. As carriers of the plants, purpose-built The advantages of the methanol process over
barges and semi submersible platforms as well as other possible ways of converting natural gas to a
converted tankers are considered. A comparison is commercial product are the relative simplicity of
made of the methanol production costs using diffe- the process and the ease in handling the methanol.
rent plant carriers and related to different plant The conversion of natural gas to methanol usually
capacities. requires a pre-treatment stage to remove any hydro-
gen sulphide which would poison the catalysts used
INTRODUCTION in the conversion process. The desulphurized gas is
then passed with high pressure steam over a nickel
Floating Production System (FPS) are today catalyst in the reformer to produce a gas consist-
attracting more and more attention and there are ing of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and dioxide. This
several good reasons for this - both financial and gas is then compressed and passed over a catalyst
operational. in radial flow converters to produce methanol and
water. The reaction is shown schematically in
Over the last five years the offshore industry fi gure 1.
has made the first tentative steps and the 80's
will see a major breakthrough in the use of flo- When process plants are operated off-shore,
ating production platforms. the process equipment is inevitably subjected to
the wave-induced motions of the carrier. The
The relative cost of production in deep water motions mainly affect reformers, large rotating
will be high, and it will be how this cost can be equipment, tanks, some metering and control
minimized that will lead to success or failure of a instrumentation, and gas-liquid contacting devices
particular scheme. such as distillation columns.

References and illustratl0ns at end of paper

91
The low-temperature energy needed for methanol Column efficiency was primarily evaluated as
distillation is available practically for free height of packing to a theoretical step (HETS) and
onboard the carrier since the methanol process is in connection with each motion test, a reference
overall energy producing. If the methanol were to test with the column in a vertical position was
be distilled elsewhere, energy corresponding to performed. The efficiency of a column under motion
approximately 10% of the produced methanol would be is expressed as relative efficiency, ie, the ratio
required for such distillation. of HETS of the reference test to HETS during
motion.
Raw methanol from the process contains approx- At first, influence of static inclination was
imately 15% water. Therefore, all alternatives to tested. A considerable decrease in column efficien-
onboard distillation would include transportation cy is noted already at very small angles, figure 4A
of substantial amounts of water. Optimization of This is caused by clearly developed liquid and gas
the water content with respect to onboard distil- maldistr~bution in the packed bed.
lation and transport costs normally yields an op-
timum around 0.1-0.5 %of water depending mainly on Static inclination can be regarded as the
tranport distance. Therefore, onboard distillation lower limit in column efficiency, all motions be-
is economic. To confirm the technical feasibility tween the vertical position and a static incli-
of such distillation, we have performed extensive nation angle will improve the efficiency. This was
pilot tests. clearly noted at the tests with sinusoidal
motions.
Distillation tests
The results from the regular motion tests
In the pilot plant, figure 2, test columns are indicate that the loss of efficiency during normal
mounted on a motion simulator. All other equipment operation due to motion is very small, figure 4B.
is assembled on two modules, one containing the This was also confirmed by test with irregular
heat exchangers and most of the instrumentation, motions where efficiency drops of the same order of
and the other containing the bottom drain tank and magnitude was noted.
pumps. Capacity and the main dimensions are:
It is difficult to maintain motions around an
Reboiler &condenser capacity Max 5 000 kW exactly vertical position during actual operation
Column 1: Inside dia 1 000 mm of a floating structure. Wind pressure, sea states,
Packed height 2 200 Jl1T1 or imperfect ballasting may lead to motions around
Column 2: Inside dia 600 mm an off-vertical position. Such conditions were also
Packed height 2 200 mm tested and the results indicate a considerably
3 700 mm lower efficiency of the column.
4 700 mm
Liquid vol. in plant BARGE MODEL TESTING
during operation 3 m3
Internal reflux-ratio 0.6-1.4 kmol/kmol The testing of the barge was done not only to
give basic data to the testing of the process under
To simulate the effects of full scale motions motion. For the design of the barge, its anchoring
on the columns, a hydraulic motion simulator is system, the securing of tall and heavy process
used. The simulator has 3 degrees of freedom: towers and other components, criteria for the
roll, pitch and heave motion. A diagram of the motions, their amplitude and frequency and the
simulator principle is shown in figure 3, and accelerations have to be established.
characteristic data are:
Roll ampl itude Max +/-15 deg Specifically the influence of the hull form of
Pitch ampl itude Max +/-20 deg the forebody on motions and accelerations was tes-
Heave amplitude Max +/-475 Jl1T1 ted as also the effect of motion suppression sys-
Frequency at max amplitude Max 1/8 Hz tems. The results of barge tests were then compared
with corresponding values for semi submersibles and
Two types of motions are used in testing: large tankers.
- Regular motions such as static sinusoidal The methanol plant barge, from which the test
heave motions, etc. started, is shown in figure 5. The shape is essen-
tially a rectangular box, Length = 140 m, Breadth
Irregular motions derived from scale model = 74m, Depth = 20 m and max Draught = 10 m. It has
testing of barges and other off-shore structures. three main sections; Accommodation and service
forward, methanol storage tanks in the middle and
the process plant aft. It is anchored with a SALS
The irregular motion patterns are based on (Single Anchor Leg Storage) mooring.
scale model tests carried out in irregular long-
crested waves, wind and current for a barge desig- The SALS mooring system comprises a riser con-
ned to carry a methanol production plant. The nected to the sea floor by a universal joint and a
motions and accelerations measured in these tests yoke with a submerged buoyancy cylinder connected
were recorded on tape. The recordings are evaluated to the top of the riser by another universal joint
and transformed to the simulator positions required and a swivel. The permanently submerged buoyancy
to achieve full-scale motion of the test column. tank generates the required restoring force while
ensuring a continous pretension on the riser. The
92
yoke is connected to the front of the barge by two Survival
hinges.
To test survival condition two barge shapes
The forces in the hinges between the barge and were selected for further tests in higher waves
the mooring system, the motions of the barge and modified A and C. The nominal wave heights used
accelerations and relative motions at different lo- were H 1/3 = 7.5 -18.0 m. Two water depths 90 m and
cations on the barge were tested for different 195 mwere used. The mean values of the hinge for-
barge shapes. Towing resistance was considered and ces were about 50 % lower for C at all wave heights
two different barge shapes were selected and tested except 18 mwhere they were 30 % lower. The heave
in high waves. motions, the pitch angles and the accelerations in
x and z directions were smaller for C.
The wave spectra used in the tests had sig-
nificant wave heights, H 1/3, ranging from 2.5 to The relative motions were smaller for C except
7.5 m. (H 1/3 = the mean value of the one-third for the point in the centre line forward. It is
highest waves in the spectrum). The corresponding seen here that with the increased freeboard forward
wind speeds were 24 - 62 knots. The current was 2 the barges will take green water over the bow for
knots. the maximum waves of spectra with Hl/3 above 10 m.
The process equipment at the aft part of the barges
Measuring parameters were: is well protected. In the centre line aft there
will be a peak which for the rectangular barge A
Hinge forces in X and Y directions can reach the deck level for the highest waves.
Riser tension
Riser angle around X and Y axis The forces, motions and accelerations showed
Barge surge, sway and heave motions no difference for the two water depths tested.
Barge pitch, roll and yaw angles
Accelerations in four points MOTION COMPARISON OF CARRIERS
The points and directions of the acceleration For comparison between the tested barges and
measurements were so chosen that from the results other potential carriers of the methanol plant we
the accelerations in all three directions x, y and have also noted corresponding values for semisub-
z, longitudinal, transverse and vertical, can be mersibles and tankers as being the most probable
calculated for any points in (and above) the barge. carrier types. Figures 7 and 8 show heave, pitch
One measuring point for the accelerations was the and roll motions and x, y and z-accelerations in
top of the distillation column. From video-recor- shortcrested sea for the compared types. The barge
dings the number of shippings of green water over is here represented by the A shape.
the bow was counted.
The values for the semisubmersible are uprated
Basic test results to a semi with a payload of about 10 000 tonnes
which corresponds to the operational weight of a
The results of these tests are shown in 2 000 MTPD Methanol plant. Its motion characteris-
figure 6. Barge C gave smaller hinge forces and tics could be considered as representative for
consequently smaller riser angles and surge motions super semi-subs. The curves for tankers are rep-
than the other barge types. Barge D gave the smal- resented by 230 000 taw tanker with L = 320 m, B =
lest pitch angles and accelerations. The number of 45.6 m and a draught of 11 m, corresponding to a
shippings of green water over the bow was less for displacement of 130 000 tonnes.
barge C than for the others and was very much re-
duced when barge C was outfitted with breakwater on The fact that the tanker and the barge have a
the bow. SALS mooring but the semi has the conventional
catenary type of mooring does not disturb the com-
Calculations were made of accelerations of parison since the anchoring arrangement as such has
four box-shaped barges with lenghtlbreadth ratio of little influence on the heave, pitch and roll
1.5 to 4 in irregular short-crested seas for three motions of the carrier when exposed to the same
main headings. At main wave direction 0 degrees wave direction. However, the semi is in a fixed
(following seas) the accelerations decrease with position, whereas the tanker and the barge are
increasing LIB. At main wave direction 45 degrees weathervaning. This explains why tanker and barge
the accelerations increased with increasing LIB. At are shown in head sea whereas the semi's roll ang-
main wave direction 22.5 degrees the accelerations les are shown in beam sea being the worst con-
are independent of LIB. dition. This is not an entirely fair comparison,
since it is possible also for the semi to head the
Towing sea by a single point mooring or dynamic positio-
ning, when the roll angles will be smaller.
Different shapes of the fore body and aft body
of models A and C were tested in still water with As expected the semi has the most favourable
regard to resistance and course keeping at a draft motion behaviour. The tanker is better than the
of 5 m. By changing the angle at the bottom rake on barge with regard to heave and pitch on account of
barge A from the original 36 degrees to 20 degrees its larger LIB and the ship shape. For the same
the speed at a towing force of 600 kN increased by reason the roll angles are greater for the ships.
33 %. The same increase in speed was obtained by In short crested waves the ship will also have a
making a radius at the fore bottom corner, but slight tendency to draw the aft body towards the
shape C gave the lowest towing resistance corre- waves (to an angle from head sea). This is special-
sponding to 60 % increase in speed in still water.
93
ly noted when a shuttle tanker is moored in tandem. In deciding the nominal capacity of the plant
This will increase the roll angle for the ship. one has to consider that the flow of associated gas
may vary and facilities to control variations
From the barge tests we can note that a longer should be foreseen. It is not feasible to run the
barge (ship) gives a considerable reduction of the plant on less than say 50 % output during a longer
pitch angle and the x-accelerations in the top of period.
the tower and also the hinge forces and riser ang-
les are reduced by a ship shape stem. Plant weight and area

With the Tension Leg Platform (TLP) roll, From fig 9 we can see the operational weight and
pitch and heave are almost eliminated. Only hori- area demand for a methanol plant in relation to its
zontal motions are of any significance and much produciton capacity. Considering that space and
greater than for the semi. The Articulated Leg weight capacity is costly offshore every effort
Platform (ALP) or guyed tower should also be men- should be used to minimize area and weight as far
tioned as a potential process carrier where motions as possible with regard to maintenance and safety.
are reduced to a minimum.
Since the object is to use low-priced gas or
Motion damping even gas with a negative value there is no special
point in making a sophisticated energy saving
The tanker and the barge have on the whole methanol process. On the contrary robust standard
larger motions than other carriers and the possi- equipment should be used and with a high grade of
bilities of reducing the motion responses were modularization. This is of special interest regar-
looked. at. ding smaller plant capacities.

A stabilizing pontoon system was tested. The Applying the above requirements on different
system consisted of a submerged pontoon fitted to types of carriers the following points can be ob-
vertical columns mounted to the front of the barge. served.
It decreased the pitch angles and accelerations in
the x-direction with about 60 %. However, this had Tankers and barges are favoured in having good
the effect of increased x-forces in the hinges and deck area and nuch displacement to carry extra
also increased riser angles and surge motions. In loads. They are always combined with storage capa-
wave heights above 5 m the stabilizing pontoon city. On a large tanker it is possible to combine
increased the roll angles and thus, also the acce- oil and methanol production facilities. This
lerations in the y-direction. would be possible even up to large production capa-
cities of methanol.
Another motion damping system investigated was
a pitch suppression system consisting of tanks Semisubmersibles now in oil production have
placed at the forward and aft ends of the barge. limited possibilities to take extra load and area
The tanks are open to the sea at the bottom and for a methanol production combined with the oil
they are connected with air ducts. The system acts production. Even such a small wthanol plant as for
by balancing air pressure and water pressure. A 100 MTPD requires a deck load of over 1 000 tonnes
computer simulation was made and the calculations and an area about 1 500 m2, space which is not
showed damping of the pitch of about 50 %. readily available on an oil production semi.

There are of course other comparable damping The TLP, ALP, Tripod towers etc. are compar-
systems. The need for a damping system is entirely able to the semis with regard to availability of
dependent on the environmental conditions. area and load capacity for a methanol plant.

However, during most operating conditions Storage


except for extremely severe ones the process effi-
ciency is only reduced by less than 10 % compared The diagrams do not include any space for
to an on-shore based process. With regard to motion storage of the methanol product. The demand for
behaviour all the above potential carriers are storage capacity is highly dependent on the distan-
suitable to efficiently produce methanol. ce to the market. However, a buffer minimum of say
two weeks production should be allowed for.
SIZE OF METHANOL PLANT
The storage capacity for methanol on a semi is
The deciding factors for the production capa- preferably achieved by enlarging the pontoons in a
city of a methanol plant on a floating carrier are square or ring configuration. Where additional
otherwise: storage is necessary it could be provided in the
form of a moored tanker connected via a subsea
quantity of gas available. 1 000MTPD pipeline.
methanol plant requires approximately 35
MMCFD gas supply. The export of the product may be complicated
to do direct from the semi and in this case a per-
required deck area. manently moored storage tanker will also simplify
the handling of the product.
required deck load capacity.

n
34
CONSTRUCTION
TIME Figure 12 shows the relationship between capi-
tal cost and methanol output for floating plants
For an economic comparison between the barge, excluding the cost of the carrier and mooring.
semi and tanker alternatives one also has to look
at their different cost escalations during the con- Fig 13 gives an indication of the calculated
struction period and the total project time from a methanol production costs for varied plant capa-
decision to go ahead until commissioning of the cities on a newbuilt semisubmersible or barge com-
plant. pared to a converted tanker based plant(FMPSO). The
cost of associated gas is assumed at O value. The
It may be assumed that by converting an exis- cost relation when using a combined oil and
ting tanker into a carrier a considerable project methanol plant FOMPSO is also noted.
time reduction would be possible. However, the time
for procurement of reformer, compressors, etc. will The combination of oil and methanol production
decide a major part of the programne. On the other on a semi may in reality be of interest only for
hand a tanker may be mobilized at a late stage of smaller methanol production capacities, whereas a
the project and thus save capital costs. supertanker would be able to accommodate plants up
to 2 000 MTPD.
Fig 10 indicates the difference in project
time for a tanker-based large plant compared to one The comparison of production costs is rather
based on a barge and semi. These two are in this rough and does not include for instance the advan-
respect considered equal. tage of the semis softer motion behaviour with
regard to any reductions in costs for maintenance,
For a small methanol plant with reciprocating insurance, etc.
compressors and other standard equipment, the tan-
ker as a carrier may be even more favorable. Plant relocation

ECONOMY Since the use of Floating production is pri-


marily intended for early production or for margin-
When looking at the economy of producing al fields it is of interest to study the influence
methanol offshore two alternative cases have been on the economy of relocation of a plant between two
considered: different fields. The following costs are invol-
ved.
A The carrier is exclusively built for the
methanol plant. In this case it will utilize gas - extra cost to cover design for worst ex-
from a marginal natural gas field or be located petted environmentalconditions during the
close to an oil production facility giving a large lifetime of the plant.
amount of associated gas.
- cost of disconnection and reinstallation at
B The carrier will be built for the produc- new site.
tion of both methanol and oil from associated oil
and gas sources. cost of changing mooring system for new
site.
In case A the methanol production will alone
bear the total investment cost of plant including - loss of production for downtime during
carrier and the operational costs. It is easy to relocation period.
realise that this is a more viable concept for
large scale plants only. Without having the necessary data it is not
possible to make a calculation but a few points may
In the case of tankers we consider using laid- be mentioned.
up low cost second hand tonnage. The same philoso-
phy could be adapted for second hand semis as well. When changing site conditions,especially water
However, in the economic analysis we have used depth,the mooring system changes can be costly.
newbuilding costs for the semis, as at present very However, some of the sofisticated equipment such as
few semis having sufficient payload capacity are the swivel can be reused on the new location and
idle. riser, chains, etc. may be rearranged for a later
use. However, in view of reducing downtime it often
Today case B should be of special interest pays to preinstall new under-water equipment before
where associated gas is used as feedstock. We have disconnection from the old site. This shortens the
been studying aplant designed for producing oil overall time for relocation considerably, say from
and methanol. The methanol plant can be regarded as three months to less than one month down time.
a marginal investment and will in itself be viable
and add considerably to the total viability of the CONCLUSIONS
project. Considering the present low cost of second
hand tankers with an already sufficient area and - It is technically feasible to produce and
weight capacity no extra investment is calculated distill methanol in a plant under motion at sea.
for the carrier in this alternative. An example of The efficiency of the plant is only marginally re-
this concept is the FOMPSO (Floating Oil and duced.
Methanol Production, Storage and Offloading system)
shown in figure 11.

(3K
ad
- A plant will survive and stay at its mo- REFERENCES
oring at all weather conditions. The technology of
mooring and motion control is well developed. 1. Beare, A.J and Jern I., Utilization of Pro-
duced Gas on Floating Production Systems,
- Semisubmersibles are excellent with regard paper presented at the Marginal Oilfield
to motion behaviour. Barges and tankers are viable Development Conference, London, September 29-
carriers specially considering their greater load 30, 1983.
and storage capacity. 2. Svensson, H., Distillation Onboard an Off-
shore Operated Floating Plant, paper presen-
- Combined oil and methanol production faci- ted at the American Institute of Chemical
lities on a converted tanker, FOMPSO, is an attrac- Engineers Spring National Meeting, Anheim
tive concept and show low methanol production cost 1982.
also for small plant capacities. 3. Thorsson, C.O., Survival Conditions for a
Floating Plant, paper presented at the
- Restrictions in flaring of associated gas American Institute of Chemical Engineers
and the need of cheap feedstock for energy conver- Spring National Meeting, Houston, 1983
sion will promote combined facilities for produc- 4. Thorsson, C.O., Model Tests with a Floating
tion and processing of oil and gas. This will lead Plant for Methanol Production - Motions and
to new types of floating plants. Accelerations in Irregular Seas, Wind and
Current, paper presented at the RINA Inter-
national Symposium on Developments in Floating
Production Systems, London, 1984
5. Facey, E.R. and Dyer R.C., Production on
Floating Platforms - The Next Generation,
paper presented at the Deep Offshore Tech-
nology Conference in Malta, Oct. 1983

..
30
METHANOL FROM NATURAL GAS .
PROCESS STAGES.

r
STEAM
-
. +

L
GAS COOLING
DE -
AND WASTE
b REFORMING
HEAT RECOVEI?
COMPRESSION b
SYNTHESIS DISTILLATION
SULFURIZATION
i

EEDSTOCK

FUEL TAIL GAS

WASTE METHANOL
WATER
JATURAL GAS
FIG. 1

(t
,
(:J jli

FIG. 2
PILOT DISTILLATION PLANT

FIG 3 MOTION SIMULATOR, MAIN PRINCIPLE DIAGRAM


HETSR
Aiiiii_ ~
l? 20 25 INC
10
1,0 , 1

0,9 -

0,8 -
\

A.
RELATIVEEFFICIENCYAS FLINCTIO)4
OF
STATIC COLUMN INCLINATION
/

006
#
FIG.5,BARGE-MOUNTED2000 14TPDMETHANOLPLANT BY SWEDYARDSDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION

0,5 -
,,

Ohi -
COMPARISON OF BARGE SHAPES,DRAFT = lLIM
1 *

ALL FIGURES IN PER CENT OF VALUE$ FOR BARGE SHAPE A


A
5 10 15 20 MEAN OF VALUES FOR ,7 = 2,5 - 7,5 M
~olo DEG. SINGLE AMP,

SHIPPING GREEN
B. NATER OVE THE BOW
RELATIVEOISTILLATIONEFFICIENCYFOR A COLUMN BARGE SHAPE MAX HINGE MAX RISER SIGN. PITCH SIGN, X-ACC
NUMBERS F ? HOUR
.\ . AS A FUNCTIONOF MOTION AMPLITUOE(AMP). FORCESX-DIR, ANGLE ANGLE TOP OF TOWER ,3 = 5.2 M ]1/3 = 7.5 M
95

\ 100 100 100 100 10 37


90 -
91 83 95 93 0 32
\
s

55 r \
I 80 77 91 89 0 25
DISTILLATION EFFICIENCY VERSUS: 81)
FIG.4, A, STATIC COLUMN INCLINATION
B, MOTION AMPLITUDE 8Q 86 70 71 B 40
. ---- - .- -. -- - .- - . ---- ----- - .- -..

> 104 > 111 - 40 - 40 11 NO RUN

SHAPE C I/t I BREAKWATERS


FIG. 6.
2
LLl
> m
-=i \
= r-l
s

0
0
N

~:,
,,
,,..,.
!$ .*

,.,,,
:,:..
,,
,::: z
,.,, %
.:::::,,
,,,,,,
,...:, . c+
,,:.,
,,:.
,.:.:,
z ,.:.,
r ,.,
Z ,:..,
E
n- ~
&m
.2
; :~ 0
0
g t.i- --
Lt.
z

!iF
f-cl
E
z

Id

1
PLANT OPERATIONAL WEIGHT 10NNES
15000

~ 1

o 25 50 75 100 A OF TIME

EERING
.........
I

......
I ; 500Q imlmmlm P T{~E

CARRIER:
..-
6 ..:--------
!11
1-- CUREMEN1
m
..+
.J:.:...
,~:.:.:.
,~:.:.:.
F
;,:.:.
I ,, TANKER
I I CONS1 JCTION
2500 3$4 m
.....:,:,,,,.:.:
::::::,:.:.:.:.
P
500 1000 , fll W
PM h5y CA PAClf/O

1 3K UP
REQUIRED DECK SPACE
SQM
Ii

E: ,....
..........
....
.....
....
:%oW
. ...............
....
.
.......-..
........
.
.......-
UPPE ? DECK
......
...
........
............
..+...
. .....................
..........
,..........................
.............. .......
......................>
...,...,
.....>.....
.,.......+.
.........................+..
....................
....................... ....
.................. ....... ..

5noo
FIG.1O, PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE

.::

I I
2000 3000 MTPO
1000 D 2000
500
PLAhT CAPACITY
FIG. 9
FLARE
#ETlW3L SWTMES IS SCCTIOll
HELICOPTER PM Acwmi[cl OTL PM3DUiT IEM SECTION IfiFRT GAS SECT[L?# RIFOPHI!lG SECTION i

.,.
.,. + ?.. +
, m--r---> ,
m.

n
U3!PRESSOE : DEMLIMTIO II
. .. . . . . . . ..


,~- - - - :, : i~-iTotiGE --kiii+=--~ ~-~,ti;,~~-~

- -. .. . . . ... ----- .. .. . .-. , ~

DESALTEO WATER

FIG.11, FOMPSO

CAPITAL COST/SIZE OF FLOATING METHANOL PLANTS


EXCLUDING VESSEL AND MOORING

1s0

/
100

50

500 1000 1 I 20 o
FIG.12) OUTPUTCAPACITYTONNES/DAY METHANOL
METHANOL PRODUCT I ON COST
1985

GAS COST: ZERO


USD/MT
400

20C

o
0 1000 2000 3000
PLANT CAPACITY MTPD

FIG. 13