TECHNIP -COFLEXIP

TECHNIP-COFLEXIP

LNG PLANT PRICING

CONSIDERATION
 BRIEF HISTORY OF LNG

ƒ ???? : first liquefaction of methane by ???

ƒ 1917 : Liquefaction of gas to extract helium (Texas)
ƒ 1920/30s : LNG produced to store natural gas in USA
ƒ 1944 : major accident in Cleveland peak shaving
ƒ 1950s : start of new era of development
ƒ 1959/60 : trial runs of Methane Pioneer from USA to UK
ƒ 1964 : Camel plant (Algeria) commissioned, first
commercial deliveries to UK and France
ƒ 2001 : annual LNG trade of 107 mt (+ 7.5% over last 20 years)
 NATURAL GAS AND LNG TRADE

2500

NG Consumption
2000
Billion cm/y

1500

1000

NG International Trade
500

LNG Trade
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 '00
 LNG DEMAND VERSUS INSTALLED CAPACITY

200

180

160

140
INSTALLED CAPACITY
120
Mta

100

80
DEMAND
60

40

20

0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10
LOCATIONS OF LNG PLANTS

Existing
Under construction
 EVOLUTION OF TRAIN CAPACITY

6,00

5,00
Million tonnes per year

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
 TYPICAL BLOCK DIAGRAM

C3 C4 Gasoline

FRACTIONATION

DEHYDRATION LNG STORAGE

ACID GAS NITROGEN
AND MERCURY LIQUEFACTION
REMOVAL REMOVAL AND LOADING
REMOVAL

SULPHUR REFRIGERATION
RECOVERY
 MAIN LIQUEFACTION TECHNOLOGIES

ƒ A.P.C.I. - C3/MR : 57 trains in operation + 7 under construction

ƒ PHILLIPS - Optimised Cascade : 3 trains in operation (Trinidad &
Tobago) + 1 under construction (Idku – Egypt)
ƒ STATOIL/LINDE - MFCP : 1 train under construction (Snohvit - Norway)
ƒ AXENS - LIQUEFIN : No reference
ƒ SHELL – DMR : 2 trains in project (Sakhalin)
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT
ƒ LNG PRICES

• Plant cost $/tpy versus year of commissioning

• Unit cost $/tpy versus year of commissioning

• Plant Cost s/tpy versus train capacity

• Price Break down of a two train liquefaction plant

 PLANT COST $/TPY VERSUS YEAR OF COMMISSIONING

400

300
$ per tpy

200

100
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year
 PLANT COST $/Tpy VERSUS TRAIN CAPACITY

400

300
$ per tpy

200

100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Train Capacity in MMTpy

 TRAIN COST VERSUS YEAR OF COMMISSIONING

150

100
$ per tpy

50

0
1990 1995 2000

Year
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT

ƒ 2 TRAINS 45 % to 65 %
ƒ UTILITIES 8% to 15 %
ƒ OFF SITE 20 % to 40 %
ƒ COMMON 7% to 10 %

TOTAL LNG PLANT 100 %

OTHERS 15 to 30 %

TOTAL LNG PROJECT

115 % 130 %
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT
ƒ 2 TRAINS
Mini Maxi Criteria

Common/inlet facilities 1% 10 % Project Definition

Acid Gas removal 3% 8% Gas composition
Dehydration 2% 3%
Mercury removal 1% 1%
Refrigeration/Liquefaction 25 % 40 % Cooling system
Compressors configuration
Fractionation 1% 3%
Sulphur recovery/prilling 0% 3%
_____ ______
TOTAL 45 % to 65 %
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT
ƒ UTILITES

Mini Maxi Criteria

Power Generation : 3% 7% Gas or steam turbine

Cooling water : 2% 6% Cooling system

(air – water – seawater)

Other Waters, Steam, Project definition,sparing

Fuel, Air, Nitrogen : 3% 6% philosophy
_____ ______
TOTAL 8 % to 15 %
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT
ƒ OFF SITE
Mini Maxi Criteria

LPG Storage & Loading 10 % 20 % Storage capacity & tank

specification
LPG Storage & Loading 0% 13 % Project definition
Condensate Storage
& Loading 0% 2% Project definition
Loading Jetty 4% 8% Sea and Site conditions
Flare & Liquid blow-down 3% 5%
Others Fire protection
Drainage, Waste tr. 3% 4%
_____ ______
TOTAL 25 % to 40 %
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT
ƒ COMMON
Mini Maxi

Site infrastructure, road & fences 2% 4%

Control room - Substations 2% 2%

DCS, ESD,FG & Telecom 2% 3%

Administration, maintenance buildings 2% 3%

_____ ______
TOTAL 7 % to 10 %
 TYPICAL PRICE BREAK –DOWN OF A TWO TRAIN
LIQUEFACTION PLANT
ƒ OTHERS
Mini Maxi Criteria

Gas pipeline 1MM$ per Km On project definitions

Site Preparation 2% 5% Site conditions

Material Off Loading – Airport 2 % 6% Remote area
Residential area 4% 8% Client requirement
Spare parts 2% 5% Client requirement
Movables 2% 4% Client requirement
Training & Start-up 1% 2% Take over definition
_____ _____
TOTAL 15 % to 30 %
 THE TRENDS
ƒ CONTINUOUS INCREASING OF THE UNIT CAPACITY :
8 Mty are now considered

• New Process developments : APCI – APX, AXENS, Others

• New Driving Machines
– Frame 9 Gas Turbine (3,000 rpm)
– Electric Motors
• New 3,000 rpm compressors
• New Unit lay out

ƒ TANKS CAPACITY UP TO 200,000 m3 ARE CONSIDERED

ƒ ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
• Acid Gas Re-injection
ƒ LNG FLOATING PLANT ON BARGE (FLNG)