Paper PS5-3

LARGE CAPACITY LNG PLANT DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPPEMENT DES CENTRALES DE PRODUCTION DE LNG

DE GRANDE CAPACITE
J.J.B. Pek
A. van Driel
E.C.J.N. de Jong
R. Klein Nagelvoort
Shell Global Solutions International B.V.

ABSTRACT
The latest generation of Shell-designed C3MR-based LNG trains, that are under
construction or in operation, have a design capacity of around 4.2-4.5 Mtpa, which is the
largest train capacity built so far. The introduction of Shell’s DMR technology,
particularly in combination with the GameChangerTM concept, has significantly increased
the potential for capacity growth and has resulted in very cost competitive designs in the
5-6 Mtpa range. Current market growth and the availability of large gas reserves,
however, is pushing designers to look at even larger capacity trains since lowest unit cost
continues to be a key value driver.
Against this background, Shell has developed a further enhancement of a large LNG
TM
train concept based on its efficient DMR technology: the Parallel Mixed Refrigerant
(PMR) process. The process consists of a single pre-cool cycle followed by two parallel
liquefaction cycles, the compressors of which are driven by three GE Frame 7 gas
turbines. The resultant LNG train production capacity is up to 8 Mtpa, and the associated
specific cost will be significantly lower than current benchmark values. Added benefits of
the process are the high availability, and the potential for phased implementation.
This paper describes the concept as developed, covering process and compressor line-
ups and performance in terms of cost and efficiency. Further, it includes a comparison
with alternative designs in the 4-6 Mtpa range, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses
of the various options.

RESUME
La toute dernière génération des modules de production de GNL basés sur le procédé
C3MR conçus par Shell, en cours de construction ou déjà en service, ont une capacité
théorique de 4.2-4.5 million tonnes métriques par an (Mtpa). Ce sont les modules de plus
grande capacité construites à ce jour dans le monde. L'introduction de la technologie
TM
DMR de Shell, combinée notamment au concept GameChanger , a permis d'augmenter
considérablement la capacité potentielle et a abouti à des conceptions d'ouvrage très
économiques dans la gamme 5-6 Mtpa. L'expansion actuelle du marché et la disponibilité
de vastes réserves de gaz, cependant, poussent les concepteurs à envisager des trains de
capacité encore plus grande car un coût unitaire aussi faible que possible demeure un
motif de décision clé.

PS5-3.1

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

Dans ce contexte, Shell a mis au point un perfectionnement du concept du grand

module de production de GNL basé sur la technologie DMR: le Parallel Mixed
TM
Refrigerant (PMR – Frigorigène mixte parallèle). Le procédé consiste en un cycle
unique de pré refroidissement suivi par deux cycles de liquéfaction parallèles dont la
puissance mécanique des turbines à gaz GE Frame 7 est transmise aux compresseurs. La
capacité de production de GNL résultante peut atteindre jusqu'à 8 Mtpa et le coût
spécifique associé est considérablement réduit par rapport aux valeurs de référence
actuelles. Ce procédé présente comme avantages supplémentaires la possibilité d'une
mise en oeuvre par phases avec une grande disponibilité.
Cet article décrit le concept tel qu'il a été élaboré, traitant le procédé et l’alignement
des compresseurs et les performances en termes de coûts et de rendement. Par ailleurs, il
établit une comparaison avec des conceptions alternatives dans la gamme 4-6 Mtpa, en
soulignant les points forts et les points faibles des différentes options.

INTRODUCTION
Economy of scale has always been an important driver to lowering the cost of base-
load LNG production. This has resulted in an increase in LNG train capacity (Figure 1)
from steam driven LNG trains of 1 Mtpa (such as facilities in Algeria, Brunei and Lybia)
to large gasturbine driven LNG trains of around 4 Mtpa using the C3MR process (such as
facilities in Malaysia and currently under construction in Australia and Nigeria).
Shell developers have made a considerable contribution to the capacity
improvements, for example by introducing 80 MW gasturbine drivers, highly efficient
axial compressors in the MR cycle and a large four stage propane compressor. The most
recent LNG Train designs have been based on the application of two GE-F7 gas turbines
for both the propane and MR compression service, with an endflash system to maximise
production capacity. Air cooling is becoming the standard, but water cooling can still be
an attractive option if the specific local conditions favour this.
At the same time, the transport and production of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has
grown at a rate of 6% per annum over the past five years to about 110 million tons per
annum (Mtpa) of LNG traded in 2002. This trend is expected to continue and global LNG
trade is expected to reach around 190 Mtpa in 2010. This market growth, together with
the availability of large gas reserves, pushes designers to look at even larger capacity
trains to maximize the benefits from economy of scale [1,2].
Shell has increased the capacity of designs employing two GE-F7 gasturbines to 5.5
Mtpa. Furthermore, it has developed an electrically driven design which is especially
attractive between 5 and 6 Mtpa, more recently followed by the Parallel Mixed
Refrigerant (PMR) design utilizing three GE-F7 gasturbines for capacities up to 8 Mtpa.

PS5-3.2

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

8 Shell designed projects Other projects

7 Existing Existing
Under Construction Under Construction
6
Train capacity (Mtpa)

Proposed Proposed
5

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Start up Year

Figure 1: LNG train size evolution showing existing plants, plants under
construction and proposed plants

DEVELOPMENT OF LNG TRAINS UP TO 6 MTPA

Shell initially focused on increasing the capacity of LNG train designs based on the
C3MR process employing 2 GE-F7 gasturbines. The classical designs have a GE-F7
driving a large C3 compressor (65 MW), with the second GE-F7 driving two MR
compressors in tandem. Flow limitations in the C3 compressor prohibit further power
utilization, limiting the train capacity to some 4.2-4.5 Mtpa. The surplus power of the first
gasturbine can be used in two ways, (1) by shifting electrical power from the first
gasturbine to the second one – so called electrical coupling [5], or (2) by placing a third
MR compressor on the shaft of the first gasturbine [1].
A more elegant solution is the recently developed SplitPropaneTM technology [3], the
basis being a four stage propane compressor, split over two casings: the first machine
compresses the Low Pressure (LP) and High Pressure (HP) propane to discharge
pressure, whereas the second machine handles the Medium Pressure (MP) and High High
Pressure (HHP) flows (Figure 2).

PS5-3.3

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

8
M F7
SplitPropane
Line-up

LP MP HP HHP

8
M F7
Traditional
Line-up

LP MP HP HHP

Figure 2: Schematic process line-up showing the SplitPropane technology

For the same compression duty, this split arrangement results in a lower volumetric
flow per wheel, because the HP section does not see the MP flow anymore, etc. This
offers the freedom to enlarge the C3 compression duty in combination with deeper
precooling, and to better load the gasturbines. A train capacity of 5+ Mtpa becomes
possible, whilst maintaining the operational benefit of separate compressor cycles.
The more flexible Shell Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) process [4] was developed as
the key to the future for medium and large train sizes. The use of a mixed refrigerant
instead of propane in the precooling cycle overcomes the inherent limitations of the
C3MR design; the additional degree of freedom resulting from the use of two mixed
refrigerant cycles allows full utilization of power in a design driven by two GE-F7
gasturbines. Further, it allows keeping the compressors at their best efficiency points over
a very wide range (up to 50 ºC) of ambient temperature variations and changes in feed
gas composition. This design has been selected for the Sakhalin LNG project [5]
currently under construction, with an annualized design capacity of 10 Mtpa (two trains).
Developments of the DMR process have further improved process efficiency.
Examples are the application of a three stage pre-cooling cycle and the use of a more
efficient axial compressor in the pre-cooling cycle. As a result, this concept enables a
production of 5.5 Mtpa LNG under tropical conditions, using 2 GE-F7 machines; The
DMR process efficiency calculated for typical conditions is 11.7 kW/tpd compared to
12.4 kW/tpd for C3MR, clearly confirming the efficiency potential of the DMR process
[12,13,14].
Building on the inherent flexibility of the DMR process, the electrically-driven DMR
(LNG GameChanger) design was developed, offering competitive unit costs and a faster

PS5-3.4

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

schedule [7,8,9]. This is the selected process for the Mariscal Sucre LNG project in
Venezuela, and for a project in the Middle East [9]. Electrically-driven LNG trains can
compete with mechanically-driven trains because the increase in cost (on a like for like
basis) is compensated for by the increased availability. Other benefits of the electric
option are the variable size and speed of the driver, the increased vendor base, and the
potential to make a step change in overall plant efficiency by choosing combined cycle
for electric power generation. The current electrically-driven DMR design is particularly
attractive in the 5-6 Mtpa capacity range.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHELL PARALLEL MIXED REFRIGERANT DESIGN

Against the background of further market growth and the presence of large reserves,
even larger LNG train options have been developed. To meet the immediate challenge of
the industry - but without compromising on plant performance and technical feasibility -
Shell has developed the Parallel Mixed Refrigerant (PMR) process. It is an imaginative
design which can be used in today’s projects and uses proven refrigerant cycles without
step changes in technology. The current PMR process design employs three GE-F7
turbines with starter/helper motors to produce up to 8 Mtpa of LNG. Although the design
as presented here was developed on the basis of the GE-F7 gasturbines, other drivers can
be considered as well.
As shown in Figure 3, the Parallel Mixed Refrigerant design [11] features a single
pre-cooling circuit followed by two parallel liquefaction cycles.

Condensate
stabilisation Fractionation

Liquefaction
Gas Gas Precooling End LNG
Receiving Treating flash tank
Liquefaction

Figure 3: PMR process block scheme

The PMR design can be based on either the C3MR line-up or the DMR line-up.
However, the DMR process was selected because of its inherent flexibility and because it
offers an improved efficiency compared to the C3MR process. This is particularly
relevant as the power delivered into the process by the three gasturbines is limited and the
DMR process enables for a higher throughput to be achieved.

PS5-3.5

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

To match the power balance of 1:2 between pre-cooling and liquefaction, the
resulting pre-cooling outlet temperature is about –25 ºC in this design. The natural gas is
cooled to about –150 ºC in the liquefaction exchanger, and an endflash system [13] is
used to produce fuel gas and LNG, whilst maximizing LNG production.
Other technology providers are proposing large train LNG plants using three (serial)
cooling cycles (precooling, liquefaction and subcooling) [1,2,10] in combination with
larger drivers. The advantages the PMR design offers are:
• Robustness, through the application of proven equipment, the use of spiralwound
tubular exchangers, and independent cooling cycles (each cycle has its own
driver). The use of tubular exchangers also underpins an excellent reliability. The
parallel line-up ensures that the liquefaction refrigerant flows are within
acceptable limits, and acceptable line sizes.

• High efficiency, through the use of the DMR process, which is in addition more
robust against changes in ambient conditions and feedgas composition than any
other process. Optimal efficiency is realized through the use of a precooling cycle
with three pressure levels and the use of axial/centrifugal compressors in
combination with each driver.

• High reliability and on-stream time, through the choice of the parallel
independent line-up of the two liquefaction cycles. In case of a trip of one of the
liquefaction cycles, continued LNG production is possible (at a level of some
60%), resulting in the following benefits:
- The effective plant reliability (on a throughput basis) is equal to a
mechanically driven Shell design driven by two GE-F7 gasturbines, and
higher than for processes based on three serial cycles.
- Possibility for maintenance on one of the liquefaction cycles whilst
continuing production.
- A more continuous gas off-take from upstream.
- A more continuous LNG production profile.

• Possibilities for phased implementation.

PS5-3.6

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

Liquefaction
circuit A

Liquefaction Fuel
refrigerant

Pre-cooling
circuit
GE-7
3-stage a,b,c
LNG
Pre-cool

Natural
GE-7 gas

Liquefaction circuit B

Pre-cool
Natural gas
Ex treating Scrub
GE-7
column

Pre-cool
To Fractionation

Figure 4: PMR process schematic

The introduction of the PMR concept leads to a continuation of the cost reduction
trend (see Figure 5). Compared to the current Shell designs using 2 GE-F7 gas turbines or
the all electric DMR design at 5 Mtpa capacity (which have similar unit costs around 5
Mtpa), the PMR design shows a cost reduction of 10%.

250
ME: Middle East
AM: America
NLNG: Nigeria LNG
200
OLNG: Oman LNG
Relative specific cost (%)

150

100

50

0
ME NLNG ME AM OLNG DMR 2F7 or PMR 3F7
1995 1993 1996 1995 1995 DMR electric 2003
2003

Figure 5: Liquefaction costs reductions

PS5-3.7

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Larger LNG trains are possible, but it is realized that economy of scale is flattening
off, unless larger compressor/driver combinations (such as GE-F9 turbines) are
introduced. However, one should carefully address the risks associated with step outs in
driver and compressor size. Whilst options for larger mechanical drives are considered, it
is noted that the electric drive route also has potential, as the economy of scale is gained
in the power plant by using larger gasturbine generators.
As indicated, for a 5 Mtpa plant based on the Shell DMR process, the unit costs of a
gasturbine driven design (using two GE-F7 gasturbines) and an electric motor driven
design (using four motors of 47 MW) are similar. Application of larger motors (up to 80-
90 MW) however could make the electric driven DMR design very competitive to the
PMR design. Further, there are other inherent benefits of the electric drive, including the
potential to increase the overall power generation efficiency to levels around 50% in the
case of combined cycle power generation (compared to just 30% for gas turbine driven
designs). The efficiency increase is offset however, by an increase in power generation
costs.
The key issue, however, is to develop experience with larger electric motors. Electric
motors of 65 MW have already been constructed for LNG service, and 80-90 MW motors
are considered feasible, but to date the industry has little experience with these large
drives.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The mechanically-driven Parallel Mixed Refrigerant concept as presented is an
attractive large train solution, offering a robust design using proven equipment with a
high on-line availability, high reliability and excellent process efficiency. This concept
enhances the Shell LNG portfolio with a large capacity solution:

Table 1: Shell LNG design portfolio

Capacity Range Design

4 – 5 Mtpa Mechanically driven C3MR design employing 2 GE-F7 turbines
4.5 – 5.5 Mtpa Mechanically driven DMR design employing 2 GE-F7 turbines
> 5 Mtpa Electrical driven DMR design employing 4 electromotors
7-8 Mtpa Mechanical driven DMR design employing 3 GE-F7 turbines

It should be noted that large trains may not always be the best value solution for a
project. A pre-requisite is a large reserve base and the ambition to develop a large
liquefaction complex based on multiple large trains, delivering to an expected large
market that allows a fast ramp-up. Despite the benefits, the application of large trains
makes a liquefaction complex more vulnerable (in value terms) to ramp-up. With an
increase in LNG trade however, market ramp-up will be less of an issue, as the spare
capacity can be sold on a spot basis. As illustrated in the picture below, the ramp-up
needs to be sufficiently steep to secure the value increase that results from the decreased
unit costs.

PS5-3.8

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

Conventional train size Large train size

Wedge

Market demand
Market demand Wedge

Wedge

Time Time

Figure 6: Comparing ramp-up “wedge” volumes between

conventional train size plant and large train plant

When the climate is right for a large train, for today’s immediate projects, the Shell
PMR design based on three GE-F7’s is an attractive option, as it clearly remains within
the boundaries of well-proven designs and uses existing proven equipment.

REFERENCES CITED
[1] Large Capacity Single Train AP-XTM hybrid LNG process. Mark J Roberts, James
C Bronfenbrenner, Yu-Nan Liu, Joseph M Petrowski. Gastech 2002 Qatar.
[2] Study evaluates design considerations of larger, more efficient liquefaction plants.
Amos Avidan, Wayne Varnell (Bechtel Corp. Houston) and Bobby Martinez
(ConocoPhillips Houston). Oil and Gas Journal, August 18, 2003.
[3] Propane compressor line-up for an LNG plant. USA patent specification 6637238.
[4] Double mixed refrigerant process for liquefying natural gas. USA Patent
specification 6370910.
[5] Engineering design challenges for the Sakhalin LNG project. Wim Dam, Siew-
Mung Ho. GPSA Conference San Antonio, March 2001, Texas.
[6] Electric motor driven LNG plant. International patent application publication No.
WO 01/40725
[7] Changing the LNG Game. Cas Groothuis, Dave Fletcher, Rob Klein Nagelvoort.
LNG13, 2001, Seoul, Korea.
[8] The LNG GameChangerTM Technology. Eva Heyman, Alan Bliault, Barend Pek,
GASEX 2002.
[9] Persian LNG – A Giant Awakes. Ate Visser, Colin Bowkley. World Gas
Conference Tokyo 2003.
[10] Developments in the Mixed Fluid Cascade Process (MFCP) for LNG Baseload
Plants. Wilfried A. Bach (Linde), München. Reports on science and technology
63/2002.

PS5-3.9

SESSIONS CONTENTS
 Paper PS5-3

[11] Parallel mixed refrigerant liquefaction plant. US Patent specification 6389844.

[12] Comparison of baseload LNG processes. Kees Vink, Rob Klein Nagelvoort.
LNG12, 1998, Perth, Australia.
[13] Liquefaction process comparison of C3MR and DMR under tropical conditions.
Rob Nibbelke, Steve Kauffman, Barend Pek, GPA March 2002, Dallas, Texas.
[14] Comparing five LNG processes. Henri Paradowski and Phil Hagyard, Technip.
Hydrocarbon Engineering October 2003.

PS5-3.10

SESSIONS CONTENTS