OTC-26158-MS

Gas Pretreatment Considerations for Floating LNG

Tierling Shane, Kbr

Copyright 2015, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 27–29 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
Global LNG demand is expected to continue to grow over the next two decades. Some of the new projects
required to meet this demand will be developed with floating LNG (FLNG) technologies, to monetize
mid-sized offshore reservoirs, eliminating the costly and technically challenging pipeline to a land based
LNG facility. FLNG facilities have the potential of serving multiple fields over the life of the facility,
reducing the minimum size field that can be economically monetized. The market has affirmed these
benefits and projected LNG demand growth with the start of construction of several floating LNG
facilities.
Much recent attention has been given to offshore LNG ship-to-ship transfer, topsides layout and
liquefaction technology selection for FLNG with lesser coverage of support systems, particularly gas
treatment. This paper will address this void by providing an overview of gas treatment for FLNG,
highlighting the pretreatment requirements for cryogenic processing that may be unfamiliar to those more
grounded in FPSO technology. Cryogenic processing requires removal of water and carbon dioxide to
prevent solids formation. The use of brazed or welded aluminum equipment, common in cryogenic
processing, requires the removal of mercury. Gas treatment technology selection is impacted by con-
straints on safety, weight, space, maintainability, flexibility in modularization, and insensitivity to both tilt
and motion. Candidate technologies will be explored.

Floating LNG – Introduction

Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) is a new solution for the economic development of small and
remote offshore gas fields without disturbing onshore and near shore flora and fauna and local popula-
tions. The use of a floating facility allows the production of smaller, formerly stranded offshore gas fields,
by eliminating the subsea pipeline while not permanently fixing the investment to a particular field. After
economic depletion of one field, the FLNG facility could potentially be retrofitted to accommodate some
changes in gas hydrocarbon composition, acid gas concentration and field pressure, and redeployed to
another offshore field with similar metocean conditions. Floating the LNG facility avoids the need for
offshore platforms, subsea pipeline, onshore liquefaction plant, export jetty and associated dredging,
thereby reducing the environmental footprint of the development.
However, before the advantages of FLNG can be attained, knowledge and lessons learned from the
FPSO world have to be applied to pretreatment and cryogenics technologies from onshore LNG.
2 OTC-26158-MS

Floating LNG – Metocean Impacts on Offshore Equipment

Starting with the common ground between FPSO and FLNG, the first letter of each abbreviation indicates
“floating”. In this regard there are many similarities between FPSO and FLNG technologies. Aside from
the concerns with interface between the subsea and hull, hull and topsides, offloading challenges and
concern with safety, weight and space, a common area of concern is the effects of hull motions on the
topsides equipment.
A free-floating vessel has six degrees of freedom of motion: three rotations (pitch, roll and yaw) and
three displacements (surge, sway and heave). If the vessel is moored, some of these degrees of freedom
are greatly reduced. FPSOs and FLNGs generally weathervane on a turret located at the bow virtually
eliminating surge, sway, and yaw, leaving only roll, pitch and modest heave.
Equipment displacements can be intensified for equipment not located at the ship’s center of gravity.
For example, heave at the vessel’s bow is amplified proportionally to pitch and the distance from the
vessel’s center of gravity to the bow. One example of the effect of heave is to create an oscillation in
measured level in pressure differential level measurements. Equipment that is more sensitive to motion
should be located near the vessel’s center of gravity. Orientation of equipment also plays a role, with roll
having higher amplitude than pitch for elongated vessels. Equipment that is more sensitive to rotation in
one axis than another can be oriented to reduce the effect of vessel motion. For example, horizontal
separators can be oriented parallel to the long axis of the vessel.
Reaction to trim (tilt) and motion are similar between FLNG and FPSOs with regard to separators
splitting vapor and liquid phases. Drainage from the internal separation device, whether mesh pad, vane
pack or swirl tube deck must accommodate both trim and motion. Sump baffles have been employed to
mitigate sloshing and resonant waves caused by motion. The use of vertical vessels will save both
footprint and increase the liquid resonant frequency, reducing the impact of motion on the sump of the
device. Separators can also use centrifugal intensification in a swirl tube deck to enhance density mediated
phase separation over that available through gravity alone, shrinking the size and weight of the separator.
However, vapor-liquid contacting equipment, used sparingly in FPSOs, is used more extensively in
FLNG facilities. Vapor-liquid contacting equipment (distillation towers and absorbers) rely upon gravity
separation of the two phases in internal collector and distributor designs. There are proprietary collector
and distributor designs that claim to mitigate the effects of trim and motion. Trays are generally avoided
because of their susceptibility to trim and sloshing.
The vapor-liquid contacting beds of this contacting equipment are likewise susceptible to trim pulling
liquid to one side, thereby partially bypassing vapor. This problem is mitigated by adding additional
margins to liquid rates, sometimes up to 35%. An additional amelioration is exploiting the surface tension
of the liquid to adhere the liquid phase to structured packing, eliminating the free-fall associated with
random packing. Further, in an offshore environment, shorter contacting beds are used, allowing more
frequent collection and redistribution of the liquid. Moderate rotation (roll or pitch) has been found to aid
in distributing liquid through structured packing.
Carbon dioxide must be removed to low levels because of the cryogenic temperatures employed in
FLNG, 50 ppmv being typically specified. This is to prevent freezing and plugging of heat transfer
equipment, particularly the cold box or main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE). Therefore liquid
maldistribution and partial vapor bypass in the vapor-liquid contacting equipment of the Acid Gas
Removal Unit (AGRU) is of great concern. The design considerations, described above, are used in the
AGRU Absorber and Regenerator.
Fortunately the removals of mercury to avoid attack on aluminum, and water to avoid freezing of
water/hydrate, are not impacted by trim and motion because mercury and water removal are effected by
contact between vapor and solid phases in fixed beds.
OTC-26158-MS 3

These accommodations to trim and motion will impact the design of individual pieces of equipment
within the units in the FLNG facility. Now we will look at the overall general flow scheme for FLNG.
FLNG – Process Overview
A typical FLNG block flow scheme is provided in figure 1 with the main process flow proceeding from
left to right. Many of the units: Feed Gas Receiving, MEG Regeneration, Water Treatment, Condensate
Stabilization and Condensate Storage & Loading, may be familiar to those with a background in FPSOs.
The highlighted units: Mercury Removal (twice), Acid Gas Removal and Dehydration are the main focus
of this paper. Mercury Removal is twice indicated in a lighter highlight to indicate that the location of the
Mercury Removal unit can be upstream of Acid Gas Removal, downstream of Dehydration. Mercury
removal can also be located within Dehydration, depending on the technology selected.

Figure 1—FLNG Process Overview

The succeeding units: Liquefaction and End Flash are specified by the Liquefaction Licensors and
Liquefaction will be touched on briefly in this paper. NGL Extraction and NGL Fractionation are
displayed in dashed lines to indicate that these units are not always provided because they are econom-
ically viable only for rich gas produced at high feed rates. One FLNG facility in construction will be using
NGL Extraction and NGL Fractionation, but this will not be employed by all FLNG facilities. Storage &
Loading and Fuel Gas Units are outside of the scope of this paper.
Mercury Removal Technologies – Introduction
Mercury will damage aluminum heat exchangers, specifically the aluminum plate-fin and spiral wound
exchangers commonly used in deep cryogenic processes via liquid metal embrittlement. There have also
been concerns with worker exposure during maintenance and decommissioning and environmental
mercury emissions further emphasizing the need for mercury removal. Mercury typically attacks the high
stress areas, such as welds, in these exchangers. A number of gas processing plants have experienced
sudden heat exchanger failures resulting in unscheduled plant shutdowns, costly repairs, and even fires.
4 OTC-26158-MS

Since awareness of the problems with mercury corrosion in aluminum has increased, all LNG facilities
have installed mercury guard beds to scavenge elemental mercury from the vapor phase. Specifications
of the outlet gas from these beds are generally about 10 nanograms per normal cubic meter (10 ng/Nm3)
of gas.

Mercury Removal Technologies – Process Overview

Mercury removal takes place in the vapor phase over fixed bed solid absorbents, so fortunately trim and
motion do not affect the operation of this unit. These beds are typically arranged as either, a single vessel
or, multiple vessels with two in series and multiple pairs in parallel. Beds are usually sized for the FLNG
maintenance shutdown cycle. A filter is provided downstream to catch fines from the beds. An optimi-
zation to be investigated is reducing the size of the beds to lower weight and footprint with limiting factors
being the residence time required for mercury removal and maximum pressure drop available.
There are currently two general classifications for processes for elemental mercury removal: non-
regenerative systems and a regenerative system. The non-regenerable systems are further offered in the
form of two technologies, for a total of three technologies from which to select.
The non-regenerative technology is most widely used in land based LNG plants, in which the natural
gas containing elemental mercury is passed over a fixed bed of absorbent material containing sulfur,
which fixes the volatile mercury in the form of non-volatile mercury sulfide (HgS). The sulfur in these
non-regenerative absorbents is either elemental sulfur impregnated on activated carbon or as a metal
oxide/metal sulfide material. The metal sulfide acts as a sulfur donor to mercury.
The metal sulfide is the pre-sulfided form of the metal oxide, in which the sulfur is already present and
available. The disadvantage of this form of the material is that it must be handled under an inert
environment to prevent oxidation of the material, particularly during bed loading. The metal oxide
material is either sulfided in situ after installation in the absorber vessel, or is sulfided during operation
by H2S in the feed gas. Low/no oxygen and a minimum H2S feed concentration in the low ppm range (1
to 2 ppmv) are required for sulfiding during operation.
In the regenerative system, elemental mercury in the gas phase is trapped by silver, reversibly forming
an amalgam. The silver is supported on molecular sieve and this material is placed in the molecular sieve
beds of the Dehydration unit. The mercury is desorbed with water during the Dehydration Unit bed
regeneration cycle and often recaptured in a non-regenerative bed. The Dehydration Unit will be discussed
later in this paper.

Mercury Removal Technologies – Non-Regenerative Sulfur Impregnated

Activated Carbon
Sulfur impregnated activated carbon requires an approximately 50% larger bed volume than the metal
oxide/metal sulfide technology for the same bed life, resulting in a higher space requirement. Additional
issues with sulfur impregnated activated carbon are absorption of heavy hydrocarbons on to the activated
carbon substrate, loss of mechanical integrity of the activated carbon substrate when saturated with liquid
water, and the potential for washing sulfur off of the activated carbon by liquid hydrocarbons. Sulfided
activated carbon technology is therefore limited in siting options. Sulfided activated carbon Mercury
Removal Bed(s) are usually placed downstream of the Dehydration unit to reduce the potential for
exposure to liquid water and liquid hydrocarbons.
Although the initial fill cost of sulfided activated carbon is lower than that of the competing metal
oxide/metal sulfide technology, disposal can be a problem if the waste cannot be disposed of without
further treatment. The cost of spent sulfided activated carbon treatment using third-party vacuum retort to
remove mercury will essentially balance the savings in the cost of the absorbent.
OTC-26158-MS 5

Mercury Removal Technologies – Non-Regenerative Metal Oxide / Metal

Sulfide
Metal oxide/metal sulfide provides the advantage of a more compact bed than the sulfided activated
carbon technology. Metal oxide/metal sulfide is an enabling technology that allows flexibility in siting the
Mercury Removal Bed(s). This siting design freedom results from the fact that metal oxide/metal sulfide
technology is not irreversibly damaged by liquid water or liquid hydrocarbon carryover from upstream
equipment in an upset. Metal oxide/metal sulfide Mercury Removal Bed(s) could be located either
upstream of the Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) or downstream of the Dehydration unit. Location
upstream of the AGRU is advantageous because it prevents mercury build-up in the AGRU and the
Dehydration Unit. Mercury build-up can complicate maintenance and decommissioning activities in these
two units.
Mercury Removal Technologies – Location of Non-Regenerative Beds
In LNG plants, non-regenerative mercury removal is located either upstream of the AGRU or downstream
of the Dehydration Unit. The selection of regenerable mercury removal constrains the siting to within the
Dehydration Unit.
There are pros and cons for the two non-regenerable location options. These are summarized in the
table below:

Table 1—Summary of Pros and Cons for Location of Non-Regenerative Mercury Removal
Location Pros Cons

Upstream of the AGRU

Offers protection of front-end equipment/piping
and often the fuel gas system from mercury
contamination, so is especially suited to
high mercury levels. Mercury contamination
of process equipment can be an issue with
maintenance and decommissioning activities
and is potentially harmful to personnel.
No dry out period for the mercury absorbent is
necessary which will save operations time
during start-up and after each mercury
removal bed change-out.
Facilitates the implementation of the metal
oxide form because of higher H2S in the
feed.
Downstream of Dehydration
The inlet gas to the guard bed is dry and free
of liquid hydrocarbons so either the metal
oxide/metal sulfide or the sulfided activated
carbon technology can be used.
Vessel and piping for the mercury removal bed
are designed for smaller flowrates, therefore
somewhat lower weight and space
requirement can be expected.
This location is constrained to use the metal
oxide/metal sulfide technology because
sulfide activated carbon is damaged by
occasional contact with liquid water or
liquid hydrocarbons.
Slightly larger equipment is required to handle
the acid gas fraction and dehydration
regeneration flows not present in the
downstream location, therefore greater
weight and space requirement must be
accommodated.
Some vendors may require high performance
liquid removal and a superheater upstream
of mercury removal.
Does not protect front-end equipment and
piping from mercury contamination. Does
not remove mercury from AGR and
Dehydration unit effluents including
potential unit feeds to the fuel gas system.

Mercury Removal Technologies – Regenerative Mercury Removal and

Location
The regenerative mercury removal technology is implemented by silver doping of molecular sieve, the
silver reversibly forming an amalgam with mercury. This doped molecular sieve is substituted for some
6 OTC-26158-MS

of the molecular sieve desiccant in the Dehydration unit, absorbing both mercury and water during the
absorption portion of the cycle and releases both mercury and water during the regeneration portion of the
cycle. The regenerative mercury removal technology can be considered an emerging technology, because
there are limited references with recent LNG applications. The vendor claims that there is little or no
increase in the dehydration bed size with the use of this technology.
Figure 2 below indicates three alternate configurations: Regen to Fuel, Regen Recycle and Closed Loop
Regen in light dashes. Indicated in highlight are the potential locations of the small non-regenerative
mercury removal beds, one location each for the three alternate Dehydration Unit configurations utilizing
regenerative mercury removal.

Figure 2—Locations for non-regenerative beds in alternate Dehydration Unit configurations utilizing regenerative mercury removal

In a closed loop regeneration system the mercury could be allowed to accumulate in the regeneration
gas loop until the mercury solubility limit is exceeded in the Regeneration Gas Knockout Drum upon
which the excess mercury will drop out as a dense liquid. Any produced water from the Regeneration Gas
Knockout Drum would then contain mercury and likely require treatment before disposal, presenting a
major detractor to closed loop regeneration without a mercury removal bed. A small non-regenerative
mercury removal bed would normally be placed in the closed loop recycle.
Alternately in an open loop regen to fuel Dehydration Unit configuration, the regeneration gas may be
sent to plant fuel system (Regen to Fuel) which means that mercury could be emitted in the gas turbine
exhaust. To control these emissions a small non-regenerative mercury removal bed may be installed in the
OTC-26158-MS 7

regeneration gas loop to control these mercury emissions. This non-regenerable bed would be sized for
the small regeneration flow rather than the full gas flow required for the sulfided activated carbon or metal
oxide/metal sulfide configurations discussed previously. However, the smaller bed would be changed
more frequently than a bed sized for the full gas flow.
In open loop regen recycle the regeneration gas could alternately be recompressed and sent to the front
end (Regen Recycle). A small non-regenerative mercury removal bed would be required to prevent
mercury buildup but sized for the regeneration flow rather than the full gas flow.
Aside from this reduction in weight and space, the major OPEX advantage of the regenerative over the
non-regenerative technologies is realized in feed gas compressor power by moving the non-regenerable
bed and associated filter pressure drops to the Regen Compressor or Regen Blower. Operational
complexity is a negative for the regenerative technology.

Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) Technology – Introduction

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has to be removed to low levels (a typical LNG pretreatment specification is less
than 50 ppmv) to prevent freezing and pluggage of cryogenic heat transfer equipment, particularly in the
cold box or main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE). Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is also typically specified
at less than 4 ppmv to meet LNG and LPG specifications. These acid gases are typically removed using
a regenerable amine solvent, and the LNG industry has settled on two aqueous amine solvents, formulated
methyl-diethanol amine (MDEA) and aminoethoxyethanol (DGA® Huntsman). A typical AGRU flow
scheme, representative of both solvents, will be discussed in the next section.

Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) Technology – Process Overview

A typical AGRU flow scheme is provided in figure 3 covering feeds with moderate acid gas levels. Not
shown is the water wash in Feed Gas Receiving often used to prevent MEG buildup in the amine. The
trigger point at which enhancements of this standard scheme are pursued is a function of the trade-off
between operational efficiency and increased weight and space unique to each project. At higher acid gas
levels, partial flash regeneration and then membrane pretreatment would be investigated. More on
membrane pretreatment is covered later under Alternate Technologies.
8 OTC-26158-MS

Figure 3—AGR Flow Scheme

It should be noted that the designs of both the Absorber and Regenerator need to account for trim and
motion. Some formulated MDEA solvent Licensors have performed extensive testing to ensure that their
designs meet specification under offshore conditions and these would be preferred suppliers. The typical
configuration will use structured packing arranged in shorter beds than used onshore, with a margin
applied to the liquid circulation to account for liquid maldistribution with vessel trim and incorporate
proprietary collector/distributor designs. The flash and reflux drums would typically be designed with a
vertical orientation to minimize footprint.
The acid gases CO2 and H2S are absorbed into the solvent in the Absorber under relatively low
temperature and high pressure. The acid gases are then released from the solvent in the Regenerator under
conditions of high temperature and low pressure, assisted by stripping steam generated in the Reboiler.
The flash gas from the Flash Drum is usually routed to the fuel gas system to recover value of the
co-absorbed hydrocarbons picked up in the Absorber. Formulated methyl-diethanol amine (MDEA) and
aminoethoxyethanol (DGA® Huntsman) follow the same basic flow scheme except that DGA requires the
reclaimer shown in light dashing.
Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) Technology – Heat Stable Salts and
Corrosion
DGA is more susceptible to formation of salts, which cannot be thermally separated in the regenerator
using low pressure steam, than is MDEA. These salts are called “heat stable salts” and are removed from
the DGA solvent by filling the Reclaimer with batches of solvent, boiling off the water and amine from
contaminated solvent using medium pressure steam and concentrating the heat stable salts for disposal.
Although the solvent inventory for formulated MDEA and DGA can be similar, the annual amine losses
differ considerably. DGA has higher annual losses due to the formation of unregenerable heat stable salts
OTC-26158-MS 9

from amine and further losses of amine that could not be boiled off during reclaimation. This is one of
the key differences between DGA and formulated MDEA.
Primary amines tend to be more corrosive than secondary or tertiary amines. The higher corrosivity
limits the strength and rich loadings of many primary amines like MEA (monoethanol amine). Fortunately
DGA, a primary amine, is less corrosive than most other primary amines, although more corrosive that
MDEA, a tertiary amine.

Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) Technology – Regeneration Duties and

Circulation Rates
DGA is a primary amine while MDEA is a tertiary amine. Primary amines are stronger bases than tertiary
amines, and thus have higher affinity for acid gases, making it easier to achieve low levels of CO2 in the
treated gas. However, the corollary is that primary amines have higher heats of reaction with CO2,
requiring higher regenerator reboiler duties. Formulated MDEAs contain an activator that speeds up the
absorption of CO2, while retaining the advantage of lower regenerator reboiler duties.
If mercaptans are present in the feed gas, not much of these mercaptans can be removed chemically by
either primary or tertiary amines. Any mercaptans pickup by the amine solution will mostly be by physical
absorption. The levels of mercaptans removed will depend on the type of mercaptans present in the feed
gas, with the higher molecular weight mercaptans being more difficult to remove. Primary amines such
as DGA provide slightly better mercaptan removal than tertiary amines like MDEA.
Amine solvents are aqueous solutions of amine, the higher the solvent strength the lower the solvent
circulation rate and reboiler duty, which will directionally lower the capital and operating costs. While
maximizing strength is desirable, this needs to be balanced against considerations like solution corrosivity,
solution viscosity, hydrocarbon co-absorption and foaming tendency. High solution strength usually
correlates with higher corrosivity. Higher acid gas loadings, the moles of acid gases absorbed per mole
of amine, are also correlated with higher corrosion rates. Solution viscosity increases with solution
strength, leading to lower mass transfer coefficients and reduced heat transfer coefficients. The solubility
of hydrocarbons is higher in the pure amine than in water, so higher strength solutions also increase
hydrocarbon losses to the flash gas and the acid gas streams.
As a consequence of balancing these considerations, DGA is typically operated around 35 to 50%
amine and formulated MDEA in the range of 40 to 50 wt%. Rich amine loading, that is moles of acid gas
per mole of amine, is limited to less than 0.4 mol/mol for DGA, but can be higher for formulated MDEA.
Therefore, beyond 2 mol% CO2 in the feed gas, formulated MDEA is usually the preferred solvent given
the differences in regeneration duty and loadings.
10 OTC-26158-MS

Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) Technology – Pros and Cons of the Two
Solvents Discussed
There are pros and cons for the two amine solvent options. These are summarized in the table below:

Table 2—Summary of Pros and Cons for DGA versus formulated MDEA
Solvent Pros Cons

DGA
Being a primary amine, DGA is more effective DGA requires the use of a reclaimer, affecting
at low carbon dioxide concentrations. operability and solvent losses and requiring
additional space.
DGA has a low solvent cost on a per unit mass DGA reclaimer salts need to be disposed of.
basis.
DGA does not have as strong a kinetic effect Larger equipment is required to handle the
so operation at low feed gas temperatures higher solvent circulation rates if CO2 in
(20°C) does not have a large performance the feed gas is 2 mol% or higher.
hit.
DGA does not incur a license fee.
Formulated MDEA
Formulated MDEA has higher efficiency: lower Formulated MDEA vendors require a license or
circulation and lower regeneration energy engineering fee.
are required.
Many formulated MDEA vendors offer
Licensor guarantees.
Formulated MDEA has more extensive LNG
experience.
MDEA offers lower foaming tendency and
lower corrosivity.
MDEA solvent losses are lower.

Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) Technology – Alternate Technologies

There has been interest in pursuing acid gas removal technologies that are not impacted by trim and
motion. Molecular sieve absorption beds can be considered an emerging technology in FLNG and have
been investigated for feed gases containing less than 0.2 mol% CO2. The unit looks similar to a
Dehydration unit (discussed below) but operates with short cycles because molecular sieve carbon dioxide
loading is significantly lower than water loading. These short cycles will shorten bed life, consequently
an additional bed will be required to enable bed replacement during FLNG operation. This complicates
valving and requires additional space to accommodate bed replacement.
The molecular sieve regeneration gas would most advangeously be tied into the fuel gas system to
recover value from coabsorbed heavy hydrocarbons, consequently the gas turbines will need to handle
CO2 in the fuel gas and swings in the gas Wobbe index as beds cycle. Alternately the regeneration gas
could be flared, required to control hydrocarbon emissions, but would require fuel gas supplementation
to stabilize the flame.
At the other extreme of CO2 feed gas loadings, membranes are most applicable to feed gases with high
carbon dioxide partial pressures, making pretreatment ahead of the AGRU Absorber worth investigating
for the most challenging levels acid gas loadings containing more than 8 mol% CO2. Although membranes
are not selective enough to meet cryogenic CO2 requirements, they are a good application where bulk
removal of CO2 is required. In this application membranes are used to reduce the amine circulation
requirement and Regenerator reboiler load by removing the bulk of the CO2 upstream of the amine unit.
Membranes have advantages in low weight and space requirements relative to gas handling capability and
are not affected by trim and motion, but have a concern with hydrocarbon losses in the waste permeate
gas stream. The concern with hydrocarbon losses can be overcome with multi-staging membranes, at a
OTC-26158-MS 11

cost in additional membrane area, addition of compressor(s) and significant compression power. Alter-
nately the permeate gas reject stream can be put into the fuel gas system, if additional fuel can be
accommodated. This requires the gas turbines be designed to handle CO2 in the fuel gas but without
imposing swings in the fuel gas Wobbe index.
Dehydration – Introduction
Molecular sieve technology is well established in the LNG industry for the removal of water below the
0.1 to 1 ppm levels specified to prevent hydrate formation and blockage in cryogenic heat exchange
equipment. Mole sieves are the standard technology selected for deep cryogenic or liquefied natural gas
applications.
Dehydration – Process Overview
A typical FLNG flow scheme is provided in figure 4. The process largely occurs in the vapor phase, with
only the two Knock-Out (KO) drums significantly affected by trim and motion. These drums would
typically be mounted vertically to reduce footprint and employ swirl tube decks to reduce the vessel
diameter required to effect the separation of water from the regen gas. Dehydration beds are usually sized
to accommodate the FLNG maintenance shutdown cycle.

Figure 4 —Dehydration Flow Scheme

Wet gas from the upstream AGRU is precooled to a margin above the hydrate formation point in the
Dryer Precooler to reduce the dehydration load on the unit. Water is separated from the gas in the
Precooler KO Drum and the gas is sent to in-service dryers filled with molecular sieve. Two dryers in
12 OTC-26158-MS

service and one in regeneration are indicated for illustrative purposes, the number of beds can vary. After
the dried gas exits the molecular sieve bed, it is filtered to remove any potential fines from the Dryers and
leaves the unit.
The Dryer bed in regeneration goes through a number of steps: depressurization, heat-up/regen,
cool-down and repressurization. The depressurization and repressurization steps are required if low
pressure regeneration gas is used. The regeneration gas is heated in the Regen Heater and fed to the
molecular sieve bed countercurrent to normal flow. The exiting regen gas is then cooled in the Regen
Cooler, and condensed water is separated from the regen gas in the Regen KO Drum.
The separated regen gas can then be sent through one of three paths: vented to the fuel gas system for
an open loop regeneration, recycled to the Regen Heater through a Regen Blower (or low head
compressor) for a closed loop regeneration, or sent upstream of the AGRU by means of a Regen
Compressor for another open loop regeneration configuration. The closed loop regeneration requires
lower temperatures in the Regen Cooler, because condensation is the only means of keeping water from
cycling up in the system. Venting the regen gas to the fuel gas system is commonly employed, with the
caveat that this will introduce moisture into the fuel gas system and cyclical variations in the fuel gas
Wobbe index, complicating fuel gas system and gas turbine controls.
Dehydration Technology – Regeneration Temperature
High temperature regeneration can be employed to reduce the length of the dryer bed regeneration cycle,
hence potentially reducing the total number of Dryers required. Coils can be provided in gas turbine
exhaust to heat the regen gas to approximately 300°C, however there have been concerns with leaks in
these coils leading to fire. An alternate high temperature heat source can also be used.
The drive in an offshore environment to reduce topsides space and weight leads to an emphasis on
reducing the dehydration bed sizes. This can be achieved by shortening the bed cycles and using hotter
regeneration, with the tradeoff that the bed life will be shortened. This is an optimization that will require
extensive support from the molecular sieve vendor with boundaries set by constraints of the hot oil system.
High temperature regeneration also has the disadvantage of producing water if there are high levels of
oxygen in the feed gas. When oxygen is present, water is generated in the Dryer bed during regeneration
through oxidation of adsorbed hydrocarbons, hence not attaining the level of dryness required to prevent
hydrate formation. This concern needs to be checked with the molecular sieve vendors when oxygen in
the feed gas approaches or exceeds 20 ppmv.
There is also a concern with the formation of elemental sulfur in the molecular sieve, in the presence
of mercaptans, with oxygen levels approaching or beyond 10 ppmv. If applicable, this concern should also
be brought to the attention of the molecular sieve vendors.
Dehydration Technology – Disposal of Spent Adsorbent
The spent dehydration mole sieve adsorbent is normally analyzed (hazardous substances, metals, sulfur,
nitrogen compounds, special wastes, etc.) to meet the regulations for waste disposal and then usually
disposed of as a non-hazardous waste. No special precautions need to be taken with the molecular sieve
itself, as the zeolite and binder mixture is inert and can be classified as synthetic clay. Disposal options
will be constrained by contaminants, not the molecular sieve material itself.
It is recommended that the Dryers be regenerated to remove adsorbed substances just before unloading
to minimize any subsequent desorption on exposure to the atmosphere. Adsorbed chemicals, particularly
sulfur compounds and carbon monoxide, may become desorbed again in the presence of high humidity
because of water competition for the adsorption sites.
Liquefaction – Introduction
Standard configurations for liquefaction technology for FLNG applications are still being developed and
do not have consensus on the balance between intrinsic safety of the refrigerant, equipment count and
refrigeration efficiency.
OTC-26158-MS 13

Liquefaction – Marinization
Major technology drivers are tied to weight and space considerations. Liquefaction technologies that use
kettle chillers are not well received because of the large horizontal footprint consumed by these pieces of
equipment and the large flammable liquid refrigerant inventories contained in these heat exchangers. The
propane precooled liquefaction technology, which predominates in onshore base load LNG facilities, is
not favored offshore for these reasons. Liquefaction technologies which employ plate fin and spiral wound
coil exchangers are favored because of the reduced footprint and the high surface area to weight ratio of
these exchangers. Spiral wound coil exchanger design is flexible and inherently compensates for shell-side
maldistribution.
Another concern is flammability of the refrigerant. Nitrogen expander cycles are regularly considered
because they eliminate the risks of refrigerant combustion and explosion as well as concerns with toxicity.
There is a cost in liquefaction efficiency with this technology. A middle ground is to reduce hydrocarbon
refrigerant inventory with attention paid to removal of propane from the refrigerant mix to eliminate
propane make-up storage.
The large drivers used in liquefaction also receive attention during technology selection. Aero-
derivative gas turbines are favored over frame machines offshore because of their lighter weight and
smaller footprint. There are additional challenges in an FLNG environment. The fuel gas comes from a
number of different sources: Condensate Stabilization, Acid Gas Removal, Dehydration, End Flash and
LNG Storage & Loading. Hot oil loads, often supplied by gas turbine exhaust heat recovery, are found
in MEG Regeneration, Condensate Stabilization, Acid Gas Removal, Dehydration and Fractionation. The
challenge is that the fuel sources from Dehydration (regeneration gas) and LNG Storage & Loading
(vaporized product during loading) are highly variable, as is the load in Dehydration (regeneration gas
heating). Integration of the gas turbines with the fuel gas system is a significant challenge.
Liquefaction – Current Technologies
Given the range of scales of FLNG capacities currently under construction, between 0.5 and 3.6 MTPA,
it is not surprising that there are a number of liquefaction technologies being pursued.
Nitrogen expander technology is being implemented in the middle of the capacity range, with
advantages in using a non-flammable refrigerant, no concern with the vapor phase refrigerant maldistri-
bution due to trim and motion and the also provision of quick refrigeration response to feed rate changes.
However, this technology has reduced refrigeration efficiency over the base-load mixed refrigerant
technologies implemented onshore. Nitrogen expander technology has been used onshore downstream of
a single refrigerant precooled, mixed refrigerant liquefied base load plant.
On the high end of the capacity scale, a dual mixed refrigerant technology is also being implemented
on another FLNG project, providing refrigeration efficiencies similar to base-load onshore facilities. This
technology has been implemented in onshore base load LNG facilities. Safety precautions include a design
incorporating the results of extensive modeling of explosion propagation, dual decks, gaps between
process modules, fire-proof protective coatings and specially designed product loading arms.
On a smaller scale FLNG project, a single mixed refrigerant technology, typically used in onshore peak
shaving plants, has been selected. This technology offers simpler operation and lower equipment count,
consistent with the small scale of the FLNG facility.

Summary
This paper has highlighted the gas pretreatment options for Mercury Removal, Acid Gas Removal and
Dehydration and has also touched on the state of FLNG technology in Liquefaction.
Mercury Removal offers a choice of three technologies; the non-regenerable metal oxide/metal sulfide
technology can be implemented upstream of the AGRU or downstream of Dehydration, the non-
regenerable sulfide activated carbon, usually constrained to a location downstream of Dehydration and
14 OTC-26158-MS

regenerable silver doped molecular sieve, which is intrinsically tied to the Dehydration unit. Although
regenerable, the silver doped molecular sieve will likely require an ancillary non-regenerable bed.
Acid Gas Removal, in an FLNG context, has settled on a choice of two technologies on a similar
flowsheet. Formulated MDEA usually offers lower energy costs and uses somewhat smaller equipment,
but requires a license or engineering fee from the Licensor/Vendor. DGA requires the operation of a
Reclaimer with its attendant solvent losses. Alternative technologies are available for either very high or
very low CO2 feed gas concentrations.
Dehydration, in an FLNG context, has settled on molecular sieves regenerated thermally at low
pressure. There are some options for disposal of the regeneration gas.
FLNG Liquefaction is not the settled slate of technologies that is seen in the gas treatment units
upstream. Dual mixed refrigerant, single mixed refrigerant and nitrogen expander technologies are being
implemented at different capacities, with integration of the associated gas turbines with the fuel gas
system and important task.

References
Burkowski, J.D., Liu, Y.N., Pillarella, M.R., Boccella, S.J., and Kennington, W.A., 2013. Natural Gas
Liquefaction Technology for Floating LNG Facilities. Presented at LNG 17, Houston, USA, 16-19
April 2013.
Callison, A. and DavidsonG. 2007. Offshore processing plant uses membranes for CO2 removal. Oil
and Gas Journal 105 (20): 56 –65.
Casteneda, G., 2015. Liquified Natural Gas and Floating LNG. Presented at South Texas Section of
American Institute of Chemical Engineers meeting, Houston, USA, 5 March 2015.
Caswell, C., Durr, C., Rost, E., and Kilcran, M. 2009. FLNG- History Does Not Repeat Itself, but It
Does Rhyme. Presented at GasTech 2009, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 25-28 May 2009.
Caswell, C., Durr, C. and Kilcran, M. 2010. FLNG –Determining the Technical and Commercial
Boundaries, Presented at LNG 16, Oran, Algeria, 18-21 April 2010.
Harun, M.J. and Nawawi, M.I. 2014. Petronas Floating LNG –Key Technology Decision. Proc.,
Presented at FPSO Research Forum, Busan, Korea, 15 October 2014.
International Gas Union. 2015. IGU –World LNG Report. (2015), http://igu.org/sites/default/files/
node-page-field_file/IGU-World%20LNG%20Report-2015%20Edition.pdf (accessed 16 Jun
2015).
Kayat, Z., SchottM., Doong, S., Subris, R., and Farr, D. 2012 Pretreatment of Acid Gas in feed for
Petronas floating LNG Facility. Presented at 25th World Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 4-8 June 2012.
Meek, H.J., and Cariou, H., 2009. LNG FPSO Development - Bringing Two Industries Together.
Presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, 4-7 May 2009. OTC-20273-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20273-MS
Parliament of Western Australia. 2015. FLNG Safety Matters. (May 2015), http://www.parliament-
.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/(Report⫹Lookup⫹by⫹Com⫹ID)/
9CC3D91BD3163FF948257E3E000C8CE2/$file/
7⫹May⫹2015⫹EISC⫹FLNG⫹Safety⫹Report.pdf (accessed 16 June 2015).
Pek, B., and van der Velde, H. 2013. A High Capacity Floating LNG Design. Presented at LNG 17,
Houston, USA, 16-19 April 2013.
Saavedra, C.G., and Fales, R.P. 2012. Alternative Methods of Handling Produced Gas. Presented at
Deep Offshore Technology International, Perth, Australia, 27-29 November 2012.
Shell. Prelude Floating LNG Project –Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (October 2009),
http://s02.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/country/aus/downloads/about-shell/pre-
lude/contentsandcover.pdf (accessed 12 June 2015).
OTC-26158-MS 15

Tierling, K.S., Jindal, S. and Abascal, R. 2011. Considerations for the Use of Carbon Dioxide
Removal Membranes in an Offshore Environment. Presented at OTC Brasil, Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil, 4-6 October. OTC-22646-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/22646-MS