Evaluation of LNG

Production Technologies
Outline
 LNG Background
 Objective
 Simulation Specifications
 Liquefaction Techniques
 Heat Exchanger Types
 Simulation Method
 Results
Flow Diagram for a Typical LNG Plant
LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) Basics
 Combustible mixture of hydrocarbons
 Dry VS. Wet
 NGL Extraction
 Dehydration/Scrubbing
 Liquefied Natural Gas
 Target
temperature for Natural gas:-260°F
 Reduces volume by a factor 600
Objective
 Main Objectives
 Simulate Processes
 Optimize Processes
 Minimize compressor work

 Compare Processes based on

 Capital cost

 Energy cost

 Total cost per capacity(Ton)

 Liquefaction Processes
Mixed Refrigerants Pure Refrigerants Both Other
BP Self refrigerated
Linde Process CoP Simple Cascade APCI C3 MR
process
CoP Enhanced ABB Randall Turbo-
Axens Liquefin Process APCI AP-X
Cascade Expander
Williams Field
Dual Mixed Refrigerant Linde 2006
Services co.
Mustang Group
Technip-TEALARC
ExxonMobil
Dual Multi-component
Black and Veatch Prico
Process

Technip- Snamprogetti

* Italicized processes signify Patent searched processes.

* Bolded processes signify processes not included in scope of project.
Flow diagrams
Black and
Veatch’s PRICO
Process

Axens Liquefin Process

C3MR: Air Products and

Chemical Inc

ExxonMobil Dual Multi-Component Cycle

AP-X: Air Products
and Chemical Inc.

Technip- TEALARC System

BP- Self
Refrigerated
Process
DMR- Dual Mixed Refrigerant
 Linde- CO2 MFCP
Linde/Statoil -Mixed Fluid Cascade Process

ConocoPhilips
Simple
Cascade
Simulation Specifications
 Natural Gas composition
 Methane: 0.98
 Ethane: 0.01
 Propane: 0.01
 Inlet conditions
 Pressure: 750 psia
 Temperature: 1000F
 Outlet conditions
 Pressure: 14.7 psia
Beihai City, China
 Temperature: -260 F
o

 Capacity: Common min. to max. capacity of process

 Common min. Capacity: 200,000 lbs/hr
Liquefaction Techniques
 Different Liquefaction techniques include:
 Single Refrigeration cycle
 Multiple Refrigeration cycles
 Self Refrigerated cycles
 Cascade Processes
 The cooling of natural gas involves the use of
refrigerants which could either be pure component
refrigerants or mixed component refrigerants.
Liquefaction Techniques
Schematic of a Simple Refrigeration Cycle

Expander Compressor

Heat Exchanger
Liquefaction Techniques
 Mixed refrigerants are mainly composed of
hydrocarbons ranging from methane to pentane,
Nitrogen and CO2.
 Pure component Refrigerants
 Specific operating ranges for each component
 Mixed Refrigerants
 Modifiedto meet specific cooling demands.
 Helps improve the process efficiency
Liquefaction Techniques
T-Q Diagrams

Natural gas cooling

curve

Area between curves

represents work
done by the system
Liquefaction Techniques
Single Refrigeration Cycle
 One refrigeration loop that cools the natural
gas to its required temperature range.
 Usually requires fewer equipment and can
only handle small base loads.
 Lower capital costs and a higher operating
efficiency
Black and Veatch:
PRICO Process
Compressor
 Single mixed refrigerant
Condenser
loop and single
Inlet Gas
compression system
 Limited capacity (1.3
100oC
MTPA)
 Low capital cost
Cold Box

Residue
 Great Pilot Process
-260oC
Expander LNG
Refrigeration Cycles and Natural
Gas Liquefaction
Compressor

Inlet Gas

Simple Refrigeration Cycle

Cold Box

LNG

Black and Veatch- PRICO Process

Liquefaction Techniques
Multiple Refrigeration cycles
 Contains two or more refrigeration cycles.
Refrigerants involved could be a combination
of mixed or pure component refrigerants.
 Some cycles are setup primarily to
supplement cooling of the other refrigerants
before cooling the natural gas.
 More equipment usually involved to handle
larger base loads.
 Air Products and Chemical Inc:
C3-MR
LNG
 APCI processes are used
in almost 90% of the
industry
 Good standard by which to
judge the other processes
Inlet Gas  Capacity of about 5 MTPA
 Utilizes Propane (C3) and
Mixed Refrigerants (MR)
Mixed Refrigerant
Liquefaction Techniques
Self Refrigerated Cycles
 Takes advantage of the cooling ability of
hydrocarbons available in the natural gas to
help in the liquefaction process.
 Numerous expansion stages are required to
achieve desired temperatures.
 Considered as a safer method because there
are no external refrigerants needing storage.
BP Self Refrigerated Process

 Neither refrigerants,
compressor, nor expanders
present in setup.
 Cost include mainly capital
costs and electricity.
Residue Gas
 Low Production rate (51%)
 Capacities of over 1.3MTPA
attainable .

Inlet gas
LNG
Liquefaction Techniques
Cascade Processes
A series of heat exchangers with each stage
using a different refrigerant.
 Tailored to take advantage of different
thermodynamic properties of the refrigerants
to be used.
 Usually have high capital costs and can
handle very large base loads.
 ConocoPhilips Simple Cascade
 3 stage pure refrigerant
process
Methane  Propane
Ethylene
 Ethylene
Propane
Residue Gas
 Methane

Sub-Cooling
 5 MTPA Capacity
Inlet Gas

Pre- Cooling Liquefaction

LNG
Equipment
Plate Fin Heat Exchanger
Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger
Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger
Equipment Comparison
  Plate-Fin-Heat-Exchangers Coil-Wound-Heat-Exchangers
Characteristics Extremely compact Compact
Multiple streams Multiple streams
Single and two-phase streams Single and two-phase streams
Fluid Very clean Clean
Flow-types Counter-flow Cross counter-flow
Cross-flow
Heating-surface 300 - 1400 m²/m³ 20 - 300 m²/m³
Materials Aluminum Aluminum
Stainless steel (SS)
Carbon steel (CS)
Special alloys
Temperatures -269°C to +65 °C (150 °F) All
Pressures Up to 115 bar (1660 psi) Up to 250 bar (3625 psi)
Applications Cryogenic plants Also for corrosive fluids
Non-corrosive fluids Also for thermal shocks
Very limited installation space Also for higher temperatures
Our Evaluation Methods
 Data on operating conditions (Temperatures,
Pressures, Flowrates, etc) for all these
processes is not widely available (Only
some is reported).
 We decided to perform simulations using our
best estimates.
 We used minimum compression work as
guide.
 We identified non-improvable points
Details of methodology
 Conditions after each stage of refrigeration were noted
 After making simple simulations mimic real process,
variables were transferred to real process simulation
 Optimization- Refrigerant composition
 Optimization- Compressor work
 Restriction needed- Heat transfer area
 All cells in LNG HX must have equal area
 Restriction needed- Second law of thermodynamics
 Check temperature of streams
 Utilities
 Obtain cooling water flow rate
 CO2 Pre-cooled
Linde Process
 Modification of the Mixed Fluid
Cascade Process
Inlet Gas
 Three distinct stages using 3
mixed refrigerants with different
100oC
compositions
Pre- Cooling  Carbon dioxide is sole refrigerant
in pre-cooling stage
-70oC  Separate cycles and mixed
refrigerants help in the flexibility
Liquefaction and thermodynamic efficiency
High
 Process is safer because
-140 C
o Pressure
Low hydrocarbon inventory is less
Pressure  8 MTPA Capacity
Sub-Cooling

-260oC

LNG
Results
Cost Basis
 Economic Life of 20 years
 New train required at the documented
maximum capacity of each specific process.
 Average cost of electricity and cooling water
throughout the US used in analysis.
 Energy cost evaluated at a minimum capacity
of 1.2 MTPA
Results

10
Results

10
Results

Process Cost per ton ($) Max capacity (MTPA)

Prico 5.12 1.20
Liquefin 3.41 6.00
ExxonMobil 4.83 4.80
DMR 12.58 4.80
APX 19.20 7.80
MFCP 31.73 7.20
MFCP(CO2) 24.77 7.20
TEALARC 25.35 6.00
C3MR 12.93 4.80
Conoco 20.15 5.00
Analysis
 Our results may not match market trends
 Operating temperature and pressure range
as well as flowrate information unavailable
 Precedents to compare results unavailable
 Information on cost to use process
unavailable (licensing, proprietary production
fees, etc.)
Analysis
 We may be trapped in local minima and failed
to identify better conditions

Work

Local Minimum

Global Minimum

Temperature
Conclusions
 We successfully simulated several LNG
production plants
 We obtained capital and operating costs and
determined a ranking
 Some connection with existing trends were
identified, but other results do not coincide with
market trends
 We discussed why discrepancies may arise.
Questions?