Confidential

For Internal Use Only

LNG Technology Management

By:
DR. Ir. Iwan RATMAN, MSc,. PE

Revision-01
 Contents
1. LNG Introduction
2. Gas Process Technology
2.1. Simplified Natural Gas Process
2.2. Gas Treating Unit
2.3. Liquefaction Technology

3. Main Utilities Overview for LNG Plant Design

3.1. Plant Cooling Media
3.2. Driver Application in LNG Plant Design

4. Searching for The Excellent Technology as TOTAL Portfolio

4.1. Which is the best technology?
4.2. Rule of Thumb !
4.3. The technology is improved
1. LNG Introduction
1.1. Pathways to Gas Utilization
1.2. Gas Transportation Value Chains
LNG is more than just The Plant & The Ships

LNG IMPORT

LNG EXPORT
 1.3. Natural Gas Terminology

Methane (C1) LPG = Liquefied

Petroleum Gas
Ethane (C2)

LNG NGL=Natural Gas

Propane (C3) Liquids

LPG
Butane (C4)
LNG = Liquefied
Natural
Natural Gas
Gas
Heavier Fractions
Ex-Well Variously known as:
C5 + NGL SNG = Synthetic
Pentanes Plus or Substitute
Natural Gasoline
Condensate Natural Gas

Non Hydrocarbons
e.g. water, carbon dioxide, etc.
1.4. What is LNG?

 Colorless, odorless, non toxic hydrocarbon in very low temperature liquid form
(cryogenic): Temperature minus (-) 160 oC and Pressure at 1 bar & liquid to gas
volume ratio: 1 : 600
 Mainly (90% plus) is Methane, the lightest component of hydrocarbon family
 LNG is the cleanest hydrocarbon fuel
 Lightest hydrocarbon
 All contaminants are removed prior to liquefaction process to meet process or Buyer’s
requirement: Carbon Dioxides, Sulphur compounds, Mercury, Heavy hydrocarbons,
Aromatics)

LNG Looks like:

- Colorless Liquid
- Boiling Liquid
- In LNG, ordinary material
will become so brittle and
break like glass
- LNG requires special low
temperature material for
storage

LNG burning
“clean fuel”
 Approximate LNG Conversion Factors (continued)

1 tonne of LNG = 52 mmBtu

= 1.3 tonne of Crude Oil
= 9.0 bbl of Crude Oil

1 Mt/a of LNG = 130mmscf/d of sales Gas

= 150mmscf/d of Wellhead Gas
= 1.37 bcm/a

1 Mt/a of LNG will Supply 1 GW CCGT Power Plant running at 90% Load
Factor

1 mtpa of LNG for 20 years = 1TCF of natural gas

A 135,000 cubic metre shipload of LNG = approx 60,000 tonnes of LNG

or 3 trillion Btus
or 3 bcf of natural gas

1 mscf natural gas = 1mmBtu

1 bbl of oil = 5.8 mmBtu
 LNG Plant of the World

All inclusive: Existing, Under Construction & Planned

Ch. 26 - 9
2. Gas Process Technology

2.1. Simplified Natural Gas Process

 2.1.1. LNG Process Block Diagram

PRODUCTION
PLATFORMS

Impurities:
H2O, CO2, H2S, Hg, N2,
RSH, BTX, Acids, Solid GAS
WELLS
particle, Inhibitor, Glycol, etc

PIPELINES
CO2
H2S
H2O

GAS LNG
RECEIVING
FACILITIES
TREATING
UNIT
LIQUEFACTION
UNIT
LNG

Hg

CONDENSATE FRACTIONATION
STABILIZER UNIT

CONDENSATE
CONDENSATE
2.1.2. TYPICAL FEED GAS AND LNG QUALITY

INLET FEED GAS   LNG SPECIFICATION

N2 2,3   N2 mole % 1,0 max

CO2 0,507   CO2 ppm vol 50 max
Methane 93,61   Methane mole % 90,0 min
Ethane 1,84   C5+ mole % 0,1 max
Propane 0,771   Total Sulfur mg/Nm3 30 max

i Butane 0,153   H2S mg/Nm3 4 max

n Butane 0,242   Mercury ng/sm3 10 max
i Pentane 0,086   GHV btu/scf 1070 min

nPentane 0,069  

C6+ 0,422        
2.2. Gas Treating Unit in LNG Plant

Inlet Facilities Acid Gas Removal Unit

(Slug catcher, Scrubber, KOD) Dehydration Unit

LNG Storage

Main Cryogenic HE Scrub Column Mercury Removal Unit

LNG Shipment
Fractionation Unit
2.2.1. Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU)
2.2.1.1. AGR Technology
 Physical Processes
 Expander Process (Ryan-Holmes)
 Membrane (Monsanto, Separex,
UOP, etc)
 Adsorption - Molecular Sieve
(UOP, Grace, Tosoh, Axens, Ceca)
 Physical Solvents
 Estasolvan (Tributyl Phospate,
TBP)
 Fluor Solvent (Propylene
Carbonate, PC)
 Purisol (Normal Methyl
Pyrolidone, NMP)
 Rectisol (Methanol)
 Selexol (Di-methyl ether
polyethylene glycol)
 Sepasolv (Mix of Poly ethylene
glycol and dialkyl ethers)
 Non-regenerative Solvents -
NaOH
 Chemical Processes (Absorption)
 Carbonate Solvent
Catacarb (Eickmeyer)
Benfields (UOP))
LRS-10 (British Gas)
Giamarco Vetrocoke
 Amine Solvent
- MEA, DEA, TEA, MDEA, DGA
- MDEA specialty solvent
(MDEA + Activator piperazine)
e.g: BASF, Dow, Hunstman, Shell
ADIP-X, Ineous GasSpec, etc)
- Hindered Amines
Flexsorb (ExxonMobil)
- Hybrid solvent
(Chemical & Physical mix)
e.g: Sulfinol (Shell) : DIPA +
Sulfoline
2.2.1.2. AGR Process Selection Chart
2.2.1.3. Decision Tree Analysis: AGR selection

Process Selection Overview

2.2.1.4. AGR Technology Parameter Comparison

Physical Processes Chemical Processes

Description Non
Physical Carbonate Amine
Membrane Adsorption regen
solvent solvents solvents
solvent
Inlet CO2, %mol up to 90%vol > 3.5 bar 0.1 - 2 < 0.1 5 - 50 < 70%
Treated CO2 content 1%vol 1%vol 50 ppmv <300 ppmv > 1%vol <50 ppmv
Gas flow, MMSCMD < 10 3 - 11 n/a low very low to 7 0.1 - 10
1 stage: 8-
Typical hydrocarbon
15%, 2 > 5% none very low very low <1%
losses, %
stages: 2%
Process turndown, % 20 n/a n/a n/a 40-110 30
Main equipment Absorber Contactor &
Inlet filters, Liquid Absorber &
Inlet facilities, tower, multi regenerator,
mole sieve scavanger Regenerator,
membrane press flash scrubber,
tower, regen tower, flash drums,
skid, recycle drums, filtration,
gas solution reboiler,
compressor, pumps & aeration, tanks,
compressor, tnaks & exchangers,
air coolers tanks, pumps,
regen heater pumps pumps, tanks
chillers exchangers
Material requirement Pre-
treatment:
SS for certain SS for rich
SS, CS CS CS
parts CO2 exposed
membrane
skid: CS
2.2.1.4. AGR Technology Parameter Comparison (continued)

Physical Processes Chemical Processes

Description Non
Physical Carbonate Amine
Membrane Adsorption regen
solvent solvents solvents
solvent
Typical Operating
 
Conditions
abs: 5 -120
abs: 69, Regen
Pressure, bar 27-100 69 14-55 as requried bar, Regen:
< Patm
1.5-2 bar
-18 to Abs: <40,
Temperature, C < 60 ambient 120 30-70
ambient Regen: 350
Layout requirement Low High medium low high high
Ease operation,
Low Medium medium low very high high
complexity
- Capex Medium medium medium low high high

1 stage: low
2
- Opex very low low high low medium
stages:
medium

Gas is Not Gas is hazardous Solvent can Saturated

Particularities
dehydrated dehydrated dehydrated waste precipitate water gas
2.2.1.5. AGR Technology Excellence for LNG

 Must be able to treat feed gas at very low CO2 and H2S outlet, below 50
ppm CO2 and 1 ppm H2S (acid gas deep removal)
 Must be environmentally friendly:
 Does not contain any heavy metals as activator or passivator
 Does not easily heat degradable and produce unwanted degradation
product
 Has low co-absorbed hydrocarbons when vented to atmosphere
 Must have low heavier hydrocarbon co-absorption (Heavy hydrocarbon
is precious and needed for refrigerant preparation)
 Must have low system pressure drop (pressure gain is equivalent to LNG
production)
 Must have low corrosiveness & no metal pre-passivation prior start-up)
 Must have low foaming tendency of mix solvent (except contaminated
which can not be avoidable)
 The solvent is not easily crystallized or solidified when the unit is shut
down or idle
 Proven technology with some reference LNG plants, without any
significant operational problems.
2.2.2. Dehydration Unit

2.2.2.1. Dryer Beds Layout

- H2O freezes and

blocked equipments
- H20 is adsorbed by
Molecular Sieve
Bed in regen - Regenerated by hot
gas
- H2O inlet : saturated
- H2O outlet : 1 ppm
- Molesieve life : > 4
years

Bed in service
Regen gas heater
2.2.2.2. Dryer Bed Configuration

600 mm

12 mesh floating screen 1” ceramic balls 220 mm

16 mesh floating screen (optional) Guard layer 310 mm

Molesieve 4A – size 1/8 inch 870 mm

mm

Top Probe: Gauge

1600 mm Molesieve 4A – size 1/16 inch

2.908 mm

Middle Probe: Panametric

700 mm
Bottom Probe: Panametric
300 mm

1/8” ceramic balls 96 mm

1/4” ceramic balls 96 mm

Johnson screen or
Bottom grid support

To Dryer after filter

 2.2.2.3. Dehydration Technology for LNG

 All LNG Plants use Molecular Sieve adsorption technology to meet saturated water
specification for liquefaction unit specification below 1 ppm (minus 110 Deg. C dew
point).
Other dehydration technology such as Glycol Unit, Silica Gel or Activated
Alumina cannot meet low moisture outlet, but normally silica gel is used for
guard layer on the top mole sieve bed to adsorb free water and liquid
hydrocarbon mist.
 Various type of Molecular Sieve
 Beads (Spherical): sturdy, resistant to crushing and friction. High pressure
drop, less surface area.
 Pellet (Cylindrical): More surface area, higher efficiency. More flow void
space, less pressure drop.
 Trisiv (Triple Cylindrical): Highest surface area, high efficiency. Prone to
crushing and friction.
 The LNG plant design prefers to have double layer mole sieve bed 4 Angstrom,
consisting of two different particle sizes: 1/8” (3.2 mm) on the top bed and 1/16” (1.6
mm) on the bottom.
The bigger particle on the top will reduce total pressure drop, and the smaller
particle on the bottom will reduce mass transfer zone and improve water adsorption
capacity.
Following are the mole sieve manufactures for LNG application: UOP, Ceca, Axen,
Tosoh, etc.
2.2.3. Mercury Removal Unit (MRU)

2.2.3.1. About Mercury (Hg)

Hg physical properties: silver white, heavy mobile liquid metal, mol

weight = 200, extremely toxic, odorless, insoluble in water

Types of Mercury: elemental (Hg), inorganic (HgCl2), organics (R-Hg-

R), organo-ionic (ClHgCH3), etc.

Hg removal in LNG plant is needed to avoid leaks in Aluminum

exchanger as a results of its reaction (Hg + Al = Amalgam). The leaks
can cause Hydrocarbon leaks/fire, plant shutdown and expensive repair

Hg removal unit: outlet specification below 0.01 ug/Nm3 (1 ppb)

Hg removal methods:
Non regenerative adsorbent: sulphur impregnated activated carbon (SIAC), metal
sulphide impregnated either carbon or alumina (MSIC or MSIA), Halide impregnated
activated carbon (HIAC), Ion exchange resins.
Regenerative adsorbent: use regenerative adsorbent – silver impregnated (e.g:
Hgsiv of UOP) & the bed is attached to dehydrator.
2.2.3.2. Mercury Removal Configuration

Non regenerative bed

Non Regenerative Sulphur impregnated adsorbents:
Activated Carbon (Calgon, Norit)
Molecular Sieve (WR Grace, ICI)
Activated Alumina (IFP, Procatalyze)

Regenerative bed

Regenerative Silver impregnated adsorbent:

Molecular Sieve (UOP, Tosoh)
2.2.3.3. Mercury Removal Technology for LNG

 Most of LNG Plants use non-regenerative Mercury Removal technology, either sulphur
impregnated activated carbon (SIAC) or metal sulphide impregnated alumina (MSIA)
MSIA is preferably used due to less sulphur leaching as a result of carry-over liquids (saturated
water or hydrocarbons), thereby its lifetime and capacity maybe longer than SIAC
 Regenerative mercury removal is not yet accepted by the industry for environmental reason, due
to the discharge of the regenerated mercury laden gas to atmosphere or flared
 About SIAC:
Sulphur impregnated activated carbon, by far is the most widely used technology in LNG Plant,
but more prone to bed sulphur leaching in case of liquids carry over into the bed(s) resulting in
shorter lifetime & less capacity
Residence time of more than 40 second is required to meet the outlet mercury level
High temperature (above 80 Deg. C) is efficient for mercury removal but at the same time
promote excessive losses of impregnated sulphur thus reduce the bed life time
Safety Warning:
Sulphur impregnated activated carbon in an aged vessels may create self-ignition when exposed
to air during shutdown as a result of “Pyrophoric” material (igniting spontaneously or burning
spontaneously in air when rubbed, scratched, or struck). The reaction of Iron sulphide from the
bed with oxygen will create heat as the following reaction:
4 FeS + 3 O2 ===> 2 Fe2O3 + 4 S + Heat
2.2.4. Heavier hydrocarbon & Aromatics removal

2.2.4.1. Objectives
Remove excess Ethane plus component for the refrigeration preparation unit
Control the content of Pentane plus (C5+) to meet the LNG specification (< 0.1% C5+ and <
1ppmv Benzene)

2.2.4.2. Technology assessment on LNG design

Distillation process (conventional scrub column): cheaper, BUT less flexible of
inlet benzene variation
Turbo expander & recompression unit : more flexible of benzene content & secure,
BUT more CAPEX
Adsorption Process : use of various adsorbent
- APCI & its associates: silica gel, used in peak shaving plant, easy to operate, BUT
hydrocarbon co-adsorption, risk of benzene breakthrough, more CAPEX & OPEX.
- BASF – Quick cycle process: silica gel, used in many plants, more secure of
benzene breakthrough, BUT hydrocarbon co-adsorption, more complex, more CAPEX
& OPEX
- NORIT: activated carbon, used in refinery plants, less CAPEX, BUT hydrocarbon
co-adsorption, less reliability, more risk of benzene breakthrough Scrub column
- UOP: molecular sieve, no experience & reference plants
- Axens: molecular sieve, no reference plant, under Lab test. Required wet regen gas
and combined 4A + 13X beds
 2.2.4.3. Technology improved on distillation process

- Conventional scrub column

C3R NG
54 bar
-35°C
- High recovery scrub column
NG
55 bar -70C
MCHE
-16°C
NGL

-35C
 - Cryomax LNG
LEAN GAS
TO MCHE
PRECOOLED
GAS
36 bar
-80°C 29 bar
RT DC1

Recovery Tower Reflux

Demethaniser Reflux NGL

US Patent 5,291,736
 2.3. Liquefaction Process Technology

2.3.1. Basic refrigeration cycle

Q out

Log pressure
C B
Condenser
p2 C Condensation B
Liquid
Receiver Motor
Expansion Compression
Compressor

p1 Vaporization
A D A
D Evaporator Gas and Gas
Liquid
Expansion valve
Specific enthalpy
Q in
Cooled
stream out

(Dossat, 1991)
2.3.2. Classification of Liquefaction Processes
1. Single Cycle Refrigeration (SCR)
 SCR Pure Component
BHP/Linde (Nitrogen Cycle)
 SCR Mixed Components
TEAL (Skikda Unit 10, 20, 30, Algeria)
PRICO (Skikda Unit 40, 50, 60, Algeria)
APCI (Marsa El-Brega, Lybia)
CII/BP (proposed concept)
2. Dual Cycle Refrigeration (DCR)
 Propane/MR Cycles (APCI)
Brunei, Algeria Arzew, Das-Island, Badak,
Arun, Malaysia-1/2/3, Australia NWS 1/2/3,
QatarGas, RasGas, Oman
 Double MR (DMR)
Australia NWS-4, Russia Sakhalin (being
built or designed)

3. Triple Cycle Refrigeration

Propylene/Ethylene/Methane
Algeria – CAMEL, Kenai (Alaska), Trinidad

LNG liquefaction technologies in commercial use:

 Air Products & Chemicals Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed Refrigerant. (APCI), Dual Cycle Refrigeration
 Phillips Optimized Cascade (POC), Triple Cycle Refrigeration
 Shell DMR, Similar to APCI, Dual Cycle, both MR
 Linde MFCP (Multi Fluid Cycle Process)
 Black & Veatch Pritchard, Poly Refrigerant Integral Cycle Operation II (PRICO II), Single Cycle Refrigeration

Other LNG Liquefaction Processes

 BHP/Linde (Nitrogen, Single Cycle Refrigeration)
 TEALARC, Similar to PRICO, Single Cycle MR
 TEALARC Conventional Cascade
 IFP/CII-1 SMR, Similar to PRICO, Single Cycle MR
 IFP/CII-2 DMR, Similar to Shell DMR, Dual Cycles MR
 IFP/CII is now Axen Liquefin
 2.3.2.1. Single Refrigeration Cycles
1. Conventional Cycle

COLD BOXES

FEED GAS LNG

JT VALVE
CONDENSER
REFRIGERANT:
C1, C2, C3, C4
COMPRESSOR

Applied by APCI (Marsa El Brega – Libya), TEALARC (Skikda 1,2,3 – Algeria) & PRICO (Skikda 4,5,6 –
Algeria), but no longer commercially offered
 2. Optimized Single Refrigeration Cycle

(Optimized SMR, PRICO II)

FEED GAS LNG

COLD BOXES
REFRIGERANT:
C1, C2, C5

JT VALVE

Offered by PRICO for the design of Mobil Floating LNG, Tangguh LNG & Venezuela Enron LNG.
 3. Optimized Single Refrigeration Cycle

(Optimized SMR, IFP/CII-1)

FEED COLD BOXES

GAS LNG

JT
VALVE
2.3.2.2. Two (Double) Refrigeration Cycles

1. Conventional Two Refrigeration Cycles

(C3/MR Cycles)
DRY
SWEET LNG
GAS

Propane Cycle MR Cycle

REFRIGERANT REFRIGERANT
: PROPANE : N2, C1,C2,
C3, C4

Applied by APCI in most APCI’s Propane/Mixed Refrigerant LNG Plant (Brunei, Das Island, Badak,
Arun, Arzew, MLNG 1/2, Australia NWS 1/2/3, Nigeria, QatarGas, RasGas, Oman)
2. Optimized Two Refrigeration Cycles

Shell DMR – Dual MR Cycles

LNG

LP MIXED HP MIXED
REFRIGERANT REFRIGERANT
GE F-7 GE F-7

Applied by Shell for Australia NWS 4/5 and Russia’s Sakhalin LNG
3. Split MR

Optimized Two Refrigeration Cycles (APCI)

LNG

PROPANE & HP LP/MP MIXED

MIXED REFRIGERANT
REFRIGERANT

Applied by APCI for the design of Yemen and Tangguh LNG

 2.3.2.3. Three (Triple) Refrigeration Cycles
1. Conventional Cycle

(Conventional Cascade)
DRY
LNG
SWEE
T GAS

REFRIGERANT: REFRIGERANT: REFRIGERANT:

PROPYLENE ETHYLENE METHANE

Applied by TEAL (Camel LNG – Algeria) & Phillips (Kenai LNG – Alaska), but no longer commercially offered
 2. Optimized Three Refrigeration Cycles

(Phillips Optimized Cascade)

DRY
SWEET
GAS LNG

REFRIGERANT: REFRIGERANT: REFRIGERANT:

PROPYLENE ETHYLENE METHANE/LNG

Applied by Phillips for Atlantic LNG (Trinidad) and the design of RasGas Expansion, Darwin LNG,
Angola LNG and Tangguh LNG
 2.3.3. Thermodynamics of LNG Liquefaction Processes

2.3.3.1. Carnot Cycle for Pure Component Refrigeration

150
tion
Co ndensa
g&
upe r heatin
Des
Feed Gas In
Temp., deg.C

y
nc
Carnot Cycle Ideal Work

ie
Expans

fic
For LNG Liquefaction

ef
In
ion

s
es
oc

io n
Pr

sse
of

pr
m
ea

Co
Ar
Evaporation

-170
LNG Out
Entropy
 2.3.3.2. Carnot Cycle for SMR Process

150

Feed Gas In
Temp., deg.C

Carnot Cycle Ideal Work

For LNG Liquefaction
n cy
c ie
ff i
e
In
ess
roc
o fP
r ea
A

- 170
LNG Out
Entropy
 2.3.3.3. Carnot Cycle for C3/MR Process

150
Temp., deg.C

Carnot Cycle

Area of Process Inefficiency

Mixed Ideal Work Feed Gas In
Refrigerant
For LNG
Liquefaction 3 Stages Propane

-170
LNG Out
Entropy
 2.3.3.4. Carnot Cycle for Cascade Process

PROPANE
150 ETHYLENE REFRIGERATION
METHANE
REFRIGERATION
REFRIGERATION

Feed Gas In
Temp., deg.C

Carnot Cycle
Area of Process nefficiency

Ideal Work
For LNG
Liquefaction

LNG Out

Entropy
- 170
 2.3.3.5. Superimposed Carnot Cycle for LNG Processes

150
1st MCR Compr. discharge

3rd. C3 Compr. 2nd. C3 Compr. 1st. C3 Compr.

2nd MCRCompr. discharge discharge discharge discharge
Temp., deg.C

Mixed
Refrigerant Feed Gas In
Chillers Inlet Carnot Cycle Ideal
Work For LNG
Area of Process

Liquefaction

3 Stages
Inefficiency

Propane

Thermodynamic Efficiency of
LNG Out
1st MCR Compr. SMR (Red Line Area) vs
suction
C3/MR (Green Line Area)

-170

Entropy
JT Valve Inlet JT Valve Outlet
 2.3.4. Drivers & Compressor Configuration Analysis
2.3.4.1. Drivers combination

- One (1) Frame-7 or 3 Frame-5

1 F-7EA = 79 MW + 6 MW Helper/Starter, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating

Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
1.8 mmTpa
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
2.1 mmTpa
F-7 C3 MR

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 1.8 F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

mmTpa
 - Two (2) Frame-7EA

1 F-7EA = 79 MW Site Rating, + 6 MW Starter/Helper ST

F-7 ? F-7
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
3.6 mmTpa
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa, F-7 C3 MR F-7 MR MR

4.2 mmTpa

F-7 C3= GB C1 C1

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa,
3.8 mmTpa F-7 C2= GB C1 C1
 - Three (3) Frame-7EA

1 F-7EA = 79 MW Site Rating, + 6 MW Starter/Helper ST

F-7 MR MR F-7 MR MR

Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
5.4 mmTpa F-7 MR MR

F-7 C3 C3 F-7 MR MR

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa, F-7 MR MR
6.3 mmTpa

F-7 C3= C3= F-7 C2= C2=

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 5.6
mmTpa
F-7 C1 C1 C1 C1
 2.3.4.2. Drivers configuration vs LNG Capacity
- LNG Train capacity @ 1.75 mmTpa

1 F-7EA = 79 MW, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating

Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
83 MW
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
71 MW
F-7 C3 MR

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

80 MW
 - LNG Train capacity @ 3.5 mmTpa

1 F-7EA = 79 MW, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating

F-7 ? F-7
Single MR + 15
47.4 MW/mmTpa, MW
165 MW S/T
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa, F-7 C3 MR F-7 MR MR

142 MW

F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa,
159 MW
F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1
- SMR Possible Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa

Single MR - 47.4 MW/mmTpa, 213 MW

F-7 MR MR MR ST

F-7 MR MR

F-7 MR MR MR ST

+ 55 MW S/T
F-7 MR MR

ST MR MR

F-7 MR MR
F-7 MR MR

F-7 MR MR

+ 55 MW S/T
 - C3/MR Possible Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa

C3/MR - 40.5 MW/mmTpa, 183 MW

+ 40
F-7 C3, ? MR ST F-7 MR, ? MR ST MW
S/T

+ 40
F-7 C3 C3 MR ST F-7 MR MR MR ST MW
S/T

+ 40
ST C3 C3 F-7 MR MR F-7 MR MR MW
S/T
- Cascade Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa

Cascade - 45.3 MW/mmTpa, 204 MW

F-5 C3= F-5 C2=

F-5 C1 C1 C1

F-5 C3= F-5 C2=

F-5 C1 C1 C1

F-5 C3= F-5 C2=

F-7 C3= GB C1 C1 ST
+ 70
MW
S/T

F-7 C3= GB C1 C1 ST
- Two (2) Frame 9 @ Nominal 7.5 mta

SplitMR™ Machinery Configuration

20 MW

FRAME 9E PROPANE LP STARTER-

MR HELPER

20 MW
MP HP STARTER-
FRAME 9E N2 MR MR HELPER
- Three (3) Frame 9 @ Nominal 9 mta

20 MW
STARTER-
FRAME 9E PROPANE GENERATOR

20 MW
LP MP HP STARTER-
FRAME 9E MR MR MR HELPER

20 MW
LP HP STARTER-
FRAME 9E N2 N2 GENERATOR
- Three (3) Frame 9 @ Nominal 10 mta

SplitMR™ Machinery Configuration

15 MW
FRAME 9E PROPANE HP STARTER-
MR HELPER

15 MW
FRAME 9E LP MP STARTER-
MR MR HELPER

20 MW
FRAME 9E LP HP STARTER-
N2 N2 GENERATOR
- Electric Motor Driven @7 – 10 mtpa

Arrangement depends on
maximum motor size and desired
train capacity 40 PROPANE 40 C3
MW STAGE 1-3 MW STAGE 4

Example:
 55 MW maximum motor size
 Nominal 8 mmtpa
55 LP 55 MP HP
MW MR MW MR MR

40 LP 40 HP
MW N2 MW N2
- LNG Plant with All Electric Design

LPMR

1st 2nd 3rd

Motor Stage Stage Stage

Fr 7FA Gen
1st 2nd 3rd
Motor
Waste Heat Recovery

Stage Stage Stage

Fr 7FA Gen HPMR

1st 2nd 3rd

Motor Stage Stage Stage

Fr 7FA Gen ROP

1st 2nd 3rd
Motor Stage Stage Stage

Motor Inlet
ST Gen

Power Grid Motor Endflash

Island Combined Cycle

Power Plant Motor BOG
 2.3.4.3. LNG Capacity, Power & Technology Matching

2 F-7EA + 40 MW
7.00
Dual MR

6 F-5D C3/MR
6.00 Cascade
2 F-7EA Single MR
5.00
Capacity (MMTPA)

4.00 3 F-5D 3 F-7EA

3.00 1 F-7EA 8 F-5D

2.00
2 F-7EA + 70 MW
1.00
1 F-9
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Power (MW)
2.3.4.3. LNG Capacity, Power & Technology Matching (continued)

6.5
Capacity (MMTPA)
6.0

5.5

5.0
C3/MR
3 x F-7
4.5
6K
Casc.
4.0
Casc. 3 x F-7
9K
3.5 9 x F-5 SMR
Casc. 3 x F-7
C3/MR 15 K
8 x F-5 6K
3.0 2 x F-7
12 K
Casc. 4K
2.5 Casc.
2 x F-7
6 x F-5 SMR
2 x F- 6K
2.0 10 K 7
4K
1.5 C3/MR
1 x F-7
Casc.
1.0 SMR 2K
3 x F-5 1 x F-
7
0.5 5K
2K

0.0
 2.3.5. LNG Technology Trend

2.3.5.1. Train Size Evolution

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
 2.3.5.2. Technology Generation

8
Fifth Generation
7

5 Third
Generation
4
Second
MTPA

Generation
3
First
Fourth
2 Generation
Generation

0
1 964 1 968 1 972 1 976 1 980 1 984 1 988 1 992 1 996 2 000 2 004 2 008 2 012
2.3.5.3. Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger Benchmark

Items APCI Linde Chart

Exchanger Type Spiral Wound Spiral Wound Plate/ Fin
Highest Pressure Rating, psig - - 1750
Maximum Diameter, m 5.2 4.2 N/A
Surface Area Density, (m2/m3) - - 160
Largest Single Unit Weight, Ton 317 160 87
Largest Single Unit Heat Duty, MW 15.5 1.6 0.6
Heat Duty per Unit Weight, W/Ton 49 8 6
Heat Duty per Volume, W/m3 20 10 9
Heat Duty per Foot Print, W/Sq.ft 90 14 33

• Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger also called Coiled Tubular Heat Exchanger
• Plate Fin Heat Exchanger (PFHE) also called Brazed Aluminum Heat Exchanger (BAHE) or
Brazed Aluminum Exchanger (BAE), and since they are ussually packaged in a insulated box
it’s also called a Cold Box
3.5.4. Train Size & Technology

5.0
Million Ton/year/train
LNG Train Capacity
DMR
4.0

3.0

2.0
C3/MR

1.0 Cascade

SMR
Year Built

1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

3. Main Utilities for LNG Plant Design
3.1. Plant Cooling Media
 Sea Water
 High heat capacity of the cooling
medium, efficient heat sink
 Popular cooling medium for the
early Base Load LNG Plants,
1960 ~ 1980’s
 Losing popularity due to
unfavourable environmental
impact and sea water exchanger
reliability problems
 Algeria (Camel, Arzew, Skikda),
Lybia, Kenai, Das Island,
Brunei, Badak
 Sea Water/Air Cooled Hybrid
 Sea water for cold section
(liquefaction) and air cooled for
hot section (gas treating)
 Arun, MLNG-1/2, QatarGas,
Nigeria
 Sea Water/Fresh Water Hybrid
 Fresh cooling water closed cicuit
as the primary process cooling
media, cooled by once thru sea
water sysem
 Maintain system efficiency but
eliminate sea water exchanger
reliability problems
 RasGas LNG
 All Air Cooled Plant
 Initiated by Australia NWS Plant
for environmental and reliability
consideration
 MLNG-3, Trinidad, Oman
 Becoming the trend for future
LNG Plant design
 3.1.1. Sea Water System Design Consideration

 Careful consideration in sea water corrosion impact

 Sea water exchanger tubes material (90/10 Cu-Ni is typical). In some cases may require
expensive Titanium exchanger
 Corrossion prevention measures (cathodic protection system)
 Sea water mains protective internal coating/lining
 Sea water exchanger type must allow easy maintenance, tube cleaning or re-tubing
 Proper and reliable chlorination system design is important to avoid marine lifes growth in the
system
 Environmental impact counter measures:
 Returned sea water temperature
 Residual chlorine content in returned sea water

3.1.2. Air Cooling System Design Consideration

Accurate prediction of basic thermal design data is critical to an Air Cooled
LNG Plant
 Ambient air temperature
 Prevailing wind direction and speed
Avoid hot air recirculation phenomenon
 Plot plan
 Equipment lay-out
 Air cooler bay elevation
 Gas Turbine exhaust elevation
3.1.2.1. Air Cooled Exchanger Design & Component
3.1.2.2. Air Cooler Header & Tube Fin Design
3.1.3. LNG Train Size & Cooling Media Trend

5.0
Million Ton/year/train
LNG Train Capacity
4.0

3.0 Air Cooled

2.0
Sea
Water
1.0

Year Built
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004
3.2. Driver Application in LNG Plant Design
 Steam Turbines
 Popular driver for the early Base
Load LNG Plants, 1960 ~ 1970’s
 Based on the proven experience in
large ethylene refrigeration plant.
 Algeria (Camel, Arzew, Skikda), Das
Island, Brunei, Badak, MLNG-1
 Motor Driver
 Standard application for LNG Peak
Shaving Plant.
 First application in Base Load LNG
Plant (Snohvit LNG- Norway)
 May become the future trend.
Produce much less CO2 emission
and higher overall thermal efficiency
with centralized power plant.
 Gas Turbines
 Low thermal efficiency and less
reliability delayed the application
of gas turbines in LNG plant.
 First Gas Turbines LNG Plant :
Kenai, Alaska (Phillips) - 1969,
followed by Arun, Australia NWS,
MLNG-2 & 3, Nigeria, QatarGas,
RasGas, Trinidad, Oman
 Now is the de-facto standard in
LNG Plant design with higher
availability, comparable thermal
efficiency at more competitive
cost than steam turbines
alternatives
 General Electric Frame-5 and
Frame-7 are the LNG industry
workhorse, almost a monopoly.
3.2.1. Gas Turbine Selection Consideration
 Heavy Duty Gas Turbines
 Designed as a process mechanical drive.
Typically a 2 shafts machine.
 40,000+ hours between overhauls (In-
situ overhaul)
 All existing LNG Plants in operation or
being designed are using Heavy Duty
Gas Turbines
 Potential for LNG application:
 GE MS-5002D, 30 MW
 GE MS-6001B, 38 MW
 Dresser-Rand 63G, 42 MW
 GE MS-7001EA, 82 MW
 GE MS-9001EC, 127 MW
Aero Derivatives Gas Turbines
– Designed as aircraft engines with many
starts/stops operation.
– 10,000+ hours between overhauls, but
much shorter overhaul days (Swap-in
overhaul)
– Less CO2 and NOx emission, more
environmentally friendly
– Has been long considered in LNG Plant
application, but nobody want to be ‘the
first’
– Potential for LNG application:
• GE LM-2500+, 30 MW
• Rolls Royce Coberra, 42 MW
• GE LM-6000, 45 MW
• Rolls Royce Trent, 54 MW
3.2.2. Gas Turbine Design Consideration
 Power match between all refrigeration cycles power demand
 Starter/Helper driver dual function
 Starter/Helper gearbox & coupling design for large gas turbine (Frame-9 size) is not proven
 Large motor starter/helper coupling synchronization design is not proven in LNG
 Low Nox burner is available and becoming standard option
 Waste heat utilization (Co-generation) improve thermal efficiency. Never been applied in LNG but may become
future trend
 GE de-facto monopoly in LNG Gas Turbines limit competition in refrigeration compressor manufacturers
 3.2.3. LNG Train Size & Driver Trend

5.0
Million Ton/year/train

4.0
LNG Train Capacity

3.0 Gas Turbines

2.0

1.0
Steam
Turbines
Year Built
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004
 3.2.4. LNG Mechanical Drive Evolution

160
Large gas turbine
140
Small gas turbine
120
Capacity worldwide (Mtpa)

Steam drive Where we go

100

80

60
?
40

20

0
1980 1990 2000 2005 2015
Start-up until

-
4. Searching for The Excellent LNG Technology

4.1. Which is the best technology ?

 The most efficient technology is the one that can effectively match the cooling curve of the liquefied
gas
 Thermodynamically speaking, Mixed Refrigeration is better efficiency than Pure Component
Refrigeration. And, multiple cycle refrigeration is better efficiency than single cycle (for the same
refrigerant type)
 So, the ‘ideal LNG technology’ is the one that:
 Use infinite number of refrigeration cycles, and
 Use mixed refrigeration in each cycles
 Nevertheless, those refrigeration equipments do not exist in the real world. In fact, it is a complete
opposite of ‘economic of scale rule’.
 Equipment design calls for a larger and less equipment to improve cost and economics
 The ‘Best LNG Technology’ should be an appropriate balance of thermodynamic efficiency and the
use of the largest (and proven) equipments
 There is no such ‘Best LNG Technology’, select your best LNG technology that match your specified
capacity, gas composition and commercially available process drivers, refrigeration compressors and
main heat exchanger technology
4.2. Rule of Thumb !

 Capacity Rule of Thumb

 For smaller capacity, up to 1 mmTpa such as in peak shaving LNG Plant, motor driven
SMR would be the ‘ideal technology’
 For a larger capacity LNG design, the evaluation is more complex. The ‘ideal technology’
would be the one that can match the power of commercially available gas turbine driver.
 Current LNG industry is dominated by GE Frame-5D (33 MW) and GE Frame-7EA (84
MW). Approximate power to capacity match, not included helper power
 One GE F-5D (33 MW) : 0.6 mmTpa
 Two GE F-5D (66 MW) : 1.2 mmTpa
 One GE F-7EA (84 MW) : 1.5 mmTpa
 Three GE F-5D (99 MW) : 1.8 mmTpa
 One GE F-9EC (127 MW) : 2.3 mmTpa
 Two GE F-7EA (168 MW) : 3.0 mmTpa
 Three GE F-7EA (252 MW) : 4.4 mmTpa
 Two GE F-9EC (254 MW) : 4.5 mmTpa
 Best Fit Rule of Thumb : pick your desired LNG capacity, find the closest match of driver
configuration (rounded up), find the technology that using the same number of cycles as
the driver configuration.
 Again, this is a rule of thumb. Don’t try your luck with your Billions dollar investment with
this methodology. Set a competitive technology bid, and do a thorough technical and
economical evaluation.
4.3. The technology is improved

 Many ways to improve LNG design efficiency and economics.

 Gas Turbine Waste Heat Utilization (Co-generation System)
 Improve gas turbine system efficiency by 15%, equivalent to production efficiency of
5%
 Install Absorption chiller (heat pump) to colder plant cooling media, then pre-cooling
refrigerant power will be less compared with no heat pump facilities
 LNG Expander
 Improve production efficiency by 2%
 Starter/Helper Dual Function
 Applicable for large gas turbine which requires large starter (such as Frame-7 and
Frame-9), use the starter power as continuous helper power
 All Motor Driven Refrigeration
 Centralized very large and efficient electrical power co-generation (Frame-9)
 Reduced overall CO2 emission, more environmentally friendly option
 High efficiency motor driver, but requires complex starting system (torque converter)
 Use of Largest Gas Turbine (GE Frame-9)
 Not a proven application. Require Frame-5 as starting device.
 Tandem refrigeration compressors add to operation complexity and probably
reliability
 Use Very Large, Single Brazed Aluminum Exchanger
 Unfortunately not commercially available, current largest BAE is only 1/10 of one
APCI Spiral Wound Heat Exchanger