Microsoft Word - LNG Large Scale Background Paper Oct2006 PDF

Santos Santos Santos Santos
C:\TEMP\LNG BACKGROUND PAPERS\LNG LARGE SCALE BACKGROUND PAPER OCT2006.DOC PAGE 1

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

LARGE SCALE LNG

BACKGROUND PAPER

PREPARED BY
TI TL E:
PRI NCI PAL ENGI NEER STRATEGI C TECHNOLOGI ES
NAME:
G. N. HUNTER

REVI SI ON HI STORY
REVI SI ON DETAI LS: DATE:
0 I SSUED 25TH OCTOBER, 2006


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. LNG SUPPLY CHAIN 5
2.1 Gas Pre-treatment 8
2.2 LNG Liquefaction 8
2.2.1 Gas Liquefaction Basics 8
2.2.2 Liquefaction Processes 10
2.2.3 Economy of Scale 10
2.2.4 Operating Performance/Availability 13
2.2.5 Process Selection 13
3. TECHNOLOGY VENDORS 14
3.1 APCI 15
3.1.1 Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PMR or C3-MR) Process 15
3.1.2 AP-X Process 16
3.2 Phillips 17
3.3 Shell 21
3.3.1 SMR process. 21
3.3.2 DMR process. 21
3.3.3 PMR process 23
3.4 Linde 25
3.5 Axens 27
4. ASSOCIATED FACILITIES 28
4.1 LNG Storage Tanks 30
4.1.1 Total Storage Capacity 30

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
4.1.2 Number of Tanks 30
4.1.3 Type of Containment 31
4.1.4 Pump Column for In-tank Pumps 35
4.1.5 Tank Pressure Control 36
4.1.6 Purging and Cooldown 36
4.1.7 Insulation 37
4.2 Jetty and Marine Facilities 37
4.2.1 Ship Size 37
4.2.2 Berth Occupancy 38
4.2.3 LNG Tanker Berth and Loading Dock 38
4.2.4 Safety in Port and Jetty Design 40
4.3 Shore-To-Ship Interface And Transfer Piping 41
4.3.1 LNG Loading Arms 41
4.3.2 Loading Line 43
4.4 Vapour Handling (Boil-Off Gas) 45
5. LIQUEFACTION EQUIPMENT SELECTION. 46
5.1 Main Cryogenic Heat Exchangers (MCHE) 47
5.1.1 Spiral Wound (Coil Wound) Heat Exchangers 47
5.1.2 Plate Fin (Brazed Aluminium) Heat Exchangers 49
5.1.3 Core-in-kettle 51
5.1.4 Cold Boxes 51
5.2 Compressors and Drivers 54
5.2.1 Combustion Gas Turbines 54
5.2.2 Electric Motors 55
6. ATTACHMENTS 55
6.1 LNG Trains Operating or being executed 55

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
6.2 LNG Train Current Maximum Capacity 55
6.3 LNG EPC Contractors Experience 55


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
1. INTRODUCTION
This Background Paper presents an overview of Large Scale Baseload LNG export plants, provides an
introduction to the processes available for the liquefaction section of a Baseload LNG plant, and discusses some
of the technology selection issues that affect LNG plant configuration.
Since the first LNG liquefaction train came into operation in 1964, some 110 trains have been brought on line
(or are currently in design or construction phases). Tables listing trains, sorted by process licensor and EPC
contractor, are included as Attachments 6.1 and 6.3.
Starting in the 1960s, with single train capacity less than 1Mtpa (million tonne per annum), train sizes have
increased eight-fold, with 7.8Mtpa trains under construction in Qatar. Refer to Attachment 6.2 for a table of
current maximum train capacities for each technology.
For the purposes of this paper I have used the term Mini for plants less than 300,000tpa, Mid-scale for plants
between 0.3 and 2Mtpa and large for plants over 2.0Mtpa. In this document I have concentrated on providing
background regarding Large Scale LNG plants. Refer to the separate October 2
nd
, 2006 Background Paper
which covered Mini & Mid-scale LNG.
No attempt has been made herein to cover floating LNG.
2. LNG Supply Chain
The typical LNG supply chain is comprised of facilities similar to those below, of which only those within the
Base Load Liquefaction Plant box will be discussed in this memorandum.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The production of LNG from natural gas involves two distinct process steps, being:
Gas Pre-treatment - the removal of impurities and contaminants such as acid gas, mercaptans,
water and mercury; and

LNG Liquefaction - Pre-cooling and the removal of heavy hydrocarbons to prevent hydrocarbon
freeze-up and plugging of the cryogenic equipment and to ensure that the calorific value of the LNG
meets specification; and liquefaction and sub-cooling.

The typical process scheme for an LNG plant (using the Phillips Process):


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The Darwin LNG plant (which uses the Phillips LNG Process):


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
2.1 Gas Pre-treatment
In a typical LNG plant the feed gas will be delivered at high pressure (e.g. up to 90 bar, 1300psi) from
upstream gas fields. The gas is metered and its pressure controlled to the design pressure of the plant. The
gas is first pre-treated to remove any impurities that interfere with processing or are not desired in the final
products.
Pre-treatment upstream of a liquefaction unit traditionally consists of an acid gas removal step, in which CO
2

and sulphur compounds (H
2
S, COS and mercaptans) are removed, a dehydration step and a mercury removal
step. Treating unit requirements are determined by the liquefaction unit requirements (water, CO
2
),
specifications of the LNG product (H
2
S, COS, organic sulphur compounds), material protection (mercury) and
environmental restrictions (SO
2
and hydrocarbon emissions). In addition waste streams have also to fulfil
minimum specifications.
Where there are high levels of H
2
S and limitations on the SO
2
emissions, the removed sulphur components are
recovered as elemental sulphur. Environmental limitations to hydrocarbon emissions can require incineration of
CO
2
acid gas even in the absence of sulphur compounds. The mercury removal step can be positioned
upstream of the acid gas removal or downstream of the dehydration step.
Most of the operational base load LNG plants process feed gases with only low concentrations of CO
2
, mercury
and water. This type of gas requires the minimum of treating, often comprising a CO
2
removal unit, molecular
sieves for drying and a carbon bed for mercury removal. The relative capital investment for acid gas removal in
a LNG plant increases significantly with increasing CO
2
content. At 2 mol% CO
2
the acid gas unit represents 6%
of the processing equipment cost but at 14 mol% CO
2
it represents 15% of the processing equipment cost.
New developments such as membrane technologies are starting to be considered as an option for bulk removal
of CO
2
but solvent absorption remains the most cost effective treatment process for meeting LNG specifications.
The LNG product specification (e.g. heating value/Wobbe number etc) for the end market for the LNG will also
determine the pre-treatment (and liquefaction) processing requirements. Most LNG contracts specify a range
of acceptable heating values for the LNG sold into a particular market. In most cases, this requires that a
certain fraction of the heavier hydrocarbon components found in natural gas be removed prior to liquefaction,
so that the LNG does not exceed the upper heating value limit. Some natural gases also require removal of the
heavy ends to prevent operating problems in the liquefaction cycle, such as freezing of aromatic hydrocarbons
at low temperatures.
The remaining gas is made up mainly of methane and typically contains less than 0.1 mol% of pentane and
heavier hydrocarbons.
2.2 LNG Liquefaction
Studies of the different liquefaction processes by independent consultants suggest there is not one of them, on
its own, that is substantially more efficient than the others in all situations. Rather, each technology can be
competitive within a certain range of train sizes. The ultimate choice of which process to select will remain
dependent on project-specific variables and the potential development state of novel processes.
2.2.1 Gas Liquefaction Basics
The liquefaction section is the key LNG plant element. Liquefaction processes mainly use mechanical
refrigeration, in which heat is transferred from the natural gas, through exchanger surfaces, to a separate
closed loop refrigerant fluid. The refrigerant loop uses the cooling effect of fluid expansion, requiring work input
via a compressor.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
LNG plants consist of parallel units, called trains, which treat and liquefy natural gas and send the LNG to
storage tanks. Liquefaction train capacity is primarily determined by the liquefaction process, refrigerant used,
and largest available size of the compressor/ driver combination that drives the cycle and the heat exchangers
that cool the natural gas.
Basic principles for cooling and liquefying gas using refrigerants involve matching, as closely as possible, the
cooling/ heating curves of the process gas and the refrigerant. This results in a more efficient thermodynamic
process requiring less power per unit of LNG produced, and it applies to all liquefaction processes. Typical
natural gas/refrigerant cooling curves are shown in this figure:

Observing the cooling curve of a typical gas liquefaction process, three zones can be noted in the process of
the gas being liquefied. These include a pre-cooling zone, followed by a liquefaction zone, and completed by a
sub-cooling zone. All of these zones are characterized by having different curve slopes, or specific heats, along
the process. All of the LNG processes are designed to closely approach the cooling curve of the gas being
liquefied. This is done by using specially mixed multi-component refrigerants that will match the cooling curve
at the different zones/ stages of the liquefaction process to achieve high refrigeration efficiency and reduce
energy consumption.
The natural gas, being a mixture of compounds, liquefies over a wide temperature range. Matching of heat
curves by minimising the temperature difference between the cooling process gas and refrigerant streams can
be achieved by using more than one refrigerant to cover the temperature range and using the refrigerant at
different pressure levels to further split the temperature ranges to closely matching ones. The process gas side
is normally operated at high pressure (e.g. 40 50 bara) to reduce equipment size and provide more efficient
refrigeration.
The liquefaction cooling curve performance is a benchmark that is reviewed in LNG technology comparisons
and is often misunderstood or incorrectly applied when considering energy performance relative to lifecycle
cost. Caution should be used with this type of comparison. Detailed knowledge of each liquefaction process
design, the options they can achieve at different performance levels along this curve, and these options' cost
impact, is required for a valid comparison.
Because LNG liquefaction requires a significant amount of refrigeration energy, the refrigeration system
represents a large portion of an LNG facility. A number of liquefaction processes have been developed, with the
differences mainly confined to the type of refrigeration cycles employed. The most commonly utilized LNG
technologies are described below. These processes are used in current plants or are applied in projects in
progress. However, there are other processes developed for baseload LNG applications, which are being
considered for future projects (and of these only the Axens process is discussed here).
The liquefaction section typically accounts for 30% to 40% of the capital cost of the overall liquefaction plant,
which in turns accounts for 25% to 35% of total LNG export plant costs. Key equipment items include
compressors used to circulate the refrigerants, compressor drivers, and heat exchangers used to cool and
liquefy the gas and exchange heat between refrigerants. For recent baseload LNG plants, this equipment is
among the largest of its type and at the leading edge of technology.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

The composition of the refrigerant gives an added control parameter as it can be made either from pure or
mixed components. With a mixed refrigerant the composition can be adjusted to suit the process conditions.

The aluminium heat exchangers used [e.g. the spiral wound heat exchangers (SWHE) or the plate fin heat
exchangers (PFHE)] have very large surface areas and a large number of passes, to enable close temperature
approaches.

2.2.2 Liquefaction Processes
Variations of three liquefaction processes have used for large scale base-load plants. These are:
The classical cascade in which a three-stage pre-cooling cycle is followed by a three-stage ethylene
liquefaction cycle and a three-stage methane sub-cooling cycle;
The single flow mixed refrigerant process in which a mixture of nitrogen, methane, ethane, propane
and normal butane is used as the refrigerant.
The propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant (PMR) process in which pre-cooling is undertaken in a three-
stage propane cycle compressor and pre-cooling heat exchangers. Liquefaction and sub-cooling are
undertaken using a two-stage mixed refrigerant compressor, separator, liquefier and sub-cooler.
As a general statement, LNG technology licensors have focused on three aspects of LNG production; these are:
The compression required in the refrigeration cycles;
The power to drive the refrigeration cycles with the exception of the Kenai plant, all of the earliest
plants used steam turbine driven compressors. Now, combustion gas turbines are the norm. Certain
licensors are looking to utilize the largest frame turbines, whilst others are considering aero-derivative
GTs; and
The Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger (MCHE) that is used to chill the incoming gas. Until recently,
APCI with its spiral-wound heat exchanger (SWHE) dominated the design and manufacture of this
component. Linde also manufactures such a unit. Brazed aluminium plate-fin heat exchangers (PFHE)
are now challenging the dominance of the SWHE. These high efficiency units used for MCHE service in
both the Phillips and Axens processes, and are also used for lesser services in the APCI AP-X and the
Statoil/Linde MFCP processes.
2.2.3 Economy of Scale
The trend towards larger train size seems inevitable as the still relatively young LNG industry seeks to lower
unit capital costs through economies of scale. Moreover, there is a growing consensus that the hyper trains will
prove technically feasible by introducing new line-ups and/or paralleling known equipment. But as train size
increases, an array of factors including overall capital requirements, added complexity during construction,
specific venture conditions such as resource availability and market considerations make it unlikely that hyper
trains will be a "one size fits all" solution for the industry.
To meet the demand for larger LNG trains, the providers of LNG technologies (including APCI, Phillips, Linde,
Shell and Axens) have been engineering ever larger throughput trains, with nominal capacities of around
5million tonne per annum (Mtpa) now in operation and up to 7.8Mtpa being constructed (refer to Attachment
6.2).

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The technical limitations involved in scaling up train size vary between the different liquefaction processes. The
size of the combustion gas turbines used to drive the compressors is a limitation in most of the processes and
in the case of the APCI PMR process, the size of the spiral-wound exchangers is also a limitation. Other
challenges include the size of the large diameter cryogenic piping headers and control valves.

Economies of scale as a result of bigger individual trains have significantly reduced liquefaction plant capital
costs and enhanced the competitiveness of LNG in international energy markets. In the 1960s 1Mtpa was
regarded as a large train and train capacity increased slowly throughout the 1970s and 1980s such that a
decade ago, the largest LNG production capacity per train was around 2.5Mtpa. By the late 1990s, this had
risen to 3Mtpa and the most recent trains have been constructed with capacities of 4 to 5Mtpa. Now the
industry is setting its sights on super sized trains that are capable of producing 7.8Mtpa.

The following chart compares the growth in train size over time (cerise curve) with the associated increase in
LNG Carrier (LNGC) capacity (blue diamonds and green curve):

One limitation to train size has been the feasibility of manufacturing larger heat exchangers and transporting
them from the manufacturing site to the field. For spiral wound heat exchangers (SWHE) employed by APCI,
winding the tubing and manufacturing and transporting the heat exchanger has been strongly related to the
shell size, which is limited to 18-20 feet in diameter. This manufacture and transport limit for SWHEs capped
the APCI C3-MR and Shell DMR processes to around 5Mtpa. The technology developers have overcome this (in
APCIs case, refer to their AP-X process, and in Shells case refer to their PMR process) so that the same size of
spiral wound heat exchanger being manufactured today can be used to produce much higher output. As a
result, heat exchangers compatible with a 7.8Mtpa train are within the industry's capability and the ultimate
true single LNG Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger (MCHE) could perhaps support 8-10Mtpa trains from a
technical feasibility standpoint.

As train sizes have increased, operators have employed ever-larger gas turbine drivers to power refrigerant
compressors. Earlier gas turbine driven LNG plants used smaller, dual shaft gas turbines as compressor drivers.
The 28 MW ISO rating of the GE Frame 5 gas turbine limited maximum possible train capacity to about 2.7Mtpa
without resorting to multiple compressor-drivers in parallel (such as used in the Phillips process). LNG train
production of 3.3Mtpa or more for the C3-MCR liquefaction process was made possible with the use of GE
Frame 6 gas turbine (ISO rating of 38.5 MW) as driver for the propane refrigeration cycle compressor and a GE

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Frame 7 gas turbine (ISO rating of 80 MW) for the driver for the mixed refrigerant compressor. The use of the
GE Frame 7 gas turbine drivers for both C3 and mixed refrigerant cycles compressors enabled individual train
capacity up to 4 to 5Mtpa. Now APCI is employing GE Frame 9 gas turbine drivers in their AP-X process. Such
increases come at a price, including more expensive drivers, more difficult start up and greatly reduced
flexibility of operation. Further optimization and technical innovation is required for gas turbine drivers and
compressors to meet these high planned production rates and to cope with the increasing requirements for
availability and operability.
Another potential bottleneck in the ultimate realizable train size is the ability to extract impurities from the feed
gas. If the feed gas contains a concentration of CO
2
and/or H
2
S of 20-50% or greater, treating plant could
easily limit train size. Removal of these two most common impurities in natural gas is a costly and complex step
in LNG manufacture. Such treating often requires high pressure, thick walled, large diameter vessels. While
these vessels are limited in size to around 18 to 20 feet, this bottleneck can be removed if parallel design is
employed.

While technical feasibility appears within the industry's grasp, LNG export ventures must consider an array of
other factors when considering whether a super sized train fits their needs, including:
The overall capital cost of the project, rather than unit costs;
Whether the plant is to be onshore, on a gravity-based structure or floating;
Adequacy of gas resource base;
Complexity of scheduling, and additional manpower and other resources during construction phase;
The robustness of process and design (requires 20-40 years of operation);
Safety over the life of the project;
Compatibility of operation and maintenance with existing trains for an expansion project, as well as
similarity of equipment for spare parts;
General ease of maintenance and accessibility of major components, including supplemental
refrigerant;
Ease of start-up (and restart);
Minimum emissions; and
Experience of the technology partner with the process.

Therefore, choosing a liquefaction process is not a matter of simply comparing one technology against another.
Rather, it is part of a whole range of factors that must be considered in order to achieve maximum value in
project implementation. Furthermore, as engineering and construction firms come up with innovative
combinations of equipment, the concept of an LNG "train" could blur.

Finding sales outlets for the large incremental LNG production from a hyper train remains a significant
commercial challenge. There are only a few buyers willing to make large purchase commitments from single
trains. In general, customers are seeking small tranches of LNG to match the requirements of newly liberalizing
and competitive markets. Moreover, many buyers are insisting on long ramp-up periods in their purchase
contracts. Delays in production build-up could quickly erode any specific cost benefits from the new hyper
trains. At the same time, potential economies of scale do little to help the producer maintain a steady cash flow
stream, particularly if it is a relatively new seller with most of his "eggs" in a single large train "basket."

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
2.2.4 Operating Performance/Availability
The ability of a facility to achieve the required annual production and export volumes is dependent on the
overall system availability which is in turn a function of equipment reliability, sparing philosophy, planned
shutdowns and unscheduled shutdowns.
Normal strategy for a baseload facility is that a single component failure or malfunction must not cause a
shutdown of the plant through a cascade of events and may only affect the operation of a specific facility or
unit. Some projects adopt a policy whereby in general, sparing of equipment is minimized and only selected
equipment has installed spares. In establishing the economics for a project, it is important to establish the
overall system availability as soon as practicable so that technical limitations and commercial expectations are
properly aligned. Optimized sparing is determined by reliability modelling and cost-benefit analysis.
The design availability for LNG plants ranges from 340 days per year to 350 days per year corresponding to 93
to 95+ percent availability. Downtime for schedule maintenance of refrigeration gas turbines is generally set at
an average of 7 days per year. In practice the compressors become the critical path for maintenance and
downtime. Best in class performers achieve around 10 days per year for unplanned downtime.
2.2.5 Process Selection
Each process has its merits and, depending on plant capacity, more than one process may be economical. The
choice of optimal process can vary based on site location, feed gas price and ambient conditions, and
evaluation of a number of processes may be necessary to determine the best economically over a
developments full life cycle.
Choosing the optimum process is crucial to reducing plant capital cost as reduction in liquefier costs also
reduces utilities and offsites costs. The choice of liquefaction cycle depends on many factors of which the
major ones are:
Machinery configuration and available drivers;

Specific power requirement (affecting machinery capital cost and operating cost);

NGL recovery or nitrogen rejection requirement;

Heat exchanger type and surface area;

Required flexibility; and

Ease of operation/start-up/shutdown.

All of these issues should be considered in process technology selection. Contacts will be made with the LNG
liquefaction licensors, LNG experienced EPC contractors and main equipment vendors to obtain data and
develop designs to enable valid comparisons and optimum selections to be made. Technology selection of
process and equipment will be based on technical and economic considerations:
Depending on the stage of project development, sufficient process details must be developed to define
main equipment and operating parameters to evaluate options using relevant criteria;

Technical considerations include process and equipment experience, reliability, process efficiency, site
conditions and environmental impact among others;


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Economic issues include capital cost, operating cost and life cycle costing. All of these aspects will need
to be evaluated to arrive at the optimum solution;

Technical risks associated with a process relate to the track record of the process in operation and any
developments required for the project e.g. capacity increase;

Process efficiency, for example energy required to produce LNG, is not solely related to the
thermodynamic efficiency of the liquefaction process but also to the efficiency of the main equipment,
such as the main refrigerant compressors and drivers;

Site conditions may favour one type of process over other. For example, with very cold ambient
temperatures multi-mixed refrigerant processes may offer the optimum solution;

Process requirements and configuration will have an influence on selection. A requirement for greater
LPG recovery may suit processes with lower pre-cooling temperatures;

Wider feed gas range will require better process adaptability and may favour mixed refrigerant
processes with the added flexibility of changing refrigerant composition; and

Refrigerants made up from components that can be produced in the process (in the fractionation unit)
will obviate the need for external supply to make up refrigerant losses.
3. Technology Vendors
Some 80% of total liquefaction capacity uses the Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APCI) propane/mixed-
refrigerant system. APCIs strategy was so effective that they were the only successful liquefaction process
supplier for about 25 years. Their pre-cooled propane mixed refrigerant (C3-MR) system became the standard
in which project investors could rest assured it would operate as advertised.
Early patents for APCI's precooled propane mixed refrigerant (C3/MR) process have expired. So, not only are
new competitors vying for market share, but also former customers (such as Shell) are devising systems in-
house.
APCI dominance has recently been successfully challenged by Phillips, Shell, Linde-Statoil and IFP-Axens
(although the latter has not yet found a commercial application).
The following technologies are potential candidates for a Large Scale LNG Project (listed in order of experience
refer to Attachment 6.1):
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APCI) Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PMR or C3-MR)
Process and the AP-X Process Technologies;
ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade (OCP) Process Technology;
Shell Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) Technology;
Statoil-Linde Mixed Fluid Cascade (MFC) Process Technology;
IFP-Axens Liquefin Technology.
Selection of an EPC Contractor will be run in parallel with LNG liquefaction technology selection. Attachment
6.3 provides background regarding contractors experience with designing and constructing LNG trains since the
first in 1964.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
3.1 APCI
APCI is based in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
APCI markets both their Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PMR or C3-MR) and the AP-X processes:
3.1.1 Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PMR or C3-MR) Process
The Propane Pre-cooled Mixed Refrigerant (C3-MR) process, developed by APCI, began to dominate the
industry from the late 1970s on. This process accounts for a very significant proportion of the worlds baseload
LNG production capacity and train capacities of up to 5.0Mtpa have been built.

There are two main refrigerant cycles. The pre-cooling cycle uses a pure component, propane. The liquefaction
and sub-cooling cycle uses a mixed refrigerant (MR) made up of nitrogen, methane, ethane and propane.

The pre-cooling cycle uses propane at three or four pressure levels and can cool the process gas down to 40
C. It is also used to cool and partially liquefy the MR. The pre-cooling is achieved in kettle-type exchangers
with propane refrigerant boiling and evaporating in a pool on the shell side, and with the process streams
flowing in immersed tube passes.

A centrifugal compressor with side streams recovers the evaporated C3 streams and compresses the vapour to
15 25 bara to be condensed against water or air and recycled to the propane kettles.

In the MR cycle the partially liquefied refrigerant is separated into vapour and liquid streams, which are used to
liquefy and sub-cool the process stream by cooling from typically -35C to between -150C to -160C. This is
carried out in a proprietary spiral wound heat exchanger (SWHE), the main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE).
The MCHE consists of two or three tube bundles arranged in a vertical shell, with the process gas and
refrigerants entering the tubes at the bottom and flowing upward under pressure..

The process gas passes through all the bundles to emerge liquefied at the top. The liquid MR stream is
extracted after the warm or middle bundle and is flashed across a Joule Thomson valve or hydraulic expander

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
on to the shell side. It flows downwards and evaporates to provide the bulk of cooling for the lower bundles.
The vapour MR stream passes to the top (cold bundle) and is liquefied and sub-cooled, and is flashed across a
JT valve or expander into the shell side over the top of the cold bundle. It flows downwards to provide the
cooling duty for the top bundle and, after mixing with liquid MR, part of the duty for the lower bundles.

The overall vaporised MR stream from the bottom of the MCHE is recovered and compressed by the MR
compressor to 45 48 bara. It is cooled and partially liquefied first by water or air and then by the propane
refrigerant, and recycled to the MCHE.

In earlier plants all stages of the MR compression were normally been centrifugal, however, in some recent
plants axial compressors have been used for the LP stage and centrifugal for the HP stage.

The SEGAS Damietta LNG plant in Egypt (at 5Mtpa, the largest APCI C3-MR plant):

3.1.2 AP-X Process
A limitation of the C3-MR process, which caps the capacity of this process to around 5Mtpa for a single train, is
the physical size of the SWHE required, and the ability to manufacture and transport the largest examples of
these. While the SWHE could be paralleled to increase single train capacity (refer to the Shell PMR process
below), APCI introduced a new technology called AP-X Liquefaction Process Technology, which allows LNG
production trains to produce approximately 8Mtpa, over a 50 percent increase from today's 5Mtpa standard.
This new design marries APCIs standard LNG technology with the company's air separation technology.
A modification of the APCI process, the APX process is a hybrid C3-MR cycle adding a third refrigerant cycle
(nitrogen expander) to conduct LNG sub-cooling duties outside the MCHE.

The new process employs three
refrigeration stages, propane (C3), mixed refrigerant (MR) followed by a nitrogen (N2) expander cycle, and
there are several options of a suite of refrigerants. It is expected to be similar to C3-MCR in that it is highly
efficient. The addition of the nitrogen expander cycle to sub-cool LNG can reduce the refrigerant flow
requirements of C3 and MR per unit of LNG production. Thus, by using proven compression equipment without
duplicating or paralleling requirement, the individual train size can be greatly increased.

With the new AP-X Hybrid LNG Process, train capacities up to eight million metric tons per year are feasible in
tropical climates, in existing compressor frame sizes without duplicate-parallel compression equipment, and

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
using a spool-wound main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE). The AP-X process is being utilised for the 6
trains, each of 7.8Mtpa capacity, that are currently under development for RasGas and Qatargas in Qatar.

The process cycle is an improvement over the propane-precooled, mixed refrigerant (C3-MR) process in that
the LNG is sub-cooled using a simple, efficient nitrogen expander loop instead of mixed refrigerant. In addition
to improving the efficiency, the use of the nitrogen expander loop makes greatly increased capacity feasible. It
does this by reducing the flow of both propane and mixed refrigerant. The nitrogen-expander loop is a
simplified version of the cycle employed in hundreds of air separation plans and nitrogen liquefiers worldwide.
Volumetric flow of mixed refrigerant at the low-pressure, compressor suction is about 60 percent of that
required by the C3-MR process while mass flow of propane is about 80 percent of that needed by the latter
process. Propane is used to provide cooling to a temperature of about -30C. The feed is then cooled and
liquefied by mixed refrigerant, exiting the MCHE at about -120C. Final sub-cooling of the LNG is done using
cold, gaseous nitrogen from the nitrogen expander.
The AP-X train can be operated at a reduced production rate of about 65 percent (5.2Mtpa) without the
nitrogen expander loop by adjusting the composition of the mixed-refrigerant inventory. The producer can
expand capacity later by adding the nitrogen-expander cycles.
The power split between the propane, mixed-refrigerant and nitrogen loops is flexible and can be manipulated
by changing the temperature range of the three refrigerant loops.
3.2 Phillips
ConocoPhillips is based in Houston, Texas.
Phillips Petroleum Company developed the original Optimized Cascade Process (OCP) in the 1960s. The
objective was to develop a liquefaction technology that permitted easy start-up and smooth operation for a
wide range of feed gas conditions. This process was first used in 1969 at their Kenai, Alaska LNG facility. That
facility was constructed by Bechtel and was the first plant to ship LNG to Japan, and it has achieved more than
37 years of uninterrupted supply to its Japanese customers.
The first new use of this process was for Train 1 of the Atlantic LNG plant in Trinidad which came on line in
1999. The process has emerged as a serious competitor to APCI's dominant liquefaction technology and other

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
LNG trains using this process have since been installed in Trinidad (4), Darwin (1), Idku, Egypt (2) and
Equatorial Guinea (1).

Train capacities of up to 5.2Mtpa are now operating. Bechtel, which is the engineering and construction firm
that has exclusive rights to the Phillips process, is working with ConocoPhillips to design even larger trains, with
an 8Mtpa train having been evaluated.

Refrigeration and liquefaction of the process gas is achieved in a cascade process using three pure component
refrigerants; propane, ethylene and methane, each at two or three pressure levels. This is carried out in a
series of brazed aluminium plate fin heat exchangers (PFHE) arranged in cold boxes. Pre-cooling can be carried
out in a corein-kettle type exchanger. The refrigerants are circulated using centrifugal compressors.

This process uses two pure refrigerants - propane and ethylene circuits, and a methane flash circuit - cascaded
to provide maximum LNG production by utilizing the horsepower available from 6 gas turbines. Each refrigerant
circuit has parallel compression trains using two 50% compressors with common process equipment. Frame 5
gas turbine drivers have been used for most plants, although Darwin LNG uses GE LM25000+ aero-derivative
gas turbines.

Brazed aluminium heat exchangers and core-in-kettle exchangers are used for the feed gas, propane, ethylene
and methane circuits. All of these heat exchangers, with the exception of the propane chillers, are housed in
two "cold boxes." All compressor inter-cooling, after-cooling and propane refrigerant condensing is provided by
fin-fan heat exchangers.

The Phillips' "two-in-one" design provides an added advantage as train size increases, especially when
production availability is important. This design incorporates two drivers per refrigeration service. As a
consequence, if one driver goes down, the entire train's production capacity is not lost. According to Bechtel,
production capacity using the Cascade process has an inherent availability advantage of about 4 to 5% over a
typical single driver-compressor train arrangement. Despite negative perceptions that the 2-in-1 compressor
concept means more drivers and compressors to maintain, those OCP plants operating achieve greater than
95% availability. For example, Train 1 at Atlantic LNG has operated with an availability of over 96% and the
original Kenai plant has achieved some 97% availability over its 37 year life.

The stated benefits of the 2-in-1 OCP concept include:

The ability to operate with one compressor down and still produce at approx. 60% throughput.

The ability to turndown throughput even lower with only 3 of the 6 compressors operating (I recall
from published papers that this can be as low as some 40%).

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

High availability as maintenance can be undertaken on individual compressors (shut down) while the
remainder of the plant continues to produce (albeit at reduced capacity as noted above). In fact
Atlantic LNG debottlenecked their Train 1 by changing out all of their compressor drivers (from GE
Frame 5Cs to 5Ds) one by one while still producing from the plant - no shutdowns involved! Because
of this, availability of these OCP plants is high. Bechtel believe that because APCI plants do not have
this flexibility, that the best that an APCI plant can achieve is circa 93%.

They can take advantage of the smaller proven gas turbines (such as GE Frame 5 and LM2500+ ) that
are available, rather than having to take the risk with larger KW drivers (note that Darwin LNG is the
first use of the more efficient aeroderivative gas turbines in an LNG liquefaction plant).

Unlike the APCI plants which have little turn down capability, the OCPs 2 x 50% compressor design means that
the following operating ranges that can be utilised (in addition to running in full recycle mode):

Operating Range % of design
capacity

Full plant 80 to 105

One compressor offline 60 to 80

Three compressors offline 30 to 60

Another feature of the 2-in-1 OCP process is that should a project be initially constrained to gas feedstock
volumes or reserves that can only support an initial 1.5Mtpa plant, then there is a way that a Phillips OCP
process can manage this as a phased 1.5+1.5 plant. In discussion with Bechtel they recounted work that they
did on a study some 8 years ago for a client who wanted to start at 1.5Mtpa and grow to 3.0Mpta. This project
did not proceed, however the idea is one worthy of consideration. Due to the 'standard' 2-in-1 design's 2 x
50% compression trains, the compression can be installed in 2 stages with 3 compressors initially (for the
1.5Mtpa capacity) and with the other 3 compressors (and drivers) being installed when the plant has gas
reserves and/or market to support a 3.0Mtpa plant. For this, the gas pre-treatment and utilities would be
designed and installed in 2 x trains (and if their were two distinct gas feedstocks, such as lean CSM gas and
richer/hotter pipeline sales gas, there is the possibility of dedicating each of the pre-treatment trains to a
different gas feedstock). Of course this 1.5+1.5 facilities arrangement and phased execution costs more than
going ahead with a Greenfield 3.0Mtpa plant in a single go. Even if this resulted in the same total costs of two
separate 1.5 trains, from efficiency/operability/maintainability points of view the integrated 1.5+1.5 would be
preferable.
The OCP can provide a facility with high thermal efficiency. The process utilizes proven technology and
equipment, and has a wide range of operational flexibility. Turndown rates to 10% are achievable for long-term
operation. Due to the pure component systems, the plant has easy start-up and operation. The plant boasts
low utility and reduced flaring requirements, because refrigerants are not flared on typical upset conditions.
This leads to reduced requirements for maintenance and operational staffing.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The four train Atlantic LNG plant, with the 5.2Mtpa train (currently the worlds largest) in the foreground:

A schematic of the two train BG Idku plant in Egypt:


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
3.3 Shell
Shell is based in the Hague.
The APCI C3/MR designs were traditionally the industry and Shells standard. Shell has developed its own
processes based on its experience with operating APCI process LNG trains in Brunei, Malaysia, Australia, Oman
and Nigeria.
Shell has designed Single-Mixed-Refrigerant (SMR), Double-Mixed-Refrigerant (DMR) and Parallel-Mixed-
Refrigerant (PMR) processes. With three different mixed-refrigerant cycles, Shell can design LNG trains with
capacities ranging from 0.5 to 7.0Mtpa. The process options in the Shell portfolio are all based on two
refrigeration cycles in series. Depending on the required capacity and local circumstances, different choices are
made with respect to the line-up of rotating equipment, type of refrigerant, ambient cooling medium and types
of cryogenic heat exchangers.
The Shell Double-Mixed-Refrigerant (DMR) process overcomes the inherent limitations of using a single
component refrigerant in pre-cooling in the C3/MR design; the additional degree of freedom resulting from the
use of two MR cycles allows full utilisation of power in a design with two mechanically driven compressors.
Furthermore, it allows keeping the compressors at their best efficiency points over a very wide range (up to
50C) of ambient temperature variations and changes in feed gas composition.

3.3.1 SMR process.
The traditional C3/MR design loses its advantage in economy of scale for small capacity liquefaction trains. For
this purpose, the more cost-effective Shell single-mixed-refrigerant (SMR) process has been developed. This
type of design is most suitable for the lower capacity ranges of 0.5 to 1.5Mtpa of LNG.
The process uses one refrigerant loop, which is used both for pre-cooling the natural gas circuit as well as for
pre-cooling the refrigerant. A dedicated, spool-wound heat exchanger provides for pre-cooling the mixed
refrigerant. A bundle break in the cryogenic heat exchanger allows overhead cooling of the scrub column for
removal of heavy hydrocarbons.
The unit operates at two mixed-refrigerant pressure levels. Three-stage compression drives the mixed-
refrigerant loop. The driver could be electric drive or mechanical-drive gas turbines.
3.3.2 DMR process.
The Shell DMR process has two separate mixed-refrigerant loops, hence the name. The DMR process is
designed for the mid and high capacity ranges of 1.5 to 4.5Mtpa of LNG. Shell is also developing a promising
air-cooled DMR version with capacities from 2.0 to 4.0Mtpa for tropical conditions.
The pre-cool mixed refrigerant circuit is used just like the propane pre-cool loop in the C3/MR process. This
circuit pre-cools both the natural gas circuit and the main mixed-refrigerant loop. The main difference between
this process and the C3/MR design is in the use of two spool-wound heat exchangers, rather than a multiple of
kettle exchangers for extracting heat from the circuits. Also, a less complicated two-stage centrifugal
compressor is included in this design.
The choice of an end flash system integrated with the liquefaction design is dependent on the nitrogen content
in the feed gas and the requirement of increased design capacities. For the large-scale Shell DMR process, the
capacity of the system can be boosted by some 5.0 percent to 10 percent by applying an endflash system.
The DMR design was selected for the Sakhalin LNG Project currently under construction, with an annual design
capacity of 9.6Mtpa (two trains @4.8Mtpa each). It is also being used for the Woodside NWS Train 5 and Pluto
Projects.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Process configuration is similar to the APCI propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant process, with the pre-cooling
conducted by a mixed refrigerant (made up mainly of ethane and propane) rather than pure propane. Another
main difference is that the pre-cooling is carried out in SWHE rather than kettles. The pre-cooling and
liquefaction SWHEs for Sakhalin were supplied by Linde.

The DMR process has two separate mixed refrigerant cooling cycles. One is for pre-cooling gas to about - 50C
(PMR cycle), and the other is for final cooling and liquefaction (MR cycle). This concept allows the designer to
choose the load on each cycle. It also uses proven equipment, e.g. spiral-wound heat exchangers (SWHEs),
throughout the process.
PMR vapour from the pre-cool exchangers is routed via knock-out vessels to a two-stage centrifugal PMR
compressor. De-superheating, condensation and sub-cooling of the PMR is achieved by using induced-draft air
coolers.
The PMR compressor is driven by a single gas turbine, equipped with an electric starter motor/ generator. The
refrigerant compressors are driven by two Frame 7 gas turbines, equipped with a separate variable speed
starter/ helper motor. An axial compressor is also used as part of the cold refrigerant compression stages.
The cooling for liquefaction of the natural gas is provided by a second mixed refrigerant cooling cycle (MR
cycle). This cycle's refrigerant consists of a mixture of nitrogen, methane, ethane and propane. Mixed
refrigerant vapour from the shell side of the main cryogenic heat exchanger is compressed in an axial
compressor, followed by a two-stage centrifugal compressor. Inter-cooling and initial de-superheating is
achieved by air cooling. Further de-superheating and partial condensation is achieved by the PMR pre-cooling
cycle. The mixed refrigerant vapour and liquid are separated, and further cooled in the main cryogenic heat
exchanger, except for a small slipstream of vapour MR, which is routed to the end flash exchanger.
Shell has also developed technology to further push the propane cycle capacity, by employing double casing
instead of single casing equipment. This reliable method brings the propane-MR process closer to a capacity of
5Mtpa. Another possibility for the propane-MR process is to transfer power from the propane cycle to the mixed
refrigerant cycle. The closer coupling between the two cycles by mechanical interlinking of compressors is an
operational challenge.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
A further development of the DMR process is the electrically-driven DMR (LNG GameChanger) design. The
Gamechanger concept is based on parallel line-up of electrically driven refrigerant compressors around a
common set of cryogenic spool wound exchangers. Electric motors of 65MW have already been constructed for
LNG service. Motors up to 80MW are considered feasible. The current electrically driven DMR design is
particularly attractive in the 58Mtpa capacity range. Electrically driven LNG trains can compete with
mechanically driven trains because the increase in cost 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 reduction in overall plant carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions, by using combined
cycle electric power generation.
3.3.3 PMR process
Shell's portfolio also includes designs for ultra large trains based on the company's own liquefaction technology.
The company's Parallel-Mixed-Refrigerant (PMR) process employs a common pre-cool cycle serving two parallel
liquefaction cycles using three large industrial-type gas turbines, which enable a production of 6 to 7Mtpa.
Much of the equipment has been used in previous designs. The train can run at 65% capacity when one of the
liquefaction cycles is down.
Shell has developed the PMR process to meet the current challenge of the industry for larger train sizes in
tropical conditions. With a single pre-cooling cycle and two PMR cycles, the capacity can be boosted up to
8Mtpa with three GE Frame 7 compressors in a tropical climate. The process can either use C3 or MR in pre-
cooling. Proven refrigerant cycles can be used and the design can currently be applied, without step changes
in technology. The capacity can be increased further with different (larger) drivers.

Gas receipt and natural gas treating is followed by a single propane pre-cooling cycle. After pre-cooling, the
flow is distributed over two parallel strings, each having a scrub column for NGL extraction and an MR cycle for
liquefaction and sub-cooling of the natural gas. The scrub column overheads are cooled by the MR to create
reflux and ensure the required extraction level. Each liquefaction cycle has its own MR circuit, driven by a gas
turbine. The sub-cooled liquid from the two liquefaction cycles is combined in an end-flash system, where fuel
gas is flashed off and LNG is sent to storage at atmospheric pressure.

The split-propane technology is applied to limit the propane suction flows to acceptable levels. In this
arrangement, the four-stage propane compressor is 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. This split arrangement results in a lower
volumetric flow per stage, for the same compression duty.

In order to achieve the targeted 8Mtpa production capacity with the driver configuration chosen, an extended
end-flash system is required for the conditions prevalent in this study. The application of such a system allows
an increase in the run-down temperature from the main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE) in the liquefaction
cycle.

The additional flash gas that is generated as a result of this, which cannot be accommodated in the fuel gas
system, is compressed, condensed and recycled back into the end-flash gas system. In this way, power in the
MR circuit is freed up and replaced by power in the end-flash gas compressor. This relieves the power
constraint in the MR circuit and enables higher LNG production capacity. The extended line-up as chosen here
results in some 4% to 5% additional LNG capacity.

As an alternative for the extended end-flash system, larger compressor drivers like GE-Frame 9 or Siemens
V84.2 can be used to achieve a production capacity of 8Mtpa or higher. Two of the key parameters in this
process design are the scrub column overheads temperature and the cut-point temperature between the C3
and MR cooling cycles.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The scrub column overheads temperature sets the level of propane recovery. In order to achieve a specification
of an LNG product quality of say 1,110 British thermal units (BTU) per standard cubic foot (scf), a propane
recovery level of approximately 40% to 45% is required. At the pressures prevalent in the scrub column, this is
accomplished by using MR cooling to approximately -45C. The lowest propane cooling level is the cut-point
temperature between pre-cooling and liquefaction.

This temperature is optimised so that the utilised power is balanced to a 1/2 ratio between the pre-cooling and
the liquefaction cycles. The ability to tune the power balance exactly to the installed mechanical refrigeration
capacity in the PMR process is an advantage over the conventional C3/MR process where, due to other
constraints, the pre-cooling cycle cannot be fully loaded.

The Shell PMR technology for large LNG trains has a number of advantages. The processes are robust through
the application of well-proven equipment (e.g. spool wound heat exchangers, proven rotating equipment)
without requiring further scale-up. In fact, the main equipment in the PMR process is already in operation in
plants such as Nigeria LNG, North West Shelf LNG and Malaysia LNG. The parallel line-up of the liquefaction
cycles improves the reliability of the train since the LNG production can be designed to continue at 60% of the
train capacity when one of the liquefaction cycles trips. Moreover, it allows high production capacity with only
two refrigeration cycles in series, compared with three in most other large train concepts.

Due to the PMR line-up and the application of split-propane technology, the installed power of three GE-Frame
7 drivers can be fully utilised. Since these machines form a large part of the liquefaction unit cost, this makes
PMR designs very cost effective.

The Shell PMR process has a high efficiency through the use of two very efficient refrigeration cycles. The
parallel line-up reduces the pressure drop in the system, which also helps to improve efficiency. Another
advantage is the absence of a third cycle with associated efficiency losses due to temperature approaches in
the cooling of the third cycle refrigerant. Comparison by Shell of different large-train processes for similar
conditions and design premises has shown that the Shell PMR process has an efficiency up to 10% better than
alternative processes.

In a tropical climate, where air-cooling and GE-Frame 7 drivers are used, an LNG production capacity of 8Mtpa
can be achieved with the Shell PMR process. This production capacity can be achieved without stopouts in main
equipment or process technology. The Shell PMR process can be designed to produce different grades of LNG.
The installed driver power can be utilised fully by changing the cut-point temperature between the pre-cooling
and liquefaction refrigerant cycles.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
3.4 Linde
Linde Engineering is based in Munich.
Their business model is to market their patented technologies from early concept through to implementation.
Therefore the Statoil/Linde MFCP is exclusively available through Linde.
Linde is highly experienced with cryogenic processing technologies (to be expected for a company whose
founder Karl Linde in 1873 invented the first mechanical refrigeration), with many decades of ethylene, gas
processing, air separation and LNG experience.
Linde is well established in providing small scale LNG peak shaving plants (with 5 plants, starting with their first
LNG peak shaver in 1972), base load plants (with 4 very small plants plus Xinjiang and Snohvit) and satellite
plants (with 7 small plants).
Their flagship LNG project is the Statoil-Linde process 4.3Mtpa Snohvit LNG project due for commissioning mid-
2007. Their next biggest plant constructed is the 0.43Mtpa Xinjiang Phase 1 plant in China, and like Black &
Veatch they have submitted a LSTK bid for the ~0.8Mtpa Phase II expansion of this.
They are co-developer with Statoil of the LNG liquefaction technology being utilised for the Snohvit LNG
development in Norway. The Statoil/ Linde LNG Technology Alliance was established to develop alternative
LNG baseload plants for the North Sea and this work resulted in a new LNG baseload process, the Mixed Fluid
Cascade Process (MFCP).
Additionally, Linde manufacture cryogenic exchangers (both plate fin heat exchangers and spiral wound heat
exchangers) and have done so for decades. Linde pioneered spiral wound heat exchangers in early 1900s. As
well as being used within their own process, Linde spiral wound heat exchangers (SWHE) are being installed
within APCI and Shell liquefaction processes, in new projects and as replacement for old APCI cryogenic
exchangers, on many world-scale LNG trains.

The MFCP uses three mixed refrigerants to provide the cooling and liquefaction duty. Pre-cooling is carried out
in a plate fin heat exchanger (PFHE) by the first mixed refrigerant, and the liquefaction and sub-cooling are
carried out in spiral wound heat exchanger (SWHE) by the other two refrigerants. The SWHE may also be used
for the pre-cooling stage. The refrigerants are made up of components selected from methane, ethane,
propane and nitrogen.

The 3 refrigerant compression systems can have separate drivers or integrated to have 2 strings of
compression. Frame 6 and Frame 7 gas turbine drivers have been proposed for large LNG trains (> 4Mtpa). A
novel feature of the Snhvit project is that all electric motor drivers will be used for the main refrigerant
compressors, with sizes up to 60 MW.

Within this proprietary process, purified natural gas is pre-cooled, liquefied and sub-cooled by three separate
mixed refrigerant cycles. The pre-cooling cycle's cold is transferred to natural gas via two PFHEs, whereas the
cold of the liquefaction and sub-cooling cycle is transferred via two SWHEs by the other two refrigerants. The
three refrigerant compression systems can have separate drivers or be integrated to have two strings of
compression.
The MFCP is a classic cascade process with one important difference - mixed component refrigerant cycles
replace single component refrigerant cycles, and thereby improve thermodynamic efficiency and operational
flexibility. The MFCP concept is built up by well-known elements. The size and complexity of the separate
SWHE applied in the MFCP are considerably less when compared with today's single unit used in dual-flow LNG
plants. Last, but not least, MFCP allows larger, single compressors to handle refrigerant over a larger
temperature scale.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

For Snohvit the process facilities are barge-mounted for ease of fabrication, to save costs since the site is
remote. The barge forms the permanent foundation for the process equipment. The barge, with process plant
facilities installed, was fabricated in Spain and dry towed to Hammerfest on a heavy lift vessel.
The Snohvit process barge being floated into its prepared space at site:


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The completed Snohvit LNG plant on Melkoya Island, Hammerfest:

3.5 Axens
Axens is based in Paris.
The Institute Francais de Petrole (IFP) developed the Liquefin process that is licensed through Axens. While
this process has not yet been accepted for a commercial application, BP invested in its evaluation for
commercial application and it is being considered for several projects in Iran (where companies such as APCI
and ConocoPhillips are excluded due to USAs trade embargo).
Claims made by Axens for the Liquefin process are that it produces LNG cheaper than with any other process
and that very high capacities can be reached with a simple scheme and standard compressors. No plants have
been built so these claims are yet not proven.

The Liquefin process is a two-mixed refrigerant process designed for base load projects of train sizes up to
6Mtpa. All cooling and liquefaction is conducted in plate-fin heat exchangers (PFHE), arranged in cold boxes.
The PFHE arrangement is at the heart of the liquefaction technology. The PFHEs are non-proprietary and can
be supplied by a number of independent vendors.

The refrigerants are made up of components from methane, ethane, propane, butane and nitrogen. The first
mixed refrigerant is used at three different pressure levels to pre-cool the process gas and pre-cool and liquefy
the second mixed refrigerant. The second mixed refrigerant is used to liquefy and sub-cool the process gas.
Using a mixed refrigerant for the pre-cooling stage, the temperature is decreased down to a range of - 50C to
- 80C depending on refrigerant composition. At these temperatures, the cryogenic mixed refrigerant can be
completely condensed, no phase separation is necessary and, moreover, the quantity of cryogenic refrigerant is
substantially reduced.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

Overall necessary power is decreased, as the quantity of cryogenic mixed refrigerant is lower, and a good part
of the energy necessary to condense it is shifted from the cryogenic cycle to the pre-refrigeration cycle.
Moreover, this shifting of energy allows a better repartition of exchange loads. The same number of cores in
parallel can be used all along between the ambient and the cryogenic temperature, allowing a very compact
design for the heat exchange line. A very significant advantage of this new scheme is the possibility to adjust
the power balance between the two cycles, making it possible to use the full power provided by two identical
gas drivers.

The Liquefin process is very flexible. It offers more than one possibility to reach large, highly competitive
capacities, either by using very large gas turbines (combined cycle) to produce electricity, and large electrical
motors (up to 70 MW) in parallel on each cycle, or by using larger gas turbines. Frame 7 gas turbines are
proposed for large LNG trains. The Frame 9 has very recently been qualified for mechanical drive. With
Liquefin, this would allow capacities of 7 to 8 Mtpa with only two main drivers.
The process has been reported by Axens as representing a real breakthrough with a total cost reduction per
ton of LNG of 20% when compared to the APCI C3-MR process. The cost reductions arrive from: 1) increasing
the plant capacity; 2) reducing the heat exchanger costs; 3) all-over plate-fin heat exchangers; 4) a compact
plot area; and 5) multi-sourcing of all equipment, including heat exchangers.

It is particularly well-adapted to the range of 4 to 8Mtpa per train.
4. Associated Facilities
As well as the LNG liquefaction process plan described above, other specialised facilities are required for an
LNG development including those systems for; storage, loading, LNG pumpout and boil-off handling.
Storage
The system consists of one or more specially designed tanks. Ships to transport the LNG arrive at the terminal
at specific intervals. The minimum required storage capacity is the volume of LNG discharged to the largest
ship expected at the terminal. In practice, the installed storage is larger than this minimum. The extra storage
provides a cushion to account for scheduled and unscheduled delays in ship arrival. The storage tanks
represent a substantial capital cost. The volume of LNG stored in these tanks is large and a failure of one or
more tanks could have disastrous consequences. Because of the exacting design and operational techniques
used, the modern LNG industry has had an excellent safety record.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Loading
The LNG loading system consists of all the facilities, infrastructure and equipment required to safely dock the
LNG ship, to establish the necessary ship-to-shore interfaces, and for transferring the cargo from the onshore
tanks to the ship's tanks. The system also includes facilities for disconnecting the ship-to-shore interface at the
end of the loading operation, and for undocking the ship prior to its return voyage.
Specifically, the loading system consists of:
Breasting and mooring dolphins for securing the LNG ships to the loading berth;
The loading platform which supports the loading arms and the control building;
The control and emergency safety systems housed within the control building;
The liquid loading arms for transferring LNG from the shore piping to the ship;
The vapour return arm for returning vapour from the ship to shore (created from the ship's cargo tanks
because of the LNG being pumped in);
Connections for transfer of utilities (e.g. nitrogen) from the shore to the ship;
The piping, valves and vessels required for transferring the LNG;
The return vapour and the utilities between the loading berth and the main terminal facilities; and
If the loading berth or jetty is some distance from shore, a pier connecting the jetty to the shore, will
be required to provide both access to the jetty and support the ship-to-shore piping.
LNG Pumpout
The LNG tanks operate at very low pressure, just slightly above atmospheric pressure. Pumping of cryogenic
liquids, especially at the high rates required in LNG facilities, is specialized technology. In modem terminals the
first stage pumps are almost always installed inside the storage tanks, and referred to as in-tank pumps. The
second stage pumps, when required (if for instance there is a long loading jetty), are located outside the tanks.
These second-stage pumps discharge at a pressure sufficiently high to satisfy the battery limit pressure at the
terminal fence.
Boil-Off Handling
LNG is a cryogenic liquid having a temperature, at atmospheric pressure, of about -162
0
C. Heat entering the
LNG (often referred to as "heat in-leak") causes the LNG to warm up. However, in the storage tanks the LNG
needs to be maintained at a sufficiently low temperature, consistent with the low operating pressure. Hence,
heat absorbed by the LNG has to be released by "flashing" (or boiling-off) some of the liquid to gas.
Handling of boil-off gas requires compression equipment that is costly to install and operate. Every effort is
made to reduce the amount of boil-off gas produced. Three main factors cause LNG boil-off;
The LNG loaded into the ship may be slightly warmer than the temperature in the storage tanks;
The energy used by the loading pumps is ultimately transferred to the LNG as heat; and
Ambient heat transferred into the LNG through the cryogenic insulation in pipes, equipment and
storage tanks.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Boil-off gas is essentially gasified LNG at atmospheric pressure. It has substantial fuel value and, except in
emergencies, should not be vented or flared. Design and operation of the boil-off gas handling system involves
setting priorities for its efficient disposition, including its utilization as fuel gas and reliquefaction. Boil-off gas
generated in the loading mode can be many times greater than the gas generated in the period between
loadings (the period between loadings is referred to as the "holding mode"). Hence, larger compression
equipment may be needed for the loading mode.
4.1 LNG Storage Tanks
LNG storage tanks account for a large portion of the cost of an LNG plant. LNG is stored in double-walled tanks
at atmospheric pressure. The storage tank is a tank within a tank, with insulation between the walls of the
tanks.
Important factors to consider while specifying the LNG storage system include:
Total storage capacity required;
Number of tanks required;
Type of containment preferred;
Applicable codes to be used; and
Other considerations like tank internals, commissioning and insulation.
4.1.1 Total Storage Capacity
Determination of total storage capacity is seldom a simple and straightforward exercise. Clearly, the minimum
required capacity would be the volume of the largest LNG tanker expected at the terminal, plus a small margin
above this (buffer). Another way to look at the storage requirement is in terms of number of days of LNG
production.
The number of days of buffer (spare volume) storage capacity varies. For instance, the Darwin LNG storage
tank at 188,000m3 capacity has only some 2.5days of buffer when loading 145,000m3 ships. 5 to 10 days is
more typical however.
Computer simulations are helpful in fine-tuning decisions regarding the LNG storage capacity, and also the
number of LNG ships, their size and speed, and their utilization among different facilities. It is important to note
that the primary determinant of storage capacity is the philosophy adopted by the owners. Computer
simulations can be used as a tool for fine tuning the capacity, after the basic philosophy has been established.
The theoretical volume of storage required, assuming there are no delays in LNG ship arrivals and no variations
in LNG production rate, is easy to calculate. In practice there will be events-both scheduled and unexpected-
that will cause deviations from this theoretically ideal situation. These could include, for example, predictable
events like maintenance turnaround at the liquefaction plant, scheduled maintenance for the LNG ships,
seasonal variations in LNG delivery, maintenance at downstream power plants, or seasonal variations in
sendout requirements. Other disruptions that are anticipated, but whose timing cannot be predicted, might
include unscheduled downtime at the liquefaction plant, weather-related ship delays, or unexpected downtime
at the power plant.
4.1.2 Number of Tanks
Once the total storage capacity is established the number of tanks should be decided.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The minimum number of tanks can be determined based on the total storage volume required and the
maximum capacity of a single tank. The latter number however is not fixed and will depend on the type of
containment, type of construction and applicable codes.
For Greenfield LNG export plants the norm has been to install two 50% tanks as part of the initial development.
This was to provide assurance that at least one tank would be available should one tank require scheduled or
unscheduled maintenance. For Darwin LNG however, the Operator (Phillips) weighed up the risks and made
the decision to install a single tank (at 188,000m3, the largest above-ground tank installed at that time).
Despite the excellent record of reliability with LNG tanks many owners prefer two smaller sized tanks instead of
a single large tank. The baseload nature of the facility and the implications of a long-term take or pay contract
often favour multiple tanks.
Most of the LNG tanks in service have capacities of 100,000 cubic meters or less. Aboveground tanks with an
inner metal wall have now been built for capacity as high as 200,000 cubic meters. However, the maximum
capacity is limited by the availability of the required wall thickness 9% nickel plate. Below-ground tanks using
the membrane type design with reinforcing concrete have been built for capacities as high as 200,000 cubic
metres, and above-ground tanks with concrete inner and outer walls have been proposed for 250,000 cubic
metres capacity.
In specifying storage tank capacity it is important to remember that the "usable" volume in the tank is less than
the total tank volume. The minimum level to which the LNG in the tank can be lowered, will be limited by the
LNG pumps' ability. Similarly, to avoid tank overfill it will be necessary to limit the maximum fill level to less
than the full height of liquid container. The ratio of usable volume to built-up volume will depend on the tank
height, the pumpout arrangement, the LNG pump characteristics, and the instrumentation/control philosophy
Typically only about 95% of the volume is usable (for example the Darwin LNG of nominal 188,00m3 capacity
has actually some 200,000m3 of built capacity, or 94% usable). The LNG at the bottom of the tank that isnt
used is called the heel.
4.1.3 Type of Containment
A variety of storage tank designs have been employed in LNG service, all of which are characterized by their
heavy insulation and special material requirements.
LNG storage tanks are classified in terms of containment type (single, double or full), and erection method (in-
ground, semi-buried and above-ground). All three containment types are designed to store LNG safely and
contain any spills in the unlikely event of a leak in the primary liquid container, and are designed with an inner
and outer wall separated by insulation materials. The inner wall must be designed for LNGs low cryogenic
temperature and the material used most extensively is 9% nickel steel, as this remains ductile at cryogenic
temperatures.
Safe use of LNG, or any cryogenic substance, requires an understanding of how materials behave at cryogenic
temperatures. At extremely low temperatures, carbon steel loses its ductility and becomes brittle. Therefore,
the material selected for tanks, piping, and other equipment that comes in contact with LNG is critical. The use
of high nickel content steels, aluminium, and stainless steels is costly but necessary to prevent embrittlement
and material failures. High alloy steels composed of 9% nickel and stainless steel will be used for the inner tank
of LNG storage tanks and for other LNG applications. In much of the discussion above the primary liquid
containment is assumed to be constructed of 9% Ni steel. In addition to 9% Ni, other materials that are
suitable for cryogenic service include aluminium and stainless steel. Aluminium is no longer considered
economical for large LNG tanks. However, stainless steel is a viable material and is routinely used in the
membrane-type design. The membrane technology for LNG tanks relies on a post-tensioned concrete outer
tank for structural strength and a steel-corrugated membrane for liquid and gas tightness. Membrane type
tanks have been used extensively in Japan where in-ground tanks have been built with capacity as high as
200,000 cubic meters. Membrane technology has also been used successfully for above ground LNG tanks.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The main features of the typical single, double and full containment tanks are summarised below:

1. Single Containment Tank

Double-walled with an interior tank is made of 9% nickel, while the outer tank is made of carbon steel;

Only the inner primary container is required to meet the low temperature ductility requirement for
storage of the product;

The outer container serves primarily to contain insulation and vapour and to provide a weather shield.
In the event of leakage from the primary container the outer tank is not designed to contain the
refrigerated liquid;

The tank is surrounded by a bund wall or dike to contain any leakage;

Single containment tanks are less expensive and rely on a separate impoundment to contain the design
spill;

The required distance between the earthen type bund wall and the tank adds significantly to the total
land area. This type of impoundment system has a large footprint, resulting in a large heat flux
exclusion zone;

The cost of a single containment tank is about 65% that of a corresponding full-containment tank. If
land is scarce this cost advantage might be reduced; and
The construction time for a single containment tank will be about four months less compared to a full
or double containment tank.

2. Double Containment Tank

Both the inner self-supporting primary container and the secondary container are capable of
independently containing the refrigerated liquid;

The secondary tank, typically a concrete wall, is located outside the primary tank. In the event of a
leak, the secondary tank contains the cryogenic liquid and limits the surface area and vaporization of
an LNG liquid pool. However, it is not intended to contain any vapour resulting from such a leakage;


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The primary liquid container and the shell to contain the insulation are similar to a single-containment
tank. However, in addition to it there is a surrounding concrete wall that is capable of containing the
cryogenic liquid in the event of a leakage from the primary container. Unlike the bund wall surrounding
a single-containment tank, this wall is located close to the primary container. This ensures that the
liquid pool, in the event of LNG leakage, has a smaller surface area compared to the single-
containment system.

The 2 x 140,000m
3
LNG double containment storage tanks at the BG Idku, Egypt LNG facility:

3. Full Containment

A full containment tank typically consists of a 9% Ni inner tank with a prestressed concrete outer tank.
The reinforced concrete roof is lined with carbon steel, with the liner also functioning as formwork for
the concrete.
Both the self-supporting primary container and the secondary container are capable of independently
containing the refrigerated liquid;


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The inner tank contains the LNG under standard operating conditions. The outer shell, bottom and roof
are made out of pre-stressed concrete;

The outer tank supports the outer roof and is also intended to contain the LNG;

Full containment tanks offer the highest level of safety;

The outer tank or wall composed of approximately 1 metre of concrete is one to two meters away from
the inner tank;

The outer tank is capable both of containing the refrigerated liquid and of controlled venting of the
vapour resulting from product leakage after a credible event;

The outer tank, which includes a reinforced concrete roof lined with carbon steel, can be designed to
withstand realistic impacts from missiles or flying objects;

Concrete provides good resistance to heat radiation from nearby LNG fires. There will be a significant
time delay before structural weakening of the reinforcement occurs;
Concrete also provides good protection against possible LNG spills on the tank roof. The effects of cold-
shock, if any, will most likely be restricted to a small area, and generally should not affect the vapour-
tight integrity of the tank;
The cost significantly more and require about six months longer to construct than the equivalent single
containment tanks; and

Typically, full containment type tanks are used in sites where the public is nearby or where security
issues exist. Outside the U.S., virtually all new above-ground LNG storage tanks have been either full-
containment or double-containment designs.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

4.1.4 Pump Column for In-tank Pumps
Modern storage tanks have no side or bottom penetrations. All penetrations, including those for LNG sendout,
are through the roof of the tank to avoid siphoning of the full content of the tank in case of piping failures.
This design substantially reduces the amount of LNG spilled in the unlikely event of a rupture or leakage in the
sendout piping.
In-tank pumps are provided to transfer the LNG out of the tanks and into the sendout system. In older
facilities the LNG pumps were usually located external to the tank, and a cryogenic line from the bottom of the
tank conveyed the LNG to the pump suction. In modern facilities, for safety reasons, LNG tanks are designed
with no bottom or side penetrations. Instead, in-tank pumps, located at the bottom of the tank and inside a
pump column, are used. The fabrication and installation of the pump columns requires coordination with the
pump supplier.
The LNG transfer pumps comprise in-tank pumps submerged within pipe deepwells extending from the top of
the domed roof to the bottom of the inner tank. Typically, four pump deepwells are installed, but only three
wells will contain pumps, leaving one well as a spare.

Crane/winch facilities above the roof are used to extract and re-install pumps undergoing maintenance.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The 188,000m
3
Darwin LNG storage tank showing the external riser and pump access platform:

4.1.5 Tank Pressure Control
The tank pressure must be controlled within a narrow range. During normal operation, the vapour handling
system will increase or decrease the boil-off' gas removal rate to maintain the required pressure. However,
properly designed over-pressure protection and vacuum protection systems must be installed to handle upset
conditions and unusual circumstances. Typically, metal roof tanks are restricted to a design pressure of less
than 150 millibar gauge. Concrete roof tanks can be designed to withstand a much higher internal pressure,
perhaps as high as 300 millibar gauge. A higher design pressure allows a greater range of operating pressures,
and may also permit direct return of vapour to the ship, without the need for compression. LNG tanks are
usually designed for vacuum conditions between 0 and -10 millibar gauge. Under normal operation a vacuum
condition is not expected, but a vacuum protection system is required to safeguard against upset conditions.
4.1.6 Purging and Cooldown
When an LNG tank is put into service, such as during initial commissioning, the atmosphere in the tank has to
be changed from air to natural gas. Natural gas vapour is primarily methane which, in certain concentration
ranges, can form a flammable mixture with oxygen. To avoid the possibility of forming a flammable mixture the
oxygen content in the tank must be reduced to less than 12%. In practice a margin of safety is included and
the oxygen content should be reduced to around 8% or 9%. This is accomplished by purging the tank with
nitrogen, which is an inert gas. The annular space between the inner and outer tanks contains the insulation,
usually loose perlite. Effective purging of the perlite is also a requirement and means to accomplish this must
be provided.
Cooldown of the tank is a sensitive operation, and must be completed prior to filling it with LNG. Cooldown is
accomplished in a slow and gradual manner with cooldown rates (degrees per hour) limited by the tank vendor
specifications. Cooldown must be not only gradual but also uniform, so that temperature gradients within the
tank are within the limits specified by the tank vendor. Cooldown is accomplished by spraying liquid nitrogen or
LNG into the tank. A spray ring, located below the suspended deck of the tank, ensures uniform spraying and
cooldown. Sufficient number of thermocouples, located at suitable intervals, are provided to monitor the

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
cooldown progress. If a source of liquid nitrogen is conveniently available it would be preferable to have the
first tank cooled and ready to receive LNG when the first ship arrives. Subsequent tanks can then be cooled
using LNG from the first tank.
4.1.7 Insulation
Insulation is necessary to limit heat leak into the LNG tanks. Heat leak typically averages around 0.05% to
0.06% of full tank contents per day. Different types of insulation are used in different parts of the tank.
Typically, the annular space between the inner and outer tanks is filled with loose perlite (expanded mica). In
addition, a resilient blanket, such as fibreglass material, is installed on the outside of the inner tank. This
blanket provides resiliency for the perlite as the tank contracts due to temperature changes, and prevents
settling of the perlite. The blanket also facilitates flow of the purge gas during the tank inerting process. In
membrane type tanks an internal insulation such as rigid PVC foam is used to transmit liquid pressure from the
membrane to the concrete tank.
Heat leak from the roof of the LNG tank is limited by installing insulation on the suspended deck (which is
suspended from tile roof). There is no insulation immediately beneath the roof, and the vapour space between
the suspended deck and tile tank roof will be close to ambient temperature. A suspended aluminium roof deck
insulated with fibreglass blankets is typical.
Another critical area for tank insulation is the floor. Besides adequate thermal insulation capability, the material
should have sufficient mechanical strength to withstand the liquid loading. Most of the LNG tanks use cellular
glass for bottom insulation. The maximum allowable liquid head is limited by the mechanical strength of the
cellular glass. This is another reason why the maximum height (and hence the capacity) of a tank to be fully
hydrotested is less than that for a tank requiring only a partial hydrotest. The bottom of the storage tank will
be insulated with several layers of foamglass insulation located between the two tank containment floors.
4.2 Jetty and Marine Facilities
The marine facilities have significant influence in the site selection for the LNG facility. The advantages of
using an existing port, with associated infrastructure, must be weighed against the potential problems or
constraints that it might impose. In selecting a suitable site, particular emphasis should be given to the
hazardous nature of the LNG cargo that requires safety considerations quite different from other general cargo
that might be handled in a port.
4.2.1 Ship Size
The range of sizes of LNG ships to be handled at the facility should be decided early. While many factors like
water depth, jetty dimensions, radius of the turning basin etc are governed by the largest expected carrier, it is
important for the designer to know if smaller ships will also call at the terminal. If there is a plan for the export
to a variety of import terminals, making provisions to accommodate a range of ship sizes might be appropriate.
This will also provide flexibility in possible spot cargo sales.
A typical full-size (125,000 to 150,000 m3) LNG tanker is about 280/290 metres long, 43/49 metres wide and
have a loaded draft of 11/12 metres. Although larger supersized LNG carriers, such as the Q-flex (about
216,000 m3) and Q-max (about 250,000 m3) LNGCs, are on order and will enter the world fleet over the next
few years, these are being built primarily for the Qatar to Europe trade.
The loading dock, the approach channel and the turning basin should be positioned to allow an under-keel
clearance of about 10% (about one meter). The dock should be positioned so that in an emergency the ship
can depart quickly, if possible with the assistance of the prevailing wind.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
4.2.2 Berth Occupancy
Many LNG terminals require only a single loading jetty. But expansion of capacity in the future might require a
second or even third jetty. The need for an additional jetty will be determined by the expected "berth
occupancy." There are no firm rules, but many owners prefer not to exceed berth occupancy of 40% to 50%.
Assuming a typical 24-hour tanker turn around, one loading every three days corresponds to 33% berth
occupancy, which is a very comfortable level. However, a tanker loading every other day corresponds to a 50%
occupancy rate-on the high side for some owners.
Many ports have restrictions on night navigation for ships carrying hazardous cargo. This means that an LNG
ship cannot enter the port after dark, nor can it leave before daybreak. Restrictions on night navigation must
be built into the calculation of berth occupancy, LNG carrier in all expected weather' conditions. The local port
authority should establish and strictly enforce procedures and restrictions consistent with the volume and name
of marine traffic.
4.2.3 LNG Tanker Berth and Loading Dock
The marine facilities that are required for receiving LNG tankers include those structures to safely berth and
moor the vessel, and those structures that provide the interface between the vessel and the shore to safely and
efficiently load cargo. The marine structures typically include four berthing/breasting dolphins, six shore
moorings and one loading platform.

The docking facility is designed to accommodate the sizes of the anticipated LNG tankers. It normally consists
of a pier with moorings and loading facilities. Moorings connect the tanker securely to the jetty so that the LNG
can be transferred from onshore piping to the ships tanks. In most respects, an LNG docking facility is similar
in size to those that handle supertankers delivering crude oil. One difference is that an LNG tanker has a much
higher profile (125 feet). Therefore, when considering the placement of docking facilities, facility designers
must account for the effect of prevailing winds on the manoeuvrability of those ships.

The Darwin LNG jetty, with a photograph below of one of the first shipments leaving:


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

The Darwin LNG jetty, with one of the first shipments leaving:

Marine facilities may consist of:
Entrance and exit navigation channel
The alignment, depth and width of the entrance/exit channel connecting the berthing area with deep water
should safely accommodate the ships while entering and leaving. Ideally the channel axis should be a straight
line from the berth to the nearest deep water. However, wind, dredging requirements and sedimentation
patterns might dictate a different alignment.
Typical vessel dimensions are as follows: between 270 and 300 m in length, between 41 and 48 m in width;
and between 10.8 and 11.5 m draught. A minimum under-keel clearance of 1.5 m will be retained during the
lowest astronomic tide (LAT).
Turning and berthing basin.
The function of the turning basin is to provide a transition area between the entrance charnel and the berthing
area. The dimensions and alignment should allow an entering ship to slow down, stop and turn, and berth with
tug assistance. The configuration should also allow a departing ship to leave for sea with little or no tug
assistance.
LNG jetty

The loading berth consists of mooring points to take the ship's mooring lines, fendered breasting structures and
a loading platform protected from ship contact. The breasting structures should be capable of withstanding
impact forces of berthing as well as the breasting forces of the ship in berth under maximum wind and wave
conditions. The LNG berth structures consist of a 30-meter by 30 meter loading platform, four breasting
dolphins and six mooring dolphins. These berth structures consist of open grid steel decks on steel beams
supported by steel pipe piles driven through steel jackets.

The loading dock and upper mezzanine section provides sufficient area for the loading arms and safety
systems, operator's station, power supplies, control systems, emergency systems and access for a mobile crane

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
or other equipment for maintenance purposes. A closed concrete deck area with curbs and a containment sump
is provided the dock. A separate closed concrete mezzanine level open stainless steel duct connecting to a
stainless steel containment sump on the southernmost breasting dolphin provides additional spill containment
and vapour dispersion protection for the mezzanine level under the loading arms.

The trestle to carry the loading pipe work and the roadway providing access from the shore to the jetty head.
The trestle structure will comprise an abutment, bridging for pipes, paved road, cable troughs, combined field
auxiliary room and substation platform. The paved road on the flyover will be 4 m wide with a minimum vertical
clearance of 4.5 m. The road will be capable of withstanding the movement of a lifting crane with a 30 t lifting
capacity in non-operating position.
The orientation of the jetty must consider the direction of the prevailing winds so that excessive strain on the
mooring system is avoided. The tidal currents will also affect jetty orientation and mooring design. Orienting
the jetty in the direction of the prevailing current will avoid undue strain on the moorings. Further, not all LNG
carriers have similar mooring equipment. If non-dedicated carriers are likely to visit the port it may be prudent
to make provisions to supplement the vessel mooring equipment with mooring equipment on shore.
If there is insufficient water depth near the shore, the jetty may have to be located in open water with a trestle
connecting it to the shore. The trestle should be at least wide enough to accommodate the piping, and in most
terminals a one-lane roadway is also provided to facilitate access for maintenance and emergency vehicles.
The alternative to a long trestle is dredging. The economic trade-offs between these alternatives should be
carefully evaluated by a competent marine consultant, and should consider not only first time costs but also
longer-term implications. The dredging option must include the costs associated with maintenance dredging
that might be needed at regular intervals. Also, it should be noted that dredging could alter the direction and
speed of the currents.
Service craft and service harbour.
Service craft typically include berthing tugs, pilot launches, and other vessels required to operate and maintain
the marine facilities. The service harbour will shelter these small craft. It can also be the headquarters for the
shops, storage, maintenance and administration facilities for marine operations. It may be convenient for the
terminal contractor to use this as his base during the construction period.
A marine offloading facility may be required if the site is isolated and there is no other convenient means for
transporting equipment and construction materials to the site. After terminal construction is complete the MOF
may be used for direct import of goods and materials to the terminal facility.
Navigation aids.
Navigation aids typically include floating buoys, beacons, electronic aids and communication system.
Breakwaters (if necessary).
The need for a breakwater, and its cost implications, should be assessed as part of the site selection process. A
baseload LNG terminal cannot tolerate significant shipping delays because the day charges on an LNG carrier
can be well in excess of $100,000. Further, if significant weather related delays are expected, it will require
additional LNG storage volume to be provided, which is also expensive. These factors, along with the estimated
number of days the berth may be unusable (due to adverse weather) must be considered when deciding if a
breakwater is to be built.

4.2.4 Safety in Port and Jetty Design
LNG port and jetty design requires a high level of built-in safety. A lot of attention is paid to hazards resulting
from a large release of LNG that can happen from events such as loading arm failure or a rupture in the ship's

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
cargo containment system. The likelihood of such events is remote but the consequences could be severe.
Hence, several levels of safety are built into the design philosophy. For example, the moorings are designed to
provide a secure connection between the tanker and the jetty structure. This will restrict the movement or
travel of the loading arms to allowable limits.
A second line of safety is the ship-to-shore emergency shutdown system (ESD), which can be activated both
automatically and manually. The ESD system will shutdown the ship's loading pumps and close LNG flow valves
both on the ship and shore within a specified time, usually 20 to 30 seconds. In addition, the loading arms are
usually fitted with emergency release couplings which allow automatic disconnection if the LNG carrier were to
continue drifting away. This disconnection can be done in a matter of seconds, and the amount of' LNG spilled
can be limited to a small quantity.
Past experience shows that navigational risks for LNG and LPG carriers, though small, are much higher in the
port than in open sea. This emphasizes the need for well-trained crew both in the LNG ship and in the port-
The port must be equipped with tugs of adequate power to control the LNG carrier in all expected weather
conditions. The local port authority should establish and strictly enforce procedures and restrictions consistent
with the volume of marine traffic.
4.3 Shore-To-Ship Interface And Transfer Piping
The transfer of LNG at high rates from the onshore tanks to a floating carrier requires attention to many safety
details. The reasons for this include the following:
The LNG tanker is not stationary, and is subject to constant and unpredictable movements due to
winds, waves and currents;
The fluid handled is not only hazardous but also in a cryogenic condition;
The transfer operation is intermittent. This means that ships connections have to be made prior to each
loading and disconnected after the cargo transfer is complete;
Because of the above factors, there are more possible causes of LNG spillage in the jetty area than in
other areas of the facility;
The consequences of an LNG spillage - even a small one - are likely to be more severe on the deck of
the LNG tanker or on the jetty, compared to other areas of the terminal; and
Large diameter cryogenic pipes are necessary to transfer the LNG to the ships. But cargo transfer
occurs only a part of time, typically for the period when the ship is in port. Hence, special measures
have to be taken to keep the transfer piping cold during the periods between tanker arrivals.
4.3.1 LNG Loading Arms
LNG loading is accomplished by using specialty LNG Loading Arms of the pipe and swivel design.
Typical loading time for a full-size tanker (125,000 to 145,000 m) is 12 to 15 hours. This requires peak loading
rates of about 10/12,000 m/hr. This can be accomplished by two 16-inch loading arms, each capable of
transferring 6,000 m3/hr. At these rates the velocity of the LNG in the arms is quite high, in excess of 12
m/sec. For smaller ships and lower rates, the loading arm size will be correspondingly smaller.
A vapour return arm is required for transferring natural gas vapour from the shore to the ship.
To ensure high reliability, a spare standby arm can be installed. A common configuration is two LNG loading
arms, one vapour return arm, and a spare arm which can be used for LNG loading or vapour return.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

The loading arms have the ability to allow for all of the combinations of tanker movement associated with
changes in draft condition, tidal changes and wave conditions at the loading dock. The loading arm has to be
inherently flexible and able to absorb the forces resulting from rapid changes in arm direction, which in turn is
caused by the movements of the LNG tanker. It also has to accommodate the vertical movements of the
tanker as the LNG is loaded. The transfer pipe portion of the loading arm is made of stainless steel, capable of
withstanding the -162C cryogenic temperature. Special designs have been developed so that only the
stainless steel tube piping, and not the rest of the loading arm structure, is subjected to the stresses resulting
from thermal contraction.
Another key component of the loading arm is the swivel joint. Again, special cryogenic swivel technology is
available, including double seals, so that long and reliable swivel life can be achieved.
The cryogenic arms are uninsulated. During loading the intense cold of the LNG causes rapid ice build-up on
the outer surface of the arms, and this thick layer of ice itself acts as insulation.
Due to the possibility of LNG spillage, safety is of utmost concern during ship-to-shore LNG transfer. Possible
causes of spillage include: 1) The connection and disconnection process between the ship and the onshore
arms, 2) leakage from the swivel joints, and 3) emergency disconnection of the arms. Connection/disconnection
is an operation that is repeated many times a year. In early facilities this was a manual operation that
presented significant chances of spillage. The use of "quick connect/disconnect" couplings has automated this
step and greatly reduced the likelihood of spillage. The technology for swivel joints has also advanced
significantly and resulted in very reliable designs. The third cause pertains to emergency disconnect. In the
case of an emergency, loading of LNG is stopped and the arms quickly disconnected from the ship. Isolation
valves will close prior to the disconnection, but the LNG contained between these valves will spill out. Special
designs are now available so the amount of spillage is very small. The loading arms are supplied with Power
Emergency Release Couplings (PERCs) for remote release should the tanker need to quickly disembark during
LNG loading operations.
In addition to the above, elaborate systems are available to monitor the position of the arms, the rate of
movement of the carrier, and for feedback of information so that corrective action can be taken. This allows the
loading emergency shutdown system (EST)) to be designed as a progression of steps rather than a single step
that results in immediate disconnection of the arms from the ship manifold. For example, the pre-alarm caused
by excessive arm movement might result in an action to increase the ship mooring tension. If the ship
continues to drift, the next level of alarm might cause the loading pumps to be stopped. Only if the ship

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
continues to drift further, and the final alarm stage is reached, will it be necessary to physically disconnect the
arm from the ship.
The Kenai, Alaska LNG export jetty showing the loading arms connected to the ship:

4.3.2 Loading Line
The transfer pipe from the LNG storage tank area to the jetty area is commonly referred to as the loading line.
Large diameter, cryogenic piping, with its attendant fittings, insulation and pipeways is expensive, and the
loading line should not be unnecessarily oversized. The optimum size is one that makes good use of the
pumping energy available from the storage tank's pumps. However, some factors may make it impractical to
transfer the LNG using the tanks' pumps alone. Examples include situations where the loading line is very long,
or where the storage tanks are located at a significant elevation compared to sea level. In these cases booster
pumps may be necessary to supplement the pumping head provided by the tank pumps.
During periods between ship arrivals, the loading line should be maintained in a cold condition, and not allowed
to warm up due to heat leak from the surroundings. To keep the loading line cold, a small portion of the LNG
from the discharge of the first stage sendout pumps is allowed to flow through the loading line, toward the
jetty. At the jetty, this LNG is diverted to a smaller-sized "recirculation" line, and returned to the onshore
process area.
There are two choices for configuring the loading line. One large-diameter loading line with a smaller
recirculation line, or two equal-sized loading lines each sized for 50% flow. With the first configuration, the
majority of the LNG will be transferred though the larger line, and a small portion through the recirculation line.
With the latter configuration, the LNG flow is split equally between the two loading lines. During the holding
mode, the second loading line also serves as the recirculation path.
The loafing lines are designed to prevent releases. Should there be a failure of a segment of piping at an LNG
facility, a spill of LNG or leak of gas vapour could occur. An LNG spill from a transfer line is very unlikely due to
the design requirements for equipment, such as use of proper materials of construction, minimal use of bolted
flanges and rigorous testing of LNG piping.
Typically, with a large loading line/small recirculation line arrangement, and with peak loading rates of
10/12,000 m
3
/hour, these large flow rates require transfer lines of at least 24" pipe and even larger if the
transfer line is fairly long. In most cases the transfer line to the ship is about 1.5 to 2 kilometres long, although

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
some lines are as long as 8 kilometres. Certainly the longer the line the larger the pipe size and the better the
cryogenic insulation system should be for these critical transfer lines. The reason for the longer lines in most
cases is because the shoreline is too shallow at the terminal location and the large ships cant get close to
shore, so the transfer lines are extended to reach the ship. The use of two equal loading lines will be more
expensive, however it does provide the flexibility that loading (albeit at a lower rate) can be accomplished even
if one of the lines is out of service.
This is the Isle of Grain LNG import terminal, with its 4.2klm LNG transfer lines:

Historically, LNG terminals field fabricate all necessary cryogenic pipe and then insulate it with polyurethane
foam, foam glass or other mechanically insulated materials. The thickness of this insulation varies from 6-12
inches, depending on a customers requirements and the insulation type. Insulation is installed mostly near
water, thus it is difficult to control the quality of installation and oftentimes, contamination results.

Conventional LNG transfer lines are constructed from austenitic stainless pipe insulated with polyurethane
(PUR) or polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam. Note that this type of pipeline is not suitable for direct burial because of
the poor mechanical strength of the insulation and the need for expansion loops to accommodate the
contraction as the lines cool from the ambient temperature at which they are installed to their operating
temperature. Also, this historically used insulation system for pipe utilizes mechanical insulation and cold shoes
that increase the heat leak into the pipe. It is difficult to seal the vapour barrier at these supports. Over time,
the insulation degrades, and the vapour barrier allows moisture into the insulation space that eventually
destroys the insulation itself. Such degradation is critical in LNG export terminals where all vapour is re-
condensed.
The operating temperature of -162
o
C represents nearly a 200
o
C drop from the ambient condition. The normally
preferred material of construction for the cryogenic piping is stainless steel. One kilometre of stainless steel
pipe, when cooled by 200
o
C, will contract by nearly three meters. Special provisions have to be made to
compensate for the pipeline movement due to thermal contraction. Two choices are usually considered:
expansion loops and expansion bellows. Expansion loops, as the name implies, are U-shaped segments,
installed at periodic intervals along the length of the pipe. Expansion loops are simple and reliable, but add
significant lengths of pipe. This increases pressure drop (due to increased length) and heat leak (due to
increased exposed surface). Also, if a long trestle is required there will be significant additional costs for
accommodating the loops on the trestle. Expansion bellows overcome some of the drawbacks of the loops.
However, the bellow corrugations are delicate and need special care during commissioning, cooldown and start-
up. Bellows will give satisfactory performance if properly designed and operated.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

There are a number of new technologies that overcome these problems, both of which are based on a pipe-in-
pipe configuration:

Pipe-in-pipe (with Invar and Aerogel)

The first system eliminates the need for expansion loops by using an inner pipe made from a 36% nickel alloy
(such as Invar) that has a very low coefficient of linear thermal expansion. The inner pipe is wrapped in a
blanket of microporous insulating material (such as Aerogel) and housed in an outer pipe that provides
mechanical protection. The outer pipe may be constructed from stainless steel to provide additional
containment in the unlikely event of a leak from the inner pipe. While use of Invar obviates the need for
expansion bellows in the loading lines, due to its low thermal expansion, Invar is extremely expensive.

Pipe-in-pipe (VIP)

The second technology is the Vacuum Insulated Pipeline (VIP) system (produced by Chart). It uses
conventional austenitic stainless steel for the inner pipe, but overcomes the contraction issue with in-line
internal bellows. Cryogenic temperatures are maintained by a vacuum jacket, the outer wall of which also
provides mechanical protection for the inner pipe. The introduction of VIP for LNG transfer service is a
significant development for the industry. VIP was first used to transfer LNG in 1998 in Trinidad. Since then, it
has been used on other installations in the U.S., Egypt and Australia (Darwin LNG) in aboveground LNG service
and it is also being used for the first time Texas in buried service.

VIP has emerged in recent years as an economical alternative to Mechanically Insulated Pipe (MIP) for LNG
transfer. The annular space between the inner and outer pipe is evacuated in the factory to a vacuum level in
the 10-3 Torr range and is then sealed to create a static vacuum that will last the life of the plant. This vacuum
nearly eliminates the convective heat transfer into the LNG pipe and makes this system thermally efficient. It is
also an important step in eliminating or substantially reducing all other means of heat transfer in the LNG. This
is done by installing multilayer insulation around the inner pipe to reduce the radiation heat transfer into the
LNG. The VIP design further reduces conductive heat transfer into the LNG by using special purpose bayonet
end connections. These are some of the standard VIP design innovations that are incorporated for all cryogenic
fluids to achieve a highly efficient insulation method that cannot be achieved by any other insulation method
available today. The inner LNG pipe normally is ASTM A312 304/304L stainless steel pipe while the outer pipe
may be made of stainless, carbon steel or one of many other alloys now available.

4.4 Vapour Handling (Boil-Off Gas)
Entry of heat into liquefied natural gas (LNG) generates boil-off gas (BOG).
Boil-off gas refers to the LNG vapours that are produced as a result of heat input and pressure variations that
occur within various LNG stages. To avoid loss of revenue and environmental impact, compressors can recover
this boil-off gas, which can then be used for other purposes. Compressors are a natural choice to recover and
transfer the boil-off gas that is produced during LNG ship loading, storage and transport stages.
A boil-off gas recovery system can be installed to collect the vapours, which can be safely disposed of through
re-liquefaction, used a fuel, returned to storage tanks, or as a last resort flared. The system is normally
designed so that no direct emission of cold gas into the atmosphere can occur during normal operation. The
system is designed to handle the boil off from the LNG tanks and all receivers containing LNG, and the
degassing systems of piping and equipment containing LNG.

The system connects the boil-off collection system to the vapour return arm of the dock. It provides for the
transfer of gas from the tank to ship(s) or reverse in order to compensate for the volume of liquid shifting
during unloading or loading, and the collection of boil-off from the ship while it stays at the dock or during
inerting of the tanks.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
For Darwin LNG the composite gases from the LNG tanks, and from the ship loading system, are compressed by
the Boil-off Gas Compressors and returned to the open cycle methane LNG plant refrigerant system. The BOG
compressors are electric motor driven centrifugal types designed for the cryogenic service. When there is no ship
loading, only one BOG Compressor is required to handle the vapours from the LNG storage tank.
5. LIQUEFACTION EQUIPMENT SELECTION.
Within a liquefaction process design there are a number of choices that must be made at equipment level,
although these are usually predetermined by the process technology chosen or the EPC design contractors
preferences.
All the main processes are licensed processes, and some also use proprietary equipment (such as the main
spiral wound heat exchangers (SWHE) used by APCI and Linde. The plate fin heat exchangers (PFHE) used by
some processes are non-proprietary and can be offered by different vendors).
Some of the considerations for equipment selection are given in the table below:

Technology Selection Items

Pros Cons
SWHE Robust & flexible operation. Proprietary / more expensive.

PFHE Competitive vendors available.
Lower pressure drop and
temperature differences.

Require careful design to ensure
good 2-phase flow distribution in
multiple exchanger configurations /
vulnerable to upsets.
Axial Compressors High efficiency. Suitable only at high flow rates.

Large Gas Turbines Proven, efficient & cost effective.

Less reliable / strict maintenance
cycle / more complicated control /
fixed speed.

Large Motor Drivers Efficient, flexible & more available.

Untried in LNG at speeds needed /
require large power plant

Mixed Refrigerant Process Simpler compression system.
Adjusting composition allows
process matching.

More complex operation.

Pure Component Cascade process

Potential higher availability. More equipment and complicated
compression system.

Air cooling (compared to sea water
cooling)

Lower cooling system Capex.

Less efficient process / higher
Opex.

Fluid heating medium (hot oil
compared to steam)

Eliminates the need for steam
generation & water treatment.

Higher reboiler costs.

Larger train capacity Lower specific costs (Capex per
tonne LNG).

Some equipment / processes may
require further development.

The following describes some of the equipment items in relation to their application in LNG liquefaction service.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
5.1 Main Cryogenic Heat Exchangers (MCHE)
The Main Cryogenic Heat Exchangers (MCHE) are the heart of the LNG liquefaction plant.
The exchangers are of aluminium construction and are the final cooling step in the liquefaction process, taking
the gas from approximately -50C to -153C. At that temperature the gas becomes liquid, and can be safely and
efficiently transported by tanker to the customer.
There are several choices of cryogenic exchangers available in the market; spiral-wound (SWHE), plate-fin
(PFHE) and core-in-kettle. Spiral-wound exchangers have a proven track record and are more costly. Plate-
fins are finding their entry in large-scale applications and kettle type exchangers are used mainly to cool at
moderate cryogenic temperature, like the pre-cool circuits.
Each of these heat exchanger types has specific benefits and disadvantages. Among other things, the plate fin
heat exchanger core has a relatively competitive cost.
The APCI C3-MR and Shell processes use SWHEs, the Phillips and Axens processes use PFHEs, while the
Statoil/Linde and APCI AP-X processes use combinations both SWHEs and PFHEs.
5.1.1 Spiral Wound (Coil Wound) Heat Exchangers
Both APCI and Linde manufacture spiral-wound heat exchangers (SWHEs).
Spiral-wound heat exchangers (SWHEs) are intricate, consisting as the name implies of bundles of fine
aluminium tubes twisted together in a braided, coil-like fashion. This is done to achieve high efficiency and
maximize the cooling area, while occupying as little space as possible.

Gas enters through large pipes at the bottom of each exchanger first the liquefier, then the subcooler and
passes through their many aluminium tubes. Coolants composed primarily of various gas mixes flow outside
the tubes to remove heat from their exteriors so that the gas inside is chilled. Starting at a high speed, the gas
slows down as it passes up the exchangers, taking about 30 seconds to travel from top to bottom. As it cools
down, the gas thickens and liquefies. Liquefied natural gas is removed from the system and piped to storage.

Each aluminium tube is about 100 metres long, is 10/12 millimetres in external diameter and has a wall
thickness of 1 millimetre.

The manufacturing procedure of the spiral-wound heat exchanger starts with the core cylinder, or mandrel,
which can be rotated on a winding bench in horizontal position. Support arms and liquid distribution trails are
connected to what will be the upper side of the heat exchanger when it is erected to its final vertical position.
Tube sheets are brought into their position at both ends of the heat exchanger. Spacer bars maintain the
designed distance between the mandrel and the first layer of the tubes. Now the winding of the inner layers of
the tubes can begin. Each layer is inserted into its tube sheet at one side, wound onto the mandrel and then
inserted into the corresponding tube sheet at the other side. When the winding of the first layer is performed
from left to right, the next layer is performed from right to left and so on. Proper distance between the
individual layers is kept by spacer bars. This procedure continues until the total diameter of the mandrel and
tube bundles approaches 3 to 4 metres. To avoid a by-pass at the shell side, the bundle is wrapped into a
shroud. After the tubes have been welded to the tube sheets, bonnets are welded to the tube sheets. Parallel
to the manufacturing of the bundle the lower and the upper part of the shell are fabricated. During assembly
the completed bundle is inserted into the lower part of the shell and the shroud is connected to the shell. The
upper part is added, and the closing seams and nozzles are welded to the shell.

As an example of the size of one of these, the main SWHE for the Snohvit Project stands 27 metres high and
has a diameter of five metres. The combined length of the tubes inside this unit is about 1,000 kilometres,
giving a total cooling area of more than 40,000 square metres.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The following are several views of a Linde SWHE during assembly:

A completed APCI SWHE ready for installation (vertically):


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

5.1.2 Plate Fin (Brazed Aluminium) Heat Exchangers
Brazed aluminium plate-fin heat exchangers (PFHE) consist of corrugated die-formed finned plates sandwiched
between flat-metal separator plates. Spacing bars are located along the edges for structural support and for
separation of the flow streams. PFHEs contain several sets of manifold blocks, each of which incorporates
stacks of distributor and heat transfer fins of various styles (plain, perforated and serrated) through which the
gas and refrigerant flow. Separator plates separate each set of fins, while sidebars support the combined plate
and fin arrangements. Once assembled and clamped, the blocks are vacuum brazed in a furnace prior to fitting
nozzles and other devices. The manifolding system is then added for both flow streams.

Brazed aluminium plate-fin heat exchangers have become the preferred type of exchanger for a variety of
cryogenic applications, mainly as a result of their capabilities in cooling liquids and gases with single and multi-
component streams. Users can benefit from their:

Significant reductions in size, weight and footprint to save, for example, installation and space costs;

Very large surface area per unit volume combined with very high heat transfer coefficients to produce
very high rates of heat transfer within small heat exchangers;

Very small temperature differences between the streams and lower pressure drops also result in
modest energy costs, and can be tailored to reduce compressor power and improve reheat; and

Ability to accommodate many streams within one heat exchanger to give increased flexibility in process
flow-sheet design and in process integration.

Brazed aluminium plate-fin heat exchangers are capable of handling a wide variety of streams, provided they
do not corrode aluminium. They are robust and can withstand mechanical shock, combined thermal and
pressure stresses, and temperature and pressure cycling. A design life similar to tubular heat exchangers can
be expected from them.

Brazed aluminium heat exchangers weigh 95% less than comparable shell-and-tube exchangers and provide
300 to 400 square feet of heat transfer per cubic foot of exchanger volume (1000 to 1500 m/m). This is up
to ten times that of comparable shell-and-tube equipment. Heat exchanger fin surfaces also generate heat
transfer coefficients which are several times larger than those for shell-and-tube exchangers. This

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
characteristic, combined with the high surface density of the plate and fin construction, produces heat transfer
performance (UA) as much as 20 times greater than shell-and-tube exchangers of equal size.
Construction is also lightweight, weighing 50 to 90 pounds per cubic foot (800-1400 kg/m), which is about
one-third the density of shell-and-tube equipment. This means that the heat exchangers can weigh 95% less
than steel shell-and-tube exchangers rated for the same heat transfer performance (UA). The reduction in
exchanger size and weight results in significant savings at the jobsite; in foundation, mounting, plot plan, and
insulation requirements.
Heat exchangers can be designed for nominal counterflow temperature approaches of 3F (2C). This
compares to 10 to 15F (6 to 9C) for shell-and-tube equipment. This reduction in the design temperature
translates to a more efficient process design and significant energy savings to the owner.
The heat exchangers can be designed into nearly an unlimited number of configurations by varying parameters
such as block size and shape, fin types, layer stacking arrangements and flow scheme. A single heat exchanger
can handle ten or more streams, including multiple refrigeration levels. A shell-and-tube exchanger design for a
multiple stream application would require multiple units with their associated extra cost and pressure drop.
Aluminium heat exchangers are also well suited to handle heat transfer requirements involving two-phase flow
conditions and multi-component fluids.


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
5.1.3 Core-in-kettle
Core-in-Kettle heat exchangers are used in some liquefaction processes (such as the Phillips OCP) for pre-
cooling. The Core-in-Kettle design is similar to "kettle type" shell and tube heat exchangers, except the tubes
are replaced with a brazed aluminium heat exchanger "core". They are designed to replace shell-and-tube heat
exchangers with the direct benefits of lower installation costs, reduced operating costs, less replacement time
and reduced horsepower requirements.
In the Core-In-Kettle design, tube-bundles are replaced with brazed aluminium plate-fin "cores" which are
smaller, lighter, and pack in about ten times more heat transfer surface area than comparable sized shell-and-
tube exchangers, and up to twenty times more "UA" because of higher heat transfer coefficients.
The Core-In-Kettle design is so efficient that tight approach temperatures down to 2.0F (1.1C) may be used.

5.1.4 Cold Boxes
In APCI LNG baseload plants, the spiral wound MCHEs have individual insulation, mainly consisting of
polyurethane foam or foam glass.

An alternative insulation method for the MCHEs is to contain them in a cold box. Cold boxes are used in the
Phillips, Statoil/Linde and Axens processes (and for the back-end nitrogen cooling in the APCI AP-X process).
Cold boxes consist of an outer shell (box) of normal carbon steel materials enclosing the cryogenic equipment
and piping, with the void spaces filled with Perlite as the insulation material.

The benefits of the cold box are:

The cryogenic process equipment and piping is all welded together and laid out as tight as possible
resulting in minimized material and thermal losses and maximal safety;

The cold box is mechanically completed in workshops under optimized conditions;

The cold box provides external mechanical protection during transportation and in the plant itself;

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Apart from the all welded principle of the cold box interior, which is considered as the safest
installation mode, the cold box enables detection of possible leakages by control of a nitrogen purge
stream in the Perlite-insulated space; and

Fire resistance requirements can be met efficiently with a cold box.

The following is a photograph of a PFHE inside a cold box frame prior to the outer skin being fitted:

For Snohvit, both the plate-fin and spiral-wound heat exchangers are enclosed in 4 individual cold boxes which
were assembled into one large block about 66 metres high. The two main heat exchangers, measuring 20 and
24 metres high respectively, were installed in one of the boxes. This stands alongside the second unit, which
accommodates smaller heat exchangers as well as columns, drums and separators. A third box is placed on
top of these units to hold more small heat exchangers as well as separators and the fourth containing one
column and small heat exchangers is placed alongside the others.

The following are schematics of the Snohvit cold boxes:


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0

Linde constructed the cold boxes as separate modules and they were transferred to an assembly yard in
Antwerp. The boxes were installed on a single base frame at the latter site and the completed tower was
shipped by heavy-lift vessel to site. All external piping, staircases, ladders, instrumentation, electrical systems
and passive fire protection were in place.

This is one of the two Darwin LNG cold boxes being assembled prior to transport to site (its size can be judged
by the ladders):


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
5.2 Compressors and Drivers
Most LNG trains built prior to the early 1980s used steam turbine drivers, however all LNG liquefaction
processes nowadays use gas turbines, either as mechanical drives or to generate electricity for driving electric
motors.
The choice of drivers, compressors and driver arrangements, and their fit with the process and power
generation is critical to the selection process. The larger the drivers and compressors the more efficient and
cost-effective they are likely to be. However, if some machinery is limited by available designs, smaller proven
equipment may be installed in parallel trains, offsetting increased costs by higher availability.

Studies have shown that the use of large electric motor drivers is a feasible option to support high capacity
baseload LNG plants, and this is the option being used for the Statoil/Linde process Snohvit project.

5.2.1 Combustion Gas Turbines
The combustion gas turbines used as compressor drivers were originally developed for the power generation
industry.
The sizes continue to grow, with GE Frame 9Es to be used as the drivers for the 7.8Mtpa AP-X trains in Qatar.
Large aero-derivative GTs, such as the LM6000 from GE and the Trent from Rolls Royce, offer a considerable
efficiency advantage over the Frame machines in simple cycle operation (and combined cycle efficiencies
provide an incremental efficiency improvement of a similar magnitude) so these will most likely be the next
technical step-out.
For the smaller capacity liquefaction trains, GE Frame 5 and Frame 6 gas turbines are chosen, whereas GE
Frame 7 and 9 gas turbines are being used for the larger trains. The more efficient aero-derivative gas
turbines, such as the GE LM2500+ and LM6000, are also being considered. Gas turbine drives from other
vendors are currently under investigation, to create competition in this market.
Current plant designs also make use of waste heat recovery from turbine exhausts to supply the heat
requirements in a plant. This leads to major reductions in plant emissions. For example, carbon dioxide
emissions can be reduced even further by generating steam from the waste-heat recovery to drive steam-
turbine compressor trains.
Gas turbine based LNG plants are being designed that consume only 6.5 percent to 7.0 percent of the feed gas
for fuel.
The general desire is to run an LNG train at full capacity, therefore turndown does not always feature high on
the list of desirable attributes for an Operator, especially once the facility is in normal operation. Where
necessary, a train can be placed on cold standby recirculation to maintain cryogenic temperatures, but
without production.
In general turndown limits are based on efficient operation envelopes for the GT driving the compressors. This
limit is generally in the 60 to 70 percent range, but can be lower. The Phillips Optimized Cascade process with
the two-in-one concept has exhibited turndown to 30 percent, which is very useful during ramp-up. The two-
in-one concept allows near continuous operation of a plant, as one side of a train can be taken out of service
for maintenance and/or modification without necessitating a complete shutdown.
Aero-derivative GTs provide thermal efficiency advantages over industrial Frame GTs in mechanical drive
applications. Traditionally, they also provide an availability advantage due to their modular construction
allowing short turnarounds. The benefit of modularization has been introduced into the servicing of GE Frame
GTs and may erode some of this benefit.

LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
The Frame 5, 6 and 7 series GTs have an excellent reputation in mechanical drive format. The ability of the
Frame 9 series GT in mechanical drive format, as proposed for AP-X plants, to achieve the same level of
reliability, has yet to be demonstrated.
5.2.2 Electric Motors
The use of electric motors in lieu of gas turbines as compressor drivers has been studied by a number of the
licensors and EPC Contractors, and as noted previously is the basis for the Snohvit Project.
While the general conclusion is that they are a viable option, the caveat is that the electric motors will need to
be world class in size. BP has studied a 9.0Mtpa plant with 340MW of total electrical power for four
refrigeration gas compressor motors each rated at between 80 and 100MW. As the practicable power limit for
a single four-pole synchronous motor is about 60MW ISO rating, a two-pole synchronous motor with variable
speed drive will be required. This limitation would not necessarily be the case for the Phillips Optimized Cascade
two-in-one concept. The largest two-pole synchronous motor built to date is about 53 MW but the technology is
analogous to generators that have been manufactured at this size.
Electric drives are enjoying increasing popularity in pump service. The motor size required for a 5.0Mtpa LNG
plant is within the bounds of current industry experience, especially for a two-in-one configuration. This is not
the case for a 7.8Mtpa LNG Plant, for which world-class electric motors would be required.
Electric motors would run off of power generated by a power plant. Such a plant would have better thermal
efficiency and likely lower air emissions than GT direct drives. However, there are also transmission and
distribution losses in such an indirect drive system. Thus in evaluating the energy benefits of such a drive
system, a full energy balance should be undertaken.
6. ATTACHMENTS
6.1 LNG Trains Operating or being executed
6.2 LNG Train Current Maximum Capacity
6.3 LNG EPC Contractors Experience


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Attachment 6.1
LNG Trains Operating or being executed (August 2006)

Licensor No. of trains
APCI C3-MR/SMR 80
APCI AP-X 6
Phillips OCP 11
Shell DMR 3
Statoil/Linde 1
PRICO 3
Other 6
Total = 110


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Attachment 6.2
LNG Train Current Maximum Capacity (August 2006)

Licensor Nominal Mtpa Location Status
APCI C3-MR 5 SEGAS Damietta Train1 Operating
APCI AP-X 7.8 Qatargas Trains 4,5,6&7 and
RasGas Trains 6&7
Construction
Phillips OCP 5.2 Atlantic LNG Train 4 Operating
Shell DMR 4.8 Sakhalin Trains 1&2 Construction
Statoil/Linde 4.2 Snohvit Train1 Construction
Axens Liquefin 6.0 Studies only FEED
PRICO 1.3 Skikda Units 40,50&60 Operating
Other <1 Algeria, Libya Operating


LARGE SCALE LNG
Revision 0
Attachment 6.3
LNG EPC Contractors Experience (August 2006)
Contractor Process Trains Trains
(total) (since 1995)

Bechtel Phillips 11 10
Bechtel APCI 13
Bechtel/Snamprogetti APCI 4
JGC APCI 6
JGC/Kellogg APCI 11 8
Chiyoda APCI 11 4
Chiyoda/Toyo Shell 2 2
Chiyoda/Technip APCI 3 3
Chiyoda/Technip APCI/AP-X 6 6
Chiyoda/Foster Wheeler APCI 4 4
Chiyoda/Snamprogetti APCI 3 3
Kellogg APCI 7 1
Kellogg/Pritchard Prico 3
KBR APCI 1 1
KBR/JGC APCI 5 5
Technip TEAL 3
Technip/Pritchard Cascade 3
Technip/Snamprogetti/Kellogg/JGC APCI 6 6
Technip/JGC/KBR APCI 5 5
Linde Statoil/Linde 1 1
FosterWheeler/WorleyParsons APCI 1 1
FosterWheeler/WorleyParsons Shell 1 1

110 61

Microsoft Word - LNG Large Scale Background Paper Oct2006 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Microsoft Word - LNG Large Scale Background Paper Oct2006 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Santos Santos Santos Santos

C:\TEMP\LNG BACKGROUND PAPERS\LNG LARGE SCALE BACKGROUND PAPER OCT2006.DOC PAGE 1

Você também pode gostar