Paper PS3-2

NEXT GENERATION ON-SHORE LNG PLANT DESIGNS

Sjarel van de Lisdonk Cathalijn van Rijmenam Irina Tanaeva Gianluca Di Nola Marjan van Loon Rob Klein Nagelvoort Shell Global Solutions International B.V. P.O. Box 541, 2501 CM The Hague, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT
Since its inception in the 1960s, the LNG industry has flourished, combining technological innovation with rapid growth and increasing train sizes. Although mega trains up to 10 mtpa are nowadays available, it is expected that large LNG trains with a capacity of 3-6 mtpa will remain important in the future. Most of the LNG train designs built in the past decade use single cycle heavy-duty gas turbines both as refrigeration compressor drivers and in the electrical power plant. At best, only part of the waste heat is recovered for process requirements. As the concerns for global warming grow, the overall energy efficiency of LNG plants is considered increasingly important. However, for energy efficient designs to become successful, it is important that they are cost competitive compared with less efficient designs. In this paper, six LNG designs with different refrigeration compressor drivers and associated electrical power and heat co-generation options are compared. With approximately 30% lower CO2 emissions, four of these designs are considerably more energy efficient than the two conventional designs, which apply heavy-duty gas turbines in single cycle mode. These energy efficient designs use either heavy-duty gas turbines in combined cycle mode, in which steam is generated by waste heat, or aeroderivative gas turbines. Aeroderivatives are rather sensitive to ambient temperature, however, this issue can be overcome by using inlet air chilling (IAC). Based on typical economic screening values for feed gas, LNG and CO2, the more energy efficient designs can be economically justifiable compared with the conventional designs. Moreover, a wide range of energy efficient configurations is available in the 3-6 mtpa capacity range. With the increased focus on climate change and CO2 emissions, configurations like these will enable a new generation of on-shore LNG developments that is both competitive and energy efficient.

Paper PS3-2

INTRODUCTION
Since its inception in the 1960s, the LNG industry has flourished, combining technological innovation with rapid growth. Not only has the number of LNG trains multiplied significantly over time, their size has also increased: whereas the first LNG trains produced no more than 1 mtpa, last decade witnessed the development of large LNG trains with capacities up to 5 mtpa. With the recent a start-up of the Qatargas II mega trains of 7.8 mtpa each [1], the limit of LNG train capacity has been pushed even further. Mega LNG train designs up to 10 mtpa are now available [2]. The multiple gas field discoveries in the range of 5-50 trillion cubic feet [3] suggest a promising outlook for large to mega LNG train sizes. However, since mega trains can only be justified in locations with very large gas reservoirs, it is likely that trains in the capacity range of 3-6 mtpa will remain important in the years to come. Most of the 3-6 mtpa designs built in the past decade employ heavy-duty gas turbines both as refrigeration compressor drivers and in the electrical power plant. These gas turbines are generally used in open-cycle mode. At best, only part of the waste heat is recovered for process requirements. Typically, these designs use 8-10% of the feed gas for fuelling the turbines in the liquefaction unit and the power station. Energy efficient measures to reduce fuel consumption further were considered in the past, but were only applied in few occasions (e.g. we introduced the use of steam turbines as starter/helper motors for the Malaysia LNG Dua plant), as the potential fuel savings could often not justify the additional costs. Innovation in the LNG industry has so far gone hand in hand with an increase in capacity. Examples of this can be found in Figure 1. With growing concerns over global warming, however, the overall energy efficiency of LNG plants is becoming increasingly important. As a result, the focus of innovation has shifted towards increasing the energy efficiency, rather than the capacity of new designs. New LNG designs, using for example more efficient turbines or waste heat recovery, have a significant impact on the energy efficiency of LNG plants, thereby saving fuel and reducing CO2 emissions. But for these designs to become successful in the future, it is important that they are cost competitive compared with less efficient designs. At the same time, it is desirable that the new designs do not introduce large technical risks.

Qatar Petroleum and ExxonMobil design.

Paper PS3-2

10 9
C3/MR ScaleUp Aircooling GEFrame6/7Drivers

Qatargas 4 2010/2011 Sakhalin 2009 Pluto 2010/2011

LNGcapacity(mtpa)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Brunei 1972

Malaysia NWS Satu 1989 1982

Malaysia Nigeria Oman 2000 Dua 1999 1995

LowestUnit Cost/High Efficiency

DMR

Frame9E Drivers

High N2 FeedGas

Time
Figure 1. Innovation in the LNG industry: a number of firsts went hand in hand with an increase in LNG train capacity. The pictures shown here are Shell advised and equity share LNG plants. There are a number of design choices that affect the energy efficiency of an LNG plant. The following aspects of an LNG plant design have the largest impact on its efficiency, and therefore on its CO2 emissions: Type of liquefaction process, e.g. C3/MR, DMR or Optimised Cascade Type of cooling medium, i.e. either air or water Optimisation of the liquefaction process, e.g. air cooler approach temperatures, heat exchanger area Refrigerant compressor driver type, e.g. gas turbine, steam turbine, or electrical motor Degree of hybridisation, i.e. the use of electrical helper motors in addition to gas turbines as refrigerant compressor drivers Waste heat recovery design, e.g. for process heat only, or for power generation as well Power plant configuration, e.g. generator type, sparing philosophy, or integration with the liquefaction facility

This paper examines the integration of the last four aspects: driver type, hybridisation, waste heat recovery, and power plant configuration, in order to achieve higher energy efficiency at competitive costs. Six designs are compared, two of which involve the use of aeroderivative gas turbines. These machines are rather sensitive to ambient temperature. For this reason the merits of inlet air chilling (IAC) for this type of gas turbine will be discussed as well. Finally, we will show how these designs fit in with our views on future large LNG trains.

COMPARISON OF SIX DESIGNS FOR A LARGE, ON-SHORE LNG TRAIN

Building on our experiences with large trains operating in Malaysia, Australia, Nigeria, and Russia, and on experiences elsewhere in the LNG industry, we have evaluated over 20 different refrigeration compressor drivers and associated electrical power and heat co-generation options for 3

Paper PS3-2

on-shore LNG plants. These options were compared with respect to capital costs, net present value (NPV), CO2 emissions, and technology risk. Six options were selected for closer investigation, the results of which are presented in this paper. The feed gas composition used for all options can be found in Table 1. All these options use the same liquefaction process (C3/MR) in combination with air cooling, at an average ambient temperature of 27 C. Table 1. Feed gas composition of all six options

Component Methane Ethane Propane Butane Pentane+ Carbondioxide Nitrogen

Mol% 87.71 4.40 2.57 1.39 0.82 3.00 0.11

The C3/MR process has been selected, because it has an inherently low specific power in warm climates [4]. Defined as the ratio of the amount of compressor shaft power over the LNG production, specific power is a measure of the liquefaction efficiency. As such, C3/MR is a very efficient liquefaction process if combined with the right rotating equipment. Air cooling has been selected for all options, because this cooling method has been applied most widely in the last decade. Water cooling is more efficient, however, it is not always possible to use water as coolant, due to geographical limitations or environmental legislation. In addition, water cooling requires considerable fixed investments from the beginning. The differences between the six options lie in the degree of hybridisation, the degree of waste heat recovery, the power plant configuration, and the drivers. Refrigerant compressors can be driven by gas or steam turbines, or by electrical motors. Although it is acknowledged that a design with solely electrical drivers can be energy efficient and have low CO2 emissions, almost all existing LNG trains are mechanically driven. Hence, only mechanically driven designs are included in this comparison. In the options described below, all gas turbines are GE machines; equivalent machines from Siemens and Rolls-Royce can also be used. The combination of two GE Frame 7s and the C3/MR air-cooled liquefaction process has been widely applied in the LNG industry. Two variations of the C3/MR process can be distinguished: the Base C3/MR process, amongst others applied in Malaysia LNG Tiga and North West Shelf (NWS), and the Split-MR process, which is, for example, applied in Rasgas trains 3, 4, and 5 [5]. In Base C3/MR, the propane (C3) and the mixed refrigerant (MR) compressors are separately driven by the two gas turbines, whereas in Split-MR, the high pressure MR compressor is put on the same shaft as the C3 compressor. In this way, the MR compressor duty is divided over both gas turbines. This article is based on the Base C3/MR process. An advantage of the base C3/MR process is that the propane compressor driver has some spare power. This makes this configuration robust over a wide ambient temperature range and reduces the size of the electrical power plant.

Paper PS3-2

The combination of Base C3/MR with two Frame 7s has been used in option 1 as a reference case for this article. In option 1, the process heat is provided via a heat transfer fluid (HTF) loop. The HTF is warmed up in a waste heat recovery unit (WHRU), which partly recovers the heat of the Frame 7 exhaust gases. In this hybrid configuration a 20 MWe helper VSDS motor is applied on the MR compressor for start-up and for increasing the LNG production. The C3 compressor also has a helper motor, which can be used during high ambient temperature conditions, if the C3 compressor needs more shaft power. This configuration delivers 4.5 mtpa of LNG for the purpose of this study. (Note that for an actual plant, this capacity can be further optimised.) However, because of the hybrid design with its large helper motors the electrical power demand is relatively high. Moreover, the power unit of the LNG plant is often operated in island mode and therefore generally requires spare generator sets to achieve the required reliability and availability. As a consequence, the gas turbine generators are running in part-load, at a reduced efficiency, during normal operation. To produce the required electrical power, four GE Frame 6s are included in the reference case. Figure 2 shows a schematic picture of this option as well as of the other five options. In combination with the C3/MR process, Frame 9s can also be used for the large 3-6 mtpa capacity range, see option 2. The GE Frame 9 has only recently been applied as a refrigeration compressor driver in the three cycle AP-X process (APCI) in the Qatargas II and Rasgas mega trains. Very large VSDS helper motors of up to 45 MWe are applied in the QGII trains for various reasons. To reduce the electrical power requirement and associated power plant costs, option 2 limits the MR helper to 20 MWe. In this configuration, the C3 compressor shaft power requirement is less than the Frame 9 can actually deliver and therefore an electrical generator is installed on the same shaft. This generator delivers approximately 20 MWe at average ambient temperature. It can be used as a starter motor as well. The use of Frame 9s in option 2 results in a significantly higher LNG production compared with the reference case. This is due to the larger power available and the lower speed (3,000 rpm instead of 3,600 rpm) enabling larger compressor designs. However, because of the additional 20 MWe from the electrical generator, the power stations of both options are of similar size.

Option1 (referencecase) Drivers: 2xFrame7 WHRU: processheat

4xF6

NG

C3

MR

LNG

PowerPlant F7
HTF WHRU
M/G

F7 M
EFG

ToAGRU/Frac

Paper PS3-2

Option2 Drivers: 2xFrame9 WHRU: processheat

4xF6

NG

C3

MR

LNG

PowerPlant F9
HTF WHRU

F9 M
EFG

ToAGRU/Frac

Option3 Drivers: 2xFrame9 WHRU: processheat power generation

NG

C3

MR

LNG

F9
Backup boilers

F9 HRSG

STD

HRSG

HPsteam

3x

STG

STD

EFG LPsteam

ToAGRU/Frac

Option4 Drivers: 1xFrame9 1xSTD WHRU: processheat power generation

NG

C3

MR

LNG

3x F6
Backup boilers

STD

F9 HRSG

HRSG

HPsteam

2x

STG

STD

EFG LPsteam

ToAGRU/Frac

Paper PS3-2

Option5 Drivers: 6xLM6000 WHRU: processheat

HTF

WHRU
LM 6000

WHRU
LM 6000 LM 6000

4x 2000 PowerPlant

LM

NG

C3

MR

LNG

LM 6000

LM 6000

LM 6000

HTF

WHRU ToAGRU/Frac

WHRU

M
WHRU
LMS 100

EFG

Option6 Drivers: 3xLMS100 WHRU: processheat

LM 4x2500+

NG

C3

MR

LNG

PowerPlant
LMS 100 LMS 100

HTF

WHRU ToAGRU/Frac

WHRU

EFG

Figure 2. Overview of the configurations of the six compared options. All six configurations include an end-flash system. The abbreviations used in the drawings are the following: NG = natural gas, HTF = heat transfer fluid, WHRU = waste heat recovery unit, AGRU = acid gas removal unit, EFG = end-flash gas. Also, M = electric motor, whilst G = generator. Finally, HRSG = heat recovery steam generator, STG = steam turbine generator, and STD = steam turbine driver.

Paper PS3-2

Option 3 also uses 2 Frame 9s as drivers, but applies waste heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) to produce steam for the process (MR helper and EFG compressor) and for electrical power generation. This combined cycle configuration increases the efficiency of the plant considerably; hence more LNG is produced at the same feed gas rate. Because the end flash gas (EFG) compressor and the MR helper are driven by steam turbines, significantly less electrical power is required from the power plant. No gas turbine generators are required in this configuration, only steam turbine generators. The smaller power plant, combined with the higher reliability of steam turbine generators, significantly reduces the installed spare power generation equipment. In case of a gas turbine driver trip, the loss of steam can be compensated by supplementary firing on the other HRSG or by back-up boilers. The back-up boilers are also used for start-up purposes. Note that some elements of this combined cycle configuration can be found in Indonesias Tangguh plant, albeit that this plant uses GE Frame 7s as compressor drivers instead of Frame 9s and has no end-flash system [6]. Option 4 also applies a combined cycle configuration, similar to option 3. In this case, however, one Frame 9 drives the MR compressor, whilst the C3 compressor is driven by a steam turbine. Because of the higher reliability of steam turbines compared with gas turbines, this configuration increases the LNG train availability. References of direct drive steam turbines up to a size of at least 80 MW are available in industry, e.g. in large ethylene plants. The majority of the steam generated by the Frame 9 HRSG is delivered to the steam turbine driving the C3 compressor. As a consequence, the electrical power requirement has to be delivered in a dedicated power plant. This electrical power requirement is therefore higher than in the previous case because of the large electrical helper on the MR Frame 9. In this configuration, the helper cannot be turned into a steam turbine helper since there would not be sufficient steam production. In order to keep overall good plant efficiency, the electrical power is provided by a combined cycle power plant, which is integrated with the rest of the steam system. This aspect increases the complexity of this option, compared with option 3. An alternative to the traditional heavy-duty gas turbines are the more energy efficient aeroderivative gas turbines. These are employed as refrigerant compressor drivers in options 5 and 6. A summary of the ISO powers and energy efficiencies of both aeroderivative and heavy-duty gas turbines is given in Table 2. All of the aeroderivatives have been widely used in the power generation industry. Even the new large GE LMS100 nowadays has been applied as power generator several times. The smaller machines have also been used as mechanical drives, for example the GE LM2500+ in the Darwin LNG plant ([7], [8]). The Rolls-Royce Trent 60 is used as mechanical drive for the natural gas compressors in the Dolphin gas plant in Qatar [9]. Aeroderivatives are favoured in remote and off-shore locations for their reduced foot print and weight, and their maintenance flexibility: engines and modules can be quickly removed and replaced on-site in a few days [7]. This adds to their availability, which is at least as high as that of heavy-duty gas turbines. These machines have their limitations as well however: they generally produce less power, require a higher fuel gas pressure and are more sensitive to ambient temperature and fuel gas quality (i.e. N2 content).

Paper PS3-2

Table 2. Aeroderivative and heavy-duty gas turbine types, with their ISO powers and energy efficiencies when used as mechanical drive. For the RB211, various models are available. Based on information from [11], [13], [15], [17], and [19].

Gasturbinetype NameModel LM2500+ PGT25+ RB211 RB2116762 LM6000 LM6000PD Trent60 Trent60 LMS100 LMS100 Frame6 Frame6B Frame7 Frame7EA SGT62000E SGT62000E Frame9 Frame9E SGT52000E SGT52000E

Type Aero Aero Aero Aero Aero HeavyDuty HeavyDuty HeavyDuty HeavyDuty HeavyDuty

ISOpower (MW) 31.4 30.4 43.9 51.4 100.2 43.5 86.2 113.0 130.1 168.0

Efficiency (%) 41.1 38.8 43.0 42.6 44.1 33.3 33.0 33.9 34.6 34.7

Vendor GE RollsRoyce GE RollsRoyce GE GE GE Siemens GE Siemens

In option 5, six aeroderivative GE LM6000s are employed in a split string compressor configuration. Each pair of compressors in parallel, C3, LP-MR and HP-MR, is driven by a pair of LM6000 drivers. This parallel configuration has the advantage that if one of the gas turbines in a string trips, the LNG train can continue to operate with at least 50% throughput. Because the train can be kept cold, a quick ramp-up of production can be achieved after restart of the tripped turbine. Aeroderivatives are multi-shaft variable-speed machines, and can start under settle-out pressure without the requirement of a starter/helper motor. This reduces the required size of the power plant considerably. A small power plant consisting of four GE LM2000s suffices for this configuration. Waste heat from the LM6000s is recovered via a heat transfer loop to provide process heat. An alternative to the GE LM6000 is the Rolls-Royce Trent 60. Finally, option 6 is based on three large aeroderivative GE LMS100s, one driving the C3 compressor, and two driving the parallel MR (LP and HP) compressor assemblies. The LMS 100 is the largest aeroderivative machine available (ISO power = 100.2 MW, see Table 2). There are several reference cases for LMS100s in power generation; they have not yet been applied as mechanical drivers, but are available for this application. In option 6, the power plant consists of four GE LM2500+s. Part of the waste heat from the LMS100s is recovered in a heat transfer loop. The configurations and capacities of all six options are summarised in Table 3. In Figure 3, we see how these options perform for a number of parameters: specific electrical power, specific CO2 emissions, specific capex, and specific NPV.

Paper PS3-2

Table 3. Annual LNG capacities of the six compared options. Capacities are based on 340-345 stream days per annum, depending on the configuration. All these designs use an end-flash system, which increases the LNG capacity. The LNG capacity of these designs can be reduced by either reducing the size of the EF system, or (in case of heavy-duty drivers) by reducing the helper motor power.

Options 1 2 3 4 5 6

C3/MRdrivers 2Frame 7 2Frame 9E 2Frame 9E+HRSG 80MWST/ Frame 9+HRSG 2LM6000/4LM6000 LMS100/2LMS100

Powerplant 4Frame 6 4Frame 6 3*28MWST 3Frame 6+HRSG 2*20MWST 4LM2000 4LM2500+

Heatingmedium LNG capacity (mtpa) HTF 4.5 HTF 5.9 Steam 6.0 Steam 6.0 HTF HTF 5.3 6.4

40 0.35

Specificelectricalpower(MWe/mtpaLNG)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

CO2emissionintensity(tCO2/tLNG)

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6

Liquefaction

Utilities

a)
Specificcapex(mlnUSD/mtpaLNG)
140%

b)
120.0%

Specific NPV(mlnUSD/mtpaLNG)
1 2 3 4 5 6

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

115.0% 110.0% 105.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6

Liquefaction

Utilities

c)

d)

Figure 3. a) Specific electrical power from the power plant, b) specific CO2 emissions (fuel only), c) specific capex, and d) specific NPV of all six evaluated options. Capex figures only include process and utility expenditures. Specific NPV is based on total plant capex.

10

Paper PS3-2

Figure 3.a) shows the specific electrical power of each option. This is defined as the total installed electrical power generation at site divided by the LNG production. It can be deduced that for a given capacity, option 1 requires the largest power plant. This is a result of the hybrid design with electrical helper motors that are required for the Frame 7s of this option and that use a substantial amount of power. The same argument applies for option 2. The specific electrical power use of option 3 is low, because the MR helper motor and EFG compressors are driven by steam turbines. In option 4, the MR helper motor cannot be driven by a steam turbine, as most steam is used to drive the C3 compressor. Hence more electrical power is required. Options 5 and 6 do not use starter or helper motors, and therefore require less installed generation capacity in the power plants, resulting in low specific electrical powers. Figure 3.b) shows the specific CO2 emissions of each option, and the split between the liquefaction plant and utilities. This excludes CO2 from feed gas. It can be observed that CO2 emission intensities of around 0.22 t CO2 / t LNG from fuel are attainable with either a combined cycle configuration (options 3 and 4) or the application of aeroderivative gas turbines (options 5 and 6). This is significantly lower than the CO2 emission intensities of open cycle Frame 7 or Frame 9 configurations with only partial heat recovery (option 1 and 2), which only achieve around 0.30 t CO2 / t LNG. This is not only due to the lower thermal efficiencies of the Frame 7 and Frame 9 gas turbines, but also to the relatively large power plant these configurations require. Moreover, the partially loaded gas turbines in a power plant are significantly less efficient than the compressor drivers. Options 3 and 4 benefit from their combined cycle configurations, because the shaft and electrical power generated by the steam turbines does not require extra fuel. This has a significant, positive effect on their CO2 emissions. In these combinations, however, a small amount of extra low pressure fuel is required to keep the back-up boilers on stand-by and, if present, the supplementary firing on the HRSG on minimum turndown, ready to pick up load upon a trip of one of the GT-HRSG combinations. Options 5 and 6 both have energy efficient aeroderivative drivers, the LMS100 even more so than the LM6000, and small power plants. As a result, these open cycle configurations have CO2 emission intensities similar to the combined cycle options that use Frame 9s. Note that the quoted CO2 figures refer to the fuel gas used in this study and exclude other small fuel consumers (e.g. pilot burners on flare stacks or acid gas incinerators) that may be present in an LNG plant. Specific capex and specific NPV, which can be seen in Figures 3.c) and 3.d), are defined here as capex and NPV divided by LNG capacity. The NPVs for the different options have been calculated using typical feed gas, LNG and CO2 prices. Fuel gas has been priced as feed gas, but fuel gas saved by the more energy efficient designs (with respect to the reference case) is turned into LNG at the end of project life. Figure 3.c) shows the specific capex, which is capex per tonne of LNG, for all six options, with option 1, the reference case, set at 100%. The capex includes liquefaction units and the main utilities like electrical power generation, a heat transfer loop, and water treatment. This is approximately 40% of the total capex. It is assumed that the specific costs (in mln USD / mtpa LNG) of the other facilities are constant over the considered capacity range. Only option 2 has a lower specific capex, which is a result of the power plant configuration and of the lower specific costs of a Frame 9 in comparison with a Frame 7. All other four options (option 3-6) have a slightly higher specific capex. This is a result of the higher equipment count and, in case of options 5 and 6, the aeroderivative gas turbines, which are currently more expensive (per MWe produced) compared with heavy-duty gas turbines. With a specific capex of 115%, option 4 is the most capital intensive caused by the more complex integration 11

Paper PS3-2

of power generation and liquefaction. As a result, the contribution of the utilities to the specific capex is the highest for option 4. The NPVs of all options have been calculated using the total plant capex. Figure 3.d) shows that the reference case, option 1, has the lowest NPV of all options. This option has a significantly smaller capacity, and as such, it benefits less from economy of scale. A closer look shows that options 3 and 6 have similar specific NPVs compared with option 2 (although they have a slightly higher specific capex). This is mainly due to the higher energy efficiency and the reduced feed gas requirement of these options compared with option 2. Note that these economics are based on single train designs. In particular for multiple train development the costs of the steam systems can be shared and option 3 will be even more competitive with option 2. Based on this, it can be concluded that under the used assumptions, energy efficient configurations can be economically justifiable. Note that the sensitivity of these economics to a CO2 penalty is low. The results therefore mainly depend on the feed gas and LNG pricing. A further increase in energy efficiency could be possible by applying aeroderivative drivers in combination with a combined cycle steam system. However, the additional fuel gas reductions that are possible in this way are only marginal. Hence this configuration appears to be only economically justifiable for a high feed gas price or high CO2 penalty. Finally, it should be noted options 5 and 6 do not include an inlet air chilling system, of which the merits on both LNG production and economics will be discussed below. Consequently, the NPVs of options 5 and 6 presented can be considered conservative.

INLET AIR CHILLING OF AERODERIVATIVE GAS TURBINES

LNG production depends directly on the power output of the refrigeration compressor drivers. The output of a typical heavy-duty gas turbine drops about 0.7% for every 1 C rise in ambient temperature. Aeroderivative gas turbines are more sensitive to ambient temperature swings, and can lose 1 to 1.2% shaft power output per degree Celsius. Therefore, the LNG production will drop more rapidly with ambient temperature when aeroderivative gas turbines are applied instead of heavy-duty gas turbines as compressor drivers. A C3 compressor driven by aeroderivative gas turbines can circulate substantially less propane at high ambient temperatures, which results in a significant drop in LNG production. In addition, a higher ambient temperature results in higher C3 condensing pressure and as a consequence in higher suction pressures in the C3 compressor, which reduces the volumetric refrigerant flow further. The compressor will then risk running off its operating curve, and will go into recycle to prevent surge. As a result, the LNG production will drop even more. This is in particular an issue in climates with large temperature swings and air-cooled C3 condensers. Designs based on heavy-duty gas turbines compensate for this effect by using helper motors or, in case of the split-MR concept, by moving duty from the HP-MR compressor to the C3 compressor. Aeroderivatives do not require starter motors, thus using a helper motor adds unnecessary complexity and should be avoided. Another way to compensate for the loss of power output at higher ambient temperatures is to undersize the C3 compressor at average ambient temperature. The gas turbine then operates at part-load in average ambient conditions. Its spare power can be used in hot ambient conditions, when the C3 compressor needs more power. Undersizing the C3 compressor, however, implies that there is a surplus of driver power at average ambient temperature that is not used to produce LNG. Thus this is not an optimal solution.

12

Paper PS3-2

Another method to counteract loss of production is to apply inlet air chilling (IAC) of the C3 aeroderivative drivers at hot ambient conditions with a chilling fluid, e.g. a water/glycol mixture. Here, the gas turbine inlet air is chilled by chilling coils. The temperature of the inlet air is controlled via the flow of the chilling medium. Moisture that may develop during the cooling of the inlet air is caught by vertical vane type separators that are located downstream the chilling coils. The humidity of the air is important since this determines whether water will condense out of the air, or not. Condensing water is energy intensive, and will increase the required chilling duty. An alternative to inlet air chilling is evaporative cooling, or fogging. Here, water is sprayed in the gas turbine inlet air, which will evaporate, thus cooling the inlet air. The downside of this method is that the achievable temperature drop depends very much on the relative humidity. If the humidity is high, the potential for cooling the air is lower. Inlet air chilling coils do not have this problem: upon chilling the air, the air will get saturated with water. The water will condense out upon further chilling. The water/glycol mixture of an inlet air chilling loop can be chilled by a number of cold sources, namely: an external chilling package, refrigerant propane, mixed refrigerant, or other cold sources in the LNG train, such as end flash / boil off gas , fuel gas or scrub column bottoms.

When a chilling system is required to chill the inlet air of the gas turbine driving the C3 compressor at hot ambient temperature, the chilling system may as well be used all the time throughout the year at any ambient temperature. When chilling the gas turbines at average ambient temperature, more shaft power can be put into the LNG process and hence more LNG can be produced for the same driver set (within the compressor limitations). Figure 4 is a schematic overview of the chilling process for both average ambient and hot ambient conditions. The chilled water loop is shown in blue, with a suction vessel, pump, and propane kettle. The C3 and MR compressors are lined-up in a parallel configuration, and each C3 and MR compressor is driven by one aeroderivative gas turbine (LM6000), giving six in total. In this case, the gas turbines driving the C3 and LP-MR compressors all have chilling coils. Obviously it is also possible to install chilling coils in the inlet duct of the gas turbines driving the HP-MR compressors. A dedicated chilling loop including suction drum, compressor, desuperheater, condenser, and accumulator (red) provides the chilling duty in this example. At average ambient temperature, the power increase of the MR gas turbines (as a result of inlet air chilling) is approximately three times the electrical power requirement of the chilling compressor K-1451.

13

Paper PS3-2

Average ambient : T = 27 C Hot ambient : T = 39 C

K-1451

Flow to C3 0% / 50%

Flow to MR 100% / 50%

27 C / 23 C
IAC LM6000 C3 IAC

15 C / 23 C
LM6000 LP MR

27 C / 39 C
LM6000 HP MR

IAC

LM6000

C3

IAC

LM6000

LP MR

LM6000

HP MR

Figure 4. Configuration of an inlet air chilling system. Water flow and inlet air temperature for average ambient temperature (green) and high ambient temperature (pink) are shown. The impact of inlet air chilling on the LNG production is shown in Figure 5. This graph shows the LNG production as a function of ambient temperature, for three different cases. At average ambient temperature (= 27 C in this graph), when no chilling is applied, and all gas turbines are fully loaded, approximately 180 kg/s of LNG can be produced (the green line in Figure 5). At lower temperatures, the MR compressors become constraining for LNG production, whilst the C3 compressors become underloaded. The opposite occurs at higher temperatures, when the C3 compressors are constrained and the MR compressor gas turbines are running on part-load. The higher the ambient temperature, the more constraining the C3 compressors get and the lower the load of the MR compressors. Since there is no way to compensate for this effect, a steep decrease in LNG production takes place. At approximately 34 C, the C3 compressors will go into recycle mode, which will greatly reduce the refrigeration capacity. As a consequence, the LNG production will rapidly drop. In the second case, the C3 gas turbines run at part-load (~80%) in average ambient conditions (the pink line in Figure 5). This results in a penalty in LNG production of almost 10 kg/s compared with the production with fully loaded gas turbines throughout most of the temperature range. At lower temperatures, the MR compressors become constraining, whereas the C3 compressors become increasingly part-loaded. At low ambient temperature (14 C in this case), the load of the C3 compressors has dropped to approximately 66%. This results in a very low efficiency of the gas turbines. The advantage of this configuration is observed at high ambient temperatures: due to the spare power of the gas turbines driving the C3 compressors at average ambient temperature, the C3 compressor can be loaded more heavily in higher ambient temperature conditions. At high ambient temperature (39 C), all compressors are fully loaded and work within their operational envelopes.

14

Paper PS3-2

240 220

LNG(kg/s)

200 180 160 140 120 100 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ambienttemperature(C)
Nochilling C3gasturbineonpartloadataverageambient Inletairchilling

Figure 5. LNG capacity as a function of ambient temperature. The third case involves inlet air chilling. As shown in Figure 5 (the yellow line), an additional LNG production of close to 20 kg/s is possible compared with the second case (which is the only feasible solution for this climate when no chilling is used). At lower temperatures than average ambient, the MR compressors become constrained and all the chilling duty is shifted towards the gas turbines driving the MR compressor. At higher temperatures on the other hand, part of the chilling duty is b shifted to the C3 compressors, thus keeping all compressors on their curves . When applying this inlet air chilling technology, aeroderivative gas turbines can be applied in a wide range of climates, including the very hot Middle East and tropical climates. It is evident that inlet air chilling can significantly increase the LNG production for a given driver set. Another method to increase LNG production is to install an end-flash system. This is usually also a very cost efficient way of producing LNG [21]. The specific costs of installing an end-flash system have been compared with the installation costs of an inlet air chilling system, see Figure 6. These figures are valid for newly built LNG trains. Clearly, inlet air chilling is a cost effective way of producing more LNG with an aeroderivative driver configuration.

Patent pending.

15

Paper PS3-2

Specificcapex(mlnUSD/mtpaLNG)

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Endflash

Externalchilling

Figure 6. Specific costs of installing an end-flash system compared with installing an inlet air chilling system for the gas turbines, when building a new LNG train. Costs are total installed costs.

NEXT GENERATION OF ONSHORE LNG TRAIN DESIGNS OVERVIEW

Although a comparison was made with GE LM6000s and LMS100s, a wider range of energy efficient LNG designs based on aeroderivative drivers is available in the 3-6 mtpa capacity range; this is shown in the capacity chart, Figure 7. The effect of inlet air chilling and the subsequent addition of an end-flash system on the achievable capacity is shown as well. Note that the capacity increase due to inlet air chilling for the configurations with four Trent 60s or four LM6000s is more pronounced than for the other configurations. This is because of the 50/50 power split in these configurations. The propane gas turbine is significantly underloaded when no chilling on the MR gas turbine is applied. Hence, chilling the inlet air will hence have a bigger impact on the LNG capacity. All of the aeroderivative configurations are in a split string. A trip of a gas turbine will therefore not automatically lead to a complete trip of the LNG train, as the train can continue to produce at >50% throughput. This is in particular attractive in case of a single train development. Next to the aeroderivatives configurations, the capacity chart in Figure 7 also shows Frame 7s and Frame 9s in a combined cycle configuration. Both the size of the helper motors and the end-flash system can be varied in these configurations, resulting in a relatively large potential capacity range. Although the effect will be less pronounced, also the heavy-duty gas turbines can benefit from inlet air chilling. These configurations are particularly interesting for the development of plants with multiple LNG trains, as these trains can then share a common steam system and the associated costs.

16

Paper PS3-2

6RB211
C3 MR

6Trent60 6LM6000

C3 MR

6LM2500

3LMS100

2LMS100SSDS

4Trent60
C3 MR

C3 MR

4LM6000

Frame6+7
M

2Frame7(combinedcycle) 3.5 4 4.5 5

2Frame9(combinedcycle) 5.5 6

LNGCapacity(mtpa)
WithIAC;noEF WithIAC;withEF

Figure 7. Capacity chart for future, energy efficient C3/MR based air-cooled LNG plants. Capacity based on average ambient air temperature of 27 C and a feed gas molecular weight to the liquefaction unit of 18.4 kg/kmol. All aeroderivative configurations use inlet air chilling (IAC) and are split in two parts, indicating the capacity range covered with (blue) and without (yellow) an end flash (EF) system. The range of the heavy-duty configurations (green) comprises the use of end flash and inlet air chilling.

CONCLUSIONS
This article shows that energy efficient LNG designs can be economically justifiable compared with the less efficient, conventional designs, which apply heavy-duty gas turbines in single cycle mode. This result is based on typical economic screening values for feed gas, LNG and CO2. These energy efficient designs are based on aeroderivative gas turbines as compressor drives or heavy-duty gas turbines in combined cycle. The CO2 emissions of these designs are considerably (~30%) lower. This can be achieved by optimising the integration of the power generation with the liquefaction design, and at the same time by reducing the electrical helper power. The power output of aeroderivative gas turbines is sensitive to ambient air temperature. This can negatively affect the LNG production of designs employing aeroderivative drivers in (hot) climates with large temperature swings. The issue can be solved by chilling the inlet air of the aeroderivative drivers. In this way, designs with aeroderivative refrigerant compressor drivers, like designs with heavy-duty gas turbines in combined cycle, can be applied in a wide range of climates. Consequently, with the increased focus on climate change and CO2 emissions, these energy efficient designs will enable the development of a next generation of LNG plants that are both competitive and energy efficient.

17

Paper PS3-2

REFERENCES CITED
[1] V. Chavez, Technical challenges during the engineering phases of the Qatargas II large LNG trains, LNG15, 2007 S. Kaart et al., A novel design for 10-12 mtpa LNG trains, LNG 15, 2005 A. Flower, Are medium-scale liquefaction plants a solution to future LNG supply shortages, LNG Focus, issue 14 (2007) K.J. Vink and R.K. Klein Nagelvoort, Comparison of baseload liquefaction processes, LNG12, 1998 A. Brimm, S. Ghosh, and D.J. Hawrysz, Operating experience with the Split MR machinery configuration of the C3MR LNG process, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 2005 R.S. Phillips, Tangguh LNG - raising the performance bar, LNG14, 2004 C.B. Meher-Homji et al., Aeroderivative gas turbine drivers for the ConocoPhillips optimised cascade LNG process worlds first application and future potential, LNG15, 2007 C.B. Meher-Homji, D. Messersmith, K. Massani, and H.P. Weyermann, The application of aeroderivative engines for LNG liquefaction, Gastech, 2009

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

[6] [7]

[8]

[9] Website, visited on December 15, 2009: [10] http://www1.rolls-royce.com/energy/overview/oilgas/worldwide_f.htm [11] Online brochure, visited on December 10, 2009: [12] http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/downloads/gas_turb_cat.pdf [13] Online brochure, visited on December 10, 2009: [14] http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/fs_rb211_tcm92-6732.pdf [15] Online brochure, visited on December 10, 2009: [16] http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/Trent 60_brochure_tcm92-10920.pdf [17] Website, visited on December 10, 2009: [18] http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt6-2000e.htm [19] Website, visited on December 10, 2009: [20] http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt5-2000e.htm [21] J.M. van de Graaf and B. Pek, Large capacity LNG trains the Shell PMR process, LNG Review, 2005

18