From LNG Mega-trains to mid-sized modular units LNG Mega-trains_tcm14... · 2021. 1. 29. ·...

DNV GL © 18 October 2018 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENERDNV GL ©

Graham Nott

18 October 2018

OIL & GAS

From LNG Mega-trains to mid-sized modular units:

1

An exploration of the investment risks in today’s LNG export

terminals

Graham Nott

DNV GL © 18 October 2018

Introduction

2


Some rules of thumb

▪ 1 SCF LNG ~ 600 SCG Natural gas

▪ 1 MMTPA ~ 140 MMSCFD

▪ 1 MMTPA ~ 35 MW

▪ 1 TCF ~ 0.8 MMTPA for 20 years

▪ Liquefaction losses are typically ~ 8% for base load LNG plants

3


Historical background

4


Significant events in the history of natural gas liquefaction

▪ 1959 – First international LNG trade (Lake Charles, LA to Canvey Island, UK) – 5000 m3 LNGC

▪ 1964 – Compagnie Algerienne du Methane Ltd (CAMEL) GL4Z LNG plant at Arzew commissioned and ships

first gas.

– 3 trains of 17,000 BBL/day (3 x 415,000 Tonne/year ~ 2.2 MMTPA)

– Pritchard Cascade process (C3/C2=/C1), steam turbine compressor drivers

– Total investment cost $89 Million, delivered LNG cost $0.76/MMBTU

▪ 1969 – Atlantic Richfield Oil Company (ARCO) Kenai LNG plant commissioned

– 1 train of 1.23 MMTPA

– Predecessor of Conoco Phillips Optimised Cascade Process, built by Bechtel.

– First use of gas turbine compressor drivers (6 x Frame 5)

– Total investment cost $ 200 Million, delivered LNG cost $0.52/MMBTU

▪ 1971 – Exxon Marsa El Brega LNG plant commissioned:

– 4 trains each of 0.8 MMTPA

– First Air Products Single Mixed Refrigerant technology and use of Coil Wound Heat Exchanger

5


Significant events in the history of natural gas liquefaction

▪ 1972 – Brunei LNG (LUMUT) plant commissioned

– Initially 4 x 0.925 MMTPA (3.7 MMTPA) later expanded to 5 x 1.3 MMTPA

– First use of propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant process (C3-MR)

▪ 1999 – Atlantic LNG Train 1 commissioned

– Strategic move by BG to reintroduce competition

▪ 2005 – SEGAS Damietta Commissioned

– First use of C3SplitMR to balance power between gas turbines and maximise LNG production at 5 MMTPA

– Compressor drivers using 2 x GE 7EA industrial gas turbines

▪ 2006 – Darwin LNG

– First use of Aeroderivative gas turbine technology with 6 x GE LM2500 to achieve 3.7 MMTPA

▪ 2009 – QatarGas II

– First AP-X project using 3 x GE Frame 9 gas turbines to achieve 7.8 MMTPA/train

▪ 2017 – Wheatstone LNG

– First use of LM6000 Aeroderivative gas turbine technology to achieve 4.5 MMTPA

6


Growth in LNG single train capacity

7

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Tra

in c

apacity (

MM

TPA)

Train capacity increased

as developers sough

economy of scale

The Qatari AP-X

plants marked the

end of the quest for

ever larger train

capacityMid scale isn’t new;

for a decade a 1 - 2

MMTPA train was

standard


Economy of scale

Advantages Disadvantages

8

▪ Single train, single equipment

▪ Avoids complexity and potential flow mal-distribution

▪ Low equipment count offers less lost time to

equipment failure and risk of loss of containment

▪ A single train can be optimised

▪ Larger equipment becomes increasingly difficult to

transport

▪ Foundations and ground works become increasingly

expensive

▪ Limited pool of suppliers

▪ Equipment becomes bespoke

▪ Time to market

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Configuration 1 x 5 MMTPA 2 x 2.5 MMTPA 1 x 3 MMTPA 2 x 1.5 MMTPA

Drivers 2 x Frame 7+ 20 MW

4 x Frame 5 2 x Frame 7 3 x Frame 5

Relative LNG Cost 100% 117% 122% 142%

Source - Gastech 2008; LNG TECHNOLOGY FOR THE COMMERCIALLY MINDED – THE NEXT CHAPTER by Charles Durr, Christopher Caswell & Heinz Kotzsot


Construction cost pressures

9


LNG Plant Cost

10

Source: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, LNG Plant Cost Escalation by Brian Songhurst


LNG Plant Costs (influence of infrastructure)

11

Source: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, LNG Plant Cost Escalation by Brian Songhurst


Market forces

12


Increasing liquidity in LNG markets

13


Recent permitted and planned USA LNG projects

14


Recent approved or operational US LNG projects

15

FERC STATUS Project Name Location Gas flow Phase 1 Phase 2 Licensor Technology

Operation Sabine Pass Liquefaction Sabine Pass, LA 1.40 BCFD 4 x 4.5 MMTPA 1 x 4.5 MMTPA Conono Phillips Optimized Cascade

Operation Dominion Cove Point LNG Calvert County, MD Air Products C3-MR

Construction Southern LNG Elba Island, GA 0.35 BCFD 6 x 0.25 MMTPA 4 x 0.25 MMTPA Shell MMLS

Construction Cameron LNG Hackberry, LA 2.1 BCFD 3 x 5 MMTPA Air Products C3-MR

Construction Freeport LNG Freeport, TX 2.14 BCFD Air Products C3-MR

Construction Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Stage 1 Corpus Christi, TX 2.14 BCFD 2 x 4.5 MMTPA Conono Phillips Optimized Cascade

Approved Southern Union Lake Charles LNG Lake Charles, LA 2.20 BCFD Air Products C3-MR

Approved Magnolia LNG Lake Charles, LA 1.08 BCFD 4 x 2 MMTPA LNG Limited OSMR

Approved Cameron LNG Hackberry, LA 1.41 BCFD Air Products C3-MR

Approved Exxon Mobil Golden Pass LNG Sabine Pass, LA 2.10 BCFD 3 x 5.5 MMTPA Air Products C3-MR

Source – FERC project list with additional data collated by author from FERC filing and developers websites


Pending and pre-filing US LNG projects

16

FERC STATUS Project Name Location Gas flow Phase 1 Phase 2 Licensor Technology

Pending Gulf LNG Liquefaction Pascagoula, MS 1.5 BCFD 1 x 5 MMTPA 1 x 5 MMTPA

Pending Venture Global Calcasieu Pass Cameron Parish, LA 1.41 BCFD 9 x 1.252 MMTPA GE SMR

Pending Texas LNG Brownsville, TX 0.55 BCFD 1 x 2 MMTPA 1 x 2 MMTPA Air Products

Pending Rio Grande LNG - NextDecade Brownsville, TX 3.6 BCFD 6 x 4.5 MMTPA Air Products C3-MR

Pending Annova LNG Brownsville, TX 0.9 BCFD 6 x 1 MMTPA Black & Veatch PRICO SMR

Pending Port Arthur LNG Port Arthur, TX 1.86 BCFD 2 x 6.75 Air Products C3-MR

Pending Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville, FL 0.132 BCFD 3 x 0.33 MMTPA Chart IPSMR

Pending Venture Global Plaquemines Plaquemines, LA 3.4 BCFD 9 x 1.252 MMTPA9 x 1.252 MMTPA GE SMR

Pending Driftwood LNG (Tellurian) Calcascieu Parish, LA 4.0 BCFD 11 x 1.38 MMTPA 4 x 1.38 MMTPA Chart IPSMR

Pending Alaska Gasline Nikiski, AK 2.63 BCFD 3 x 6.5 MMTPA 3 x 6.5 MMTPA Air Products C3-MR

Pending Freeport LNg Dev. Freeport, TX 0.72 BCFD Air Products C3-MR

Pending Jordan Cove Coos Bay, OR 1.08 BCFD 5 x 1.56 MMTPA Black & Veatch PRICO SMR

Pending Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Stage 2 Corpus Christi, TX 1.86 BCFD 1 x 4.5 MMTPA Conono Phillips Optimized Cascade

Pre-filing Commonwealth LNG Cameron Parish, LA 1.18 BCFD 8 x 1.1 MMTPA

Pre-filing Port Fourchon LNG La Fourche Parish, LA 0.65 BCFD

Development Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Stage 3 Corpus Christi, TX 1.86 BCFD 7 x 1.4 MMTPA

Development Galveston Bay LNG Texas City, TX 3 x 5.5 MMTPA

Source – FERC project list with additional data collated by author from FERC filing and developers websites


Mid-scale LNG technology suppliers

17


Black & Veatch PRICO®

18

Source – Black & Veatch website


LNG Limited OSMR®

19

Source – LNG Ltd website, 2015 OSMR® Conference Paper


Chart Energy and Chemicals IPSMR® process

20

Source – Gastech 2018. “Benefits of Mid-Scale LNG” by Scott Mossberg (Bechtel) and Douglas Ducote (Chart Energy & Chemicals)


GE (SALOF)

21

Source – GE publicity materials.


Technical observations

▪ Mid-scale LNG LNG processes tend to:

– Use Brazed Aluminium Heat Exchangers (BAHX) over Coil Wound Heat Exchangers

– Use Aeroderivative over Industrial gas turbines

– Incorporate a higher element of modularisation and pre-assembly

– Use simpler processes with less refrigerant pressure stages

22


Process efficiency

23


Key factors influencing process efficiency

▪ Aeroderivative gas turbine drivers have a higher efficiency

compared to industrial G-T’s

▪ Compressor polytropic efficiency has increased significantly

over the past decades but generally larger compressors have

higher efficiency

▪ Mid scale processes are more simple and do not offer

multiple stages of refrigerant evaporation pressure and

therefore some irreversible work is lost

(i.e. Chart IPSMR 3 stages c.f. COP OCP 3/2/3)

▪ BAHX gives an order of magnitude increase in MCHE area

and therefore allows close temperature approaches

▪ Historically little of the heat in the G-T exhaust has been

captured

▪ Aeroderivative G-T’s are more adversely affected by ambient

temperature than industrial G-T’s

▪ End flash expander

▪ Air recirculation

24

33.3

36.3 36.537.7

41.1 41.243.0

44.1

28.8

36.0

29.4

33.3 33.034.6

Gas turbine efficiency in mechanical drive

Source – GE publicity materials.


Air recirculation and layout

25

Source – UNDERSTANDING OF HOT AIR RECIRCULATION PHENOMENA IN AIR-COOLED BASE LOAD LNG PLANT, Siti Farhana Bt M Shaari Malaysia LNG Sdn Bhd .


Compressor driver

26


Key factors influencing compressor driver selection

▪ Two shaft machines (i.e. Frame 5 and aero-derivatives) allow operating flexibility for compressor

re-start after settle out and allow more shaft power to be used in the process (or more

turndown).

▪ Electric drivers offer high availability but power must be produced somewhere and fuel gas might

be in surplus

– Industry confident that 95 – 100 MWe drivers are feasible (cf large generators)

– Freeport LNG in construction (3 x 5.1 MMTPA each with 3 x 75 MWe drivers)

▪ Aero-derivative G-T’s might be changed out in 2 days compared to 5 days for industrial gas

turbines.

▪ Aero-derivative G-T’s are more sensitive to loss of power at higher ambient temperatures.

27


G-T inlet air cooling

28

Source: Gastech 2018: Debottlenecking; Getting the Most Out of Your LNG Plant Christopher Ott, Lead Process Engineer, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.


Availability

29


Key factors influencing plant availability

▪ Gas turbine scheduled inspection and maintenance

▪ Effective heavy ends removal and MCHE tolerance

– Dilemma of lean gas

– Full scrub column v’s pre-cooling section with separator

▪ Common pre-treatment

▪ SIMOPS

▪ Gas nomination and supply

▪ Variable frequency drives and deNOX

30


Darwin LNG

31

Source: AERODERIVATIVE GAS TURBINE DRIVERS FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS OPTIMIZED CASCADESM LNG PROCESS— WORLD’S FIRST APPLICATION AND

FUTURE POTENTIAL

Cyrus B. Meher-Homji, PE. Bechtel Corporation


Venture Global Calcasieu Pass LNG

32

Source – NextDecade website


Modularisation

33


Modular LNG plant construction

▪ Example modular LNG plants

– Sakhalin

– North West Shelf Train 5

– Pluto

– Gorgon

– Snohvit

– Yamal

– Curtis Island (Australia)

34

Source – KBR website


Key factors affecting modularisation strategy

▪ Remoteness of site

▪ Competitiveness of local work force

– Costs of establishing camp

▪ Completeness of design

▪ Foundation loads / costs

▪ Seismic v’s transport loads

▪ Structural steel content

35

Source – NextDecade website


Module growth and congestion

On-Shore LNG Plant FLNG

36

▪ Footprint growth of onshore LNG plant reported by

JGC

– Project A – 20%

– Project B – 21%

– Project C – 14%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Co

nge

stio

n D

en

sity

(m

/m3)

Module ID

Feed Congestion

Initial Congestion

Final Congestion

Source – DNV GL collected data


SIMOPS and Safety

37


Key safety considerations

▪ Smaller inventories but greater spill frequencies

▪ Smaller propane surge drum size

▪ Maintenance – lifting over live plant

▪ Construction of adjacent units

▪ Maintain safety gaps and separation (DDT), avoid

growth and congestion

▪ Flare sizing requirements (common failure)

▪ Possibility to reduce setback distance

38


Layout and plot size

39


Mid scale modular LNG claims to be competitive on plot size

40

Conoco Phillips ‘Two in one concept’

Sabine Pass – 78,000 m2 / 4.5 = 17,500 m2/MMTPA

= 6.4 m2/TPD

Air Products C3SplitMR

Damietta – 44,000 m2 / 5.0 = 8,800 m2/MMTPA

= 3.3 m2/TPD

Source – Conoco Phillips publicity materials


Driftwood LNG ‘Four in one’ concept

41

Source – Tellurian website


Economics

42


Key project cost implications

▪ First phase must bear infrastructure costs

– Jetty (>$50,000/m)

– Breakwater / dredging ($100 MM)

– LNG tanks (>$ 90 MM for 200K m3)

▪ Standard equipment and machinery

▪ But potentially faster to market

43


Summary

44


Summary

▪ Modular mid sized LNG plant is not new

– But there are few reference plants for the ‘new’ technology licensors at this scale

– There are dangers in an over-reliance on modularisation and off-site construction

– The process cycles are not as optimised as ‘classical’ C3MR / Optimised Cascade processes,

however the use of aero-derivative gas turbines and inlet air cooling level the field

– ‘Other’ factors can drive plant availability in the real world

– SIMOPS should be central to the layout and development plan

45


SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

www.dnvgl.com

The trademarks DNV GL®, DNV®, the Horizon Graphic and Det Norske Veritas®

are the properties of companies in the Det Norske Veritas group. All rights reserved.

Thank you for your interest.

46

[email protected]

+44 7805 783889

From LNG Mega-trains to mid-sized modular units LNG Mega-trains_tcm14... · 2021. 1. 29. ·...

Documents

Transcript of From LNG Mega-trains to mid-sized modular units LNG Mega-trains_tcm14... · 2021. 1. 29. ·...