Liquefaction Process Evaluation

Introduction from LNG12 (1998)

presented
by Mr. Vink of SIOP

entitled as

“COMPARISON OF BASELOAD
LIQUEFACTION PROCESSES”

Feb 2008
 1. Study Premises

1) 3-4 MTPA LNG Production Capacity with Two Trains

2) Compare 5 Processes, i.e. C3 MR, Cascade, Dual MR, Single MR, and
Nitrogen Expansion, including Capex view
3) Including Pretreating, common Fractionation and Utilities
4) LNG Storage and Loading outside of study scope
5) Located at onshore and tropical area
6) Feed gas at 60 bara and 25 deg.C, and following composition:
N2 1.5 mol%
CO2 2.2
C1 85.1
C2 6.5
C3 3.0
C4 1.2
C5+ 0.5
7) Air Cooling and ambient temperature 27 deg.C
8) LPGs reinjection to LNG
2.1 Schematic Flow of C3 MR
2.2 Schematic Flow of Cascade
2.3 Schematic Flow of Dual MR
2.4 Schematic Flow of Single MR
2.5 Schematic Flow of Nitrogen Expansion
 3.1 Cooling Curve of C3 MR Process

20

0 Natural Gas

-20

-40
Temperature (°C)

C3 Cycle
-60

-80

-100 MR Cycle
-120

-140

-160

1000 2000 3000

Enthalpy difference (kcal/mol)

3.2 Cooling Curve of Cascade Process

20

0 Natural Gas

-20

-40
Temperature (°C)

Propane
-60

-80

-100 Ethylene
-120

-140 Methane

-160

1000 2000 3000

Enthalpy difference (kcal/mol)

4.1 Main Rotating Equipment
4.2 Main Heat Exchanger

4.3 Power Generation (excluding spare)

5. 1 LNG Production (t/day/train)

5.2 Specific Power (kW/t/day-LNG)

5.3 Efficiency
6.1 Indexed Capex

6.2 Availability and Annual Capacity (two trains)

6.3 Indexed Specific Costs
7. Conclusion

The Propane/MR process appears to be the best choice within the

premises of this comparison study, viz. large capacity LNG trains,
employing air cooling in a tropical climate. Other promising
processes are the Dual Mixed Refrigerant process and the Single
Mixed refrigerant process. Shell is further investigating several
variations of these three processes.

The Cascade process appears to be relatively expensive, partly

disadvantaged as it is by the study premises. Under colder
conditions (arctic, water cooling) the capacity comes closer to the
C3/MR capacity.

The pre-cooled Nitrogen Expansion process is not an economic

choice for a large, onshore application. It may be an alternative for
smaller scale offshore applications (absence of hydrocarbon
refrigerants).