Liquefaction Process Evaluation
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Liquefaction Process Evaluation as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 357
- Pages: 15
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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
7) 8)
3-4 MTPA LNG Production Capacity with Two Trains Compare 5 Processes, i.e. C3 MR, Cascade, Dual MR, Single MR, and Nitrogen Expansion, including Capex view Including Pretreating, common Fractionation and Utilities LNG Storage and Loading outside of study scope Located at onshore and tropical area 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 Air Cooling and ambient temperature 27 deg.C 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
Temperature (°C)
-20 -40 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
Temperature (°C)
-20 -40
Propane -60 -80 -100
Ethylene
-120 -140
Methane
-160 1000
2000
Enthalpy difference (kcal/mol)
3000
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).
1. Study Premises 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
7) 8)
3-4 MTPA LNG Production Capacity with Two Trains Compare 5 Processes, i.e. C3 MR, Cascade, Dual MR, Single MR, and Nitrogen Expansion, including Capex view Including Pretreating, common Fractionation and Utilities LNG Storage and Loading outside of study scope Located at onshore and tropical area 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 Air Cooling and ambient temperature 27 deg.C 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
Temperature (°C)
-20 -40 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
Temperature (°C)
-20 -40
Propane -60 -80 -100
Ethylene
-120 -140
Methane
-160 1000
2000
Enthalpy difference (kcal/mol)
3000
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).
Related Documents
Liquefaction Process Evaluation
November 2019 11
Process Speech Evaluation
October 2019 13
Training Evaluation Process
November 2019 21
Tender Evaluation Process Notes
June 2020 3
Design Process And Evaluation
November 2019 20