New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Boris Ertl, M. W. Kellogg Limited
Charles Durr, KBR
David Coyle, KBR
Isa Mohammed, M. W. Kellogg Limited
Stanley Huang, International Process Systems
Abstract:
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a cost effective route to deliver large volumes of stranded gas
to distant markets. The LNG chain is capital intensive, requiring a number of high-cost
elements typically including gas production, pipeline to processing plant, liquefaction plant,
LNG storage and loading facilities, shipping, LNG receiving facilities, LNG vaporisation and
gas delivery to market.
All elements of the supply chain need to be in place for an LNG project to go ahead. The
receiving terminal is increasingly becoming a constraint to growth in LNG trade, and
designers need to address new challenges with factors including environmental and
permitting issues and the need for gas quality compatibility between the imported gas
specification and local gas requirements.
New technology is needed to address these new challenges, and to illustrate this point, some
novel technologies are presented that provide opportunities for value enhancement in various
aspects of the terminal design. This paper describes:
•Vaporiser concepts; a comparison of available technologies with a focus on
environmental performance
•Heat integration with other facilities; optimal environmental performance is achieved if
the LNG vaporizers are integrated with a process that requires cooling
•Ethane extraction; a novel approach to gas quality control that can potentially provide
a valuable by-product
•Offshore terminals; a brief discussion of the concepts under consideration

Introduction
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a cost-effective technology for transporting high volumes of
gas over long distances. The basis of the technology is to condense natural gas by chilling to
cryogenic temperatures, thereby reducing its volume by approximately 600 times, compared
to gas at atmospheric conditions. This increase in density enables cost-effective shipping.
The overall LNG supply chain is very capital intensive, typically comprising:
Gas production in remote / offshore location
Pipeline to Onshore plant
Onshore gas treating
Liquefaction plant
LNG Storage and loading facilities
LNG shipping
LNG receiving terminal; storage and regasification
Gas distribution to market
All of these links in the chain need to be in place for an LNG project to progress.
This paper focuses on the LNG receiving terminal. The receiving terminal is constructed close
to the intended gas market, for easy connection to the local gas pipeline system, or
integration with a local consumer such as a power station.
The receiving terminal is increasingly becoming a constraint to growth in LNG trade, and
designers need to address new challenges. As these facilities are necessarily required close

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
to populated areas for access to their intended markets, there is an increasing public
awareness of potential safety and environmental aspects of the terminal design. Recent
experience, particularly in North America and Europe, is that terminal designs need to comply
with increasingly stringent requirements to obtain permits.
In addition to permitting requirements, as the LNG trade becomes more global LNG terminal
designs in some cases need to incorporate gas conditioning to adapt the gas quality of LNG
sourced worldwide to meet the gas specification requirements of the local market.
New technology is needed to address these new challenges, and to illustrate this point, some
novel technologies are presented that provide opportunities for value enhancement in various
aspects of the terminal design. This paper describes:

New vaporiser concepts

Heat integration with other facilities
Ethane extraction
Offshore terminals

LNG Value Chain

Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, is the liquid form of natural gas at atmospheric pressure and
cryogenic temperatures, around -160C. When natural gas is turned into LNG, its volume
shrinks by a factor of about 600, compared to gas at atmospheric pressure.
The purpose of making LNG is to enable economical transport of the gas over long distances
although the LNG chain requires very significant capital investment, this route becomes the
most economic means to transport high volumes of gas for transport distances over around
2500 km. In cases where the gas production is closer to the market, a pipeline would normally
be preferred.
The essential elements of a typical LNG supply chain are

Gas production: In the LNG chain this is stranded gas production at a remote and
often offshore location.
Pipeline to Onshore plant: The pipeline to a suitable location for onshore processing
and access to suitable shipping channels for export can be an expensive element of
the chain. For offshore gas fields the possibility of offshore LNG production has been
considered as a means to eliminate this pipeline, though at the time of writing no
project is at an advanced stage of development.
Onshore gas treating: Gas from production will not be suitable for liquefaction. The
liquefaction process is very sensitive to heavy hydrocarbons and contaminants such
as carbon dioxide or water which may freeze, and mercury which might cause
corrosion to the aluminium materials. Gas treating is therefore required upstream of
the liquefaction plant.
Liquefaction plant: The liquefaction plant is one of the major cost elements of the
LNG chain. The technology requires large compressors, drivers and heat transfer
surface to achieve the refrigeration required, and consumes significant energy to
drive the process.
LNG Storage and loading facilities: Storage is always required, as the liquefaction
plant is designed to operate continuously whereas shipping is necessarily intermittent.
The volume of storage is determined by shipping studies and needs to account for
risks to the supply routes. Loading facilities generally comprise a trestle and jetty with
loading arms for interface to the ships.
LNG shipping: Much of the current LNG trade has been negotiated on relatively long
term supply contracts and shipping is often by a fleet dedicated to delivery of LNG
from a particular supplier to a particular location. Increasingly LNG is being traded on
the spot market, and this might change the nature of shipping requirements. The cost
of shipping in the LNG supply chain depends on the distance between the supplier
and customer, as this affects the number of ships in service to supply the route. For
high shipping distances, say over 12,000 km, the cost of the shipping fleet might
approach the cost of the treating and liquefaction units.
LNG receiving terminal; storage and regasification: This is the subject of the current
paper.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Gas distribution to market: Distribution from the terminal is generally a pipeline

connection to the grid, but this could also be a direct supply to a particular energy
consumer such as an industrial plant or power station.
Figure 1 shows the essential elements of the LNG supply chain.

Figure 1 LNG Supply Chain

LNG Terminals Typical Current Design

Figure 2 shows a simplified schematic of a typical land-based LNG receiving terminal. The
main elements are:

The unloading jetty, and trestle connecting piping to shore.

LNG storage tanks and low pressure (primary) pumps
Boil-Off Gas (BOG) handling and recondenser
High-pressure (secondary) pumps and vaporisers

Figure 2 Typical LNG Terminal Block Flow Diagram

The Unloading System

The unloading system comprises several loading arms which connect to the ship, and loading
lines delivering LNG to the storage tanks and returning displaced vapour and boil off gas to
the ship, which replaces the volume vacated by LNG pumped out. Loading lines are usually
routed above the sea level on a trestle that connects the jetty to the shore. The design of this
system is optimised based on the range of different ships anticipated at the terminal. There
are many engineering considerations to ensure safe and efficient operation, in particular the

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
management of transient periods such as cool-down and the transition from unloading mode
to holding mode. The design incorporates recirculation to ensure the system remains cold
between unloading operations.
LNG Storage
There are various tank designs available for LNG terminals. A typical onshore terminal has
two or more cylindrical tanks, as this generally provides the lowest cost per installed volume
of storage. Primary pumps are installed in wells within the tank. In particular circumstances
other configurations may become attractive, for example for low capacity storage horizontal
tanks could be considered, and for offshore designs (discussed later) rectangular designs
might become attractive to reduce weight and space requirements.
Boil Off Gas (BOG) System
As the LNG is stored at cryogenic temperatures, no matter how well the tank is insulated
there will be some degree of heat leak from the surroundings, and this results in generation of
Boil Off Gas. As long as the terminal is exporting product gas, this BOG can be exported with
the send-out. To eliminate the need to compress the gas from atmospheric pressure to the
pipeline pressure, which could be in the order of 100 bar, most terminals include a
recondenser. The recondenser uses an intermediate pressure at which the LNG is no longer
saturated, and can therefore absorb the BOG into the liquid phase. The combined LNG is
then pumped to the export pressure requirement in liquid (dense) phase prior to vaporisation
and export. KBR developed and installed the first recondenser at the Trunkline LNG terminal
in the USA. This design has since been installed at many terminals around the world.
Gas Vaporisation and Send-Out
The secondary (high pressure) pumps generate the required pressure to deliver the LNG,
which is vaporised and heated prior to export. There are various options to provide heat for
this vaporisation, including:

Water (often sea water) pumped over Open Rack Vaporisers (ORVs)
Combustion of fuel gas to heat a water-bath, Submerged Combustion Vaporisers
(SCVs)
Air heating of an intermediate fluid to provide vaporisation duty in a heat exchanger
Integration with other facilities with a cooling requirement, e.g. air separation plants or
power plants
The most commonly used technologies in existing LNG terminals are ORVs and SCVs.
Vaporiser technology options and heat integration options are discussed in more detail below.

New Vaporiser Concepts

LNG vaporisation practices have undergone few changes; most vaporisers currently
operating are based on a small number of conventional designs. However, to comply with
environmental regulations, conventional technologies have recently required modifications,
and may even become unacceptable at some locations.
Conventional Technology
The most widespread current practice is either open rack vaporisers (ORVs) or submerged
combustion vaporisers (SCVs). ORVs, as shown in figure 3, use water as the heat source.
Water supplied from an overhead distributor flows over the outer surface of long finned tube
panels and vaporises the LNG inside the tubes. ORVs are widely used in Asia and Europe,
and are well proven in base-load LNG regasification service.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Figure 3 Open Rack Vaporiser typical design (diagrams courtesy of Kobe Steel)

SCVs, shown in figure 4, use low pressure fuel gas from the boil-off gas, augmented by sendout gas. Depending on the vaporiser capacity, single or multiple burners may be used. The
combusted gas is sparged into a water bath to utilize the heat of condensing water from the
flue gas. The LNG passes through tubes that are submerged in the water bath. The water
acts as an intermediate fluid for transferring the heat from the combustion process to the
LNG. This also requires electric power to run the combustion air blower.

Figure 4 Submerged Combustion Vaporiser

Generally, ORVs with their water systems require higher capital expenditure than SCVs, but
the fuel burned by the SCVs makes them more expensive to operate (the SCV system
requires approximately 1.5 % of the total vaporised LNG as fuel). Given that the LNG
received is valuable product, it is common to see ORVs used for normal operation and SCVs
installed as back-up or peaking service. However, at some sites SCVs provide normal
vaporisation because the water available is too cold to provide heating without risk of
freezing, or the presence of contaminants in the water jeopardises reliable ORV operation.

Environmental Factors ORVs

The primary environmental issues with ORVs are the water outlet temperature, and the water
intake velocity and treatment:

Water outlet temperature: The main environmental issue when considering sea water
for vaporisation is the effect on Ichthyoplankton (fish larvae and eggs). When using
sea water for heating purposes, the World Bank Guidelines state that: The effluent
should result in a temperature increase of no more than 3C at the edge of the zone
where initial mixing and dilution take place. Where the zone is not defined, use 100
meters from the point of discharge [Ref. 1].
Intake velocity and treatment: Ichthyoplankton is free floating and readily pulled into
the water system [Ref. 2]. In the U.S. the water intake system is to be designed and
operated in accordance with the guidelines under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water
Act. The objective of the regulation is to minimize mortality of all types of marine life
due to impingement and entrainment at the water intake structures and establishes
strict technology-based performance requirements applicable to the location, design,
construction, and capacity of water intake structures for new facilities.
Water treatment chemicals: The water supply requires chlorination to protect the
system (especially heat transfer surfaces) against bio-fouling. Chlorination is

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
generally provided by means of injecting a sodium hypochlorite solution into the
suction of the water pumps on a continuous basis.

Environmental Factors SCVs

SCVs have environmental issues related to combustion emissions and water bath effluent.
The combustion emissions of interest are NOx, CO, CO2 and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The combustion process makes water which is condensed in the water bath,
therefore water is continuously produced. The water is saturated with CO2, and must be
neutralized before discharge.
Some development has taken place with the objective of modifying SCVs to reduce
emissions. Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) technology, originally developed and applied to the
incineration industry, has been adopted in the design of low emission SCV. Since the flue gas
is water saturated and at low temperature, a portion of flue gas recycled to the blower suction
lowers the combustion temperature, resulting in 25% lower NOx emission compared to
conventional SCV [Ref. 3]. The lower temperature combustion is compensated by an increase
in mass volume of combustion gas. Recycling of flue gas reduces combustion capacity by
about 6% [Ref. 3]. This can be compensated by an increase in the blower power.
Available technology can reduce the NOx and CO emissions from the SCVs to below 40
ppmv of each component. However, these emission levels do not satisfy the emission
restrictions in some environmentally sensitive areas, which makes other measures necessary.
In such cases a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system, which has been widely used in
the other industries, can be combined with SCV to comply with the strict emission limitation.
By using SCR, NOx level in the flue gas can be reduced below 5 ppm. Figure 5 shows a
schematic of a low NOx system using SCR.

Figure 5 Selective Catalyst Reduction System for SCV vent gas

The SCR solution reduces emissions, but there are disadvantages, including decreased
thermal efficiency, increased plot space, complexity and costs and limited operating
experience (2 units operating at Distrigas in Everett, MA, USA since 2003)
New Technologies
Given the site and environmental challenges associated with conventional ORV and SCV
technologies, the industry now has a keen interest in alternate LNG vaporisation methods.
The technologies now being developed by equipment vendors and engineering companies
are based on either combustion of fuel or ambient air as the heat source. The concept of
using ambient air is preferred from an emissions standpoint, though at many locations
standby combustion is required for periods of low ambient air temperatures. Some of the
processes now under consideration or recently installed are summarized below:

Fired Heater
The fired heater design indirectly vaporises LNG by heating a Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) that
is in contact with the LNG through a Shell and Tube Vaporiser.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
Inherently high heat transfer coefficients result in a compact design, thus reducing space
requirements. Various kinds of heat transfer fluids are available including water, water
solutions with ethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, or methanol. The selection of the type of
HTF depends on its physical-chemical properties, operating costs, proven track records, and
HSE considerations.
NOx and CO emissions are reduced by 99% or better with the addition of an SCR in the
stack, which is the configuration shown in figure 6. One disadvantage of the FH design
relative to SCV is that the stack exhaust temperature is higher which means efficiency is
lower and the FH will require approximately 10% more fuel. This disadvantage can be
overcome, though with additional capital cost, by using a flue gas condensing heat exchanger
in the exhaust stack [Ref. 4].

Figure 6 Fired Heater Vaporisation System

Reverse Cooling Tower (RCT)

The heat source for this process is ambient air going through a cooling tower; only in this
case the tower cools air instead of heating air. An intermediate fluid transfers heat between
the tower and the LNG. A standby fired heater is also provided for periods of low
temperature. In many cases the fired heater operates for a limited period of time and low
NOx burners are not required. A typical RCT process flow schematic is shown in figure 7.

Figure 7 Reverse Cooling Tower

Ambient Air Vaporisers (AAV)

Two basic types of ambient air vaporisers can be considered for LNG applications:

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
The direct air-to-LNG contact vaporiser uses air in either a natural or a forced draft vertical
arrangement. Such vaporisers are in service for peak shaving plants at locations where the
LNG vaporisation duty and flow rate is relatively small; such an installation is shown in figure
8. Traditionally, these vaporisers have been designed with half of the parallel units on-line
while the other half are off-line for defrosting. Large scale installations of air-to-LNG
vaporisers would require many individual units manifolded together. Unless adequate space
is provided around the vaporisers the cold air would recirculate back to the vaporiser inlet.
Under certain atmospheric conditions the units may also generate fog in sufficient quantities
to persist beyond the plant fence line. At present there are no large scale units in operation.

Figure 8 Direct Ambient Air Vaporisation

Indirect ambient air vaporisers use an intermediate fluid between a shell-and-tube LNG
vaporiser and conventional fin-fan air coolers to reheat the fluid by ambient air, as shown in
figure 9. This system has been in operation since early 2004 at the Dahej receiving terminal
(India).

Figure 9 Indirect Ambient Air Vaporisation Scheme

Economic Comparison
Using a life cycle cost model, KBR evaluated economics for the vaporisation schemes
discussed in the previous sections [Ref. 5]. The expenses (capital, maintenance, and
operating costs) of each scheme were estimated and used to determine a comparative Net
Present Value (NPV) for each scheme.
KBR found that in general, ambient air vaporisation schemes required the highest capital
expenditure, but the lowest operating costs, while a fired heater provided the lowest capital
expenditure but high operating costs.
The best NPV was achieved by low operating cost schemes, and KBR found that ambient air
vaporisation can be a cost-effective scheme, despite relatively higher capital cost, with NPV
comparable to the ORV design. However, the results of this study are sensitive to site-specific
variables, such as the value of plot space for large-footprint schemes, and the value of fuel
gas.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
Site-specific studies are required to determine the optimum vaporiser design for a particular
site. KBRs work has demonstrated that the more recent technologies such as ambient air
vaporisation not only eliminate some of the environmental concerns, but also have the
potential to improve project economics in some cases.

Heat Integration with Other Facilities

Most base-load LNG terminals to date have vaporised LNG to deliver gas into a distribution
network. If the customer is an industrial facility, such as a power station, there is the potential
for heat integration. Heat integration means using the cold from vaporising the LNG to
provide chilling in the integrated process. There is considerable potential in many cases for
improved overall thermal efficiency.
An LNG terminal has a large reservoir of cold energy which is normally dissipated into the sea
or the atmosphere. In an export terminal, up to 10% of the throughput may be used to provide
the refrigeration to liquefy the gas. A large amount of this energy is transported to the LNG
receiving terminal as cold and is technically free to the receiver as gas is priced on heating
value. Various schemes have been applied to make use of this cold energy, which include
cryogenic power generation, air separation, carbon dioxide solidification, cold storage / frozen
foods, cryogenic crushing and sea water desalination.
There are also opportunities to integrate the terminal with facilities with large sources of
continuous low grade heat and high temperature heat sinks. An adjacent refinery or power
station offers excellent opportunities to realise the inherent synergies of integration using
established technology. KBR have developed a number of schemes around these processes,
as an example this section concentrates on new KBR initiatives in the integration of terminals
with power stations.
MWKL [Ref. 6] studied integrating a cold power station within the terminal; this is a reverse
refrigeration process using an expander cycle to capture some of the energy flowing from the
warm to cold heat sinks. The MWKL study found that this Rankin cycle has the potential to
extract approximately half of the energy thermodynamically available in the heat flow from the
warm to cold heat sinks. However, integration with a power station offers greater rewards,
with the opportunity to use heat from the power station to vaporise LNG and cold from the
terminal to improve power station efficiency. In this case the MWKL study found the
theoretical potential to recover up to 90% of the thermodynamically available energy flow,
based on exergy analysis.
New Power Station Integration Processes by KBR [Ref. 7]
A power plant must reject heat to condense steam and to cool equipment. In addition, power
output can be increased by cooling the gas turbine inlet air. This works by increasing the
mass throughput and also allowing more fuel to be burnt due to lower compressor discharge
temperatures.
Thermal integration processes can be categorised into:
LNG Cold Recovery
Heat Recovery from the power plant
Combination of both heat and cold recovery.
KBR have recently developed new schemes combining both heat and cold recovery. These
are based on a terminal with a combined cycle gas turbine power-plant, and integrate GT inlet
air chilling and heat recovery from the power plant to vaporise the LNG.
As the power increase effect of GT inlet air chilling depends on ambient conditions, two HTF
loops are utilised. One for the inlet air chilling, and the other for waste heat recovery allowing
independent control.
Figure 10 shows the basic KBR scheme. The GT inlet air stream is cooled by the LNG via a
HTF loop. Cooling water is used to vaporise and heat the LNG and then used to condense
the steam at the exit of the steam turbine. Any excess heat is rejected to atmosphere in a
wet-type cooler.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Figure 10 KBR Power Plant Heat Integration Scheme 1

A modification of the above is shown in figure 11. In this configuration, all the cooling water
passes through the wet-type cooler. This enables the steam to condense at a lower
temperature in the surface condenser, which increases the power output from the steam
turbine due to the correspondingly lower condensing pressure.

Figure 11 KBR Power Plant Heat Integration Scheme 2

The process configuration in figure 12 consists of a HTF loop for the GT inlet air chilling,
double tube bundle vaporiser and the superheater. The HTF is heated by cooling water (CW).
This allows a lower condensing temperature for the steam with an increase in power output
as stated previously. The HTF vaporises the intermediate fluid in the double tube exchanger
which is condensed against the LNG stream. Again excess heat is rejected to atmosphere via
a cooling tower.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Figure 12 KBR Power Plant Heat Integration Scheme 3

Benefits
KBR integration technology provides the following benefits:

Reducing costs in construction and operation

Optimising the use of the LNG facility (storage and re-gasification)
Increasing competitiveness in energy markets (gas and power)
Shared facilities (utilities, etc.)
Enhanced summer peaking capacity
Improved environmental performance; lower emissions

Ethane Extraction
Currently, the imported LNG into the U.S. accounts for roughly 1% of the domestic demand.
With declining domestic gas production, LNG importation is projected to increase to 10 % by
2010. As a result, the issue of gas compatibility has become important [Ref. 8, 9]; revaporised LNG must acceptable to all gas users with no credit for blending with gas from
other sources.
LNG specifications are subjected to supply-demand negotiations, similar to other
commodities. Since Japan imports about 50 % of globally traded LNG, the Japanese gas
specification of relatively high ethane and heavier component content will probably continue
to be the basis of many future LNG supplies. Consequently, most LNG suppliers produce
LNG richer than U.S. pipeline specifications. With LNG imports to U.S. projected to increase,
some LNG producers may be willing to produce lean LNG suitable for the U.S. market.
Nonetheless, the spot market will remain popular for opportunistic purchasers in the
foreseeable future. The capability of a receiving terminal to assure gas compatibility would
enhance business opportunities.
Ethane extraction is an attractive option to ensure gas compatibility. Other methods involve
blending with inert gases; ethane extraction is able to change gas properties over a wide
range and also produces an ethane and heavier by-product which may attract a high market
value at some locations. Several ethane extraction schemes have been proposed in recent
years, and some are protected by patents. All of the commercial extraction schemes are
based on fractionation, which leads to the issue that the operating pressures of fractionation
towers generally fall below the pipeline delivery pressures, so export compression is required.
Various schemes for removing ethane and heavier components in the LNG have been
addressed previously by KBR [Ref. 10]. In this work it was found that removing most propane
and heavier components with a smaller proportion of the ethane is sufficient to achieve the
required gas quality, because the former contribute more to the high heating values (HHV)..
Recently, KBR has received requests by prospective LNG terminal owners to study deeper
ethane recovery, at locations where there is a local market for ethane. A number of schemes
have been investigated by KBR, pre-screened using various criteria including:

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Optimise operating conditions for favourable vapour-liquid equilibrium conditions

Optimise use of equipment.
Make best use of the LNG cold capacity for providing reflux and offsetting heat input
in the demethaniser reboilers.
High ethane recovery rates
The results of these investigations for three categories of process are detailed below:
Category A Residue Compression
In the residue compression scheme shown in figure 13, the inlet LNG is pre-heated by a
reflux stream before entering the column. The overheads are compressed to send-out
pressure and a side stream of the compressor discharge is taken to pre-heat the column feed
and to provide reflux. This scheme recovers 95% of the ethane in the feed.

Figure 13 Simplified Residue Compression with Enhancement for Ethane Recovery (KBR Design)

Category B Residue Compression and Condensing

In the residue compression and condensing scheme shown in figure 14, the inlet LNG is preheated before entering the column. The overheads are compressed and then condensed in
the feed pre-heater. The re-liquefied stream is pumped to send-out pressure, then vaporised
for export. Immediately upstream of the vaporiser, a slip-stream is taken out to provide reflux
to the demethaniser column. This scheme has a 95% ethane recovery rate.

Figure 14 Residue Compression and Condensing

Category C Residue Condensing

In category C there are two schemes. Figure 15 shows a simplified scheme of a process with
pre-heated LNG entering the column. The overheads from the column are used to pre-heat
the column feed and are completely condensed before entering the reflux drum. From the
drum, reflux is provided for the column and the remainder is pumped to send-out pressure,
vaporised and exported. This scheme can achieve ethane recovery of 90%.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Figure 15 Residue Condensing with Reflux Drum attached to Demethaniser (KBR Design).

Figure 16 shows a similar process, except the overheads are only partially condensed before
entering the reflux drum. The vapour from the reflux drum is compressed via a much smaller
compressor compared to the residue compression and condensing scheme of figure 14. The
compressed vapour is condensed against the column feed before re-entering the reflux drum.
This scheme achieves 95% ethane recovery. The working principle is similar in some aspects
to the Ortloff Cold Residue Reflux process (CRR) [Ref. 11].

Figure 16 Residue Condensing with Reflux Drum Attached to Demethaniser and Enhancement for Ethane Recovery
(KBR Design).

Process Comparison
In general, the simple residue compression scheme offers the simplest process with the best
flexibility and best ethane recovery theoretically possible, though at the highest capital and
operating cost due to large compressors. The residue condensing schemes have lower
capital and operating cost but poor flexibility, for example increased sensitivity to LNG inlet
conditions. Hence this scheme is more suited to a terminal with little variation in send-out
rates. As the residue condensing schemes involve multiple phase changes, exergy loss (the
irreversible loss of energy from the process) is higher and ethane recovery is reduced. The
residue condensing and compression scheme offers an intermediate option.
Selecting the best process for a specific project is a trade-off between the capital and
operating cost of the plant required versus the revenue achievable from the ethane and
heavier product stream. Local factors such as availability of a heat source for the reboiler, unit
cost of power and send-out patterns will also influence the process selection. Optimisation of
the terminal may steer the process selection towards reducing reboiler duties by lowering
operating pressures or process heat integration.

Offshore Terminals
There is a high level of interest in building facilities offshore, due to environmental and
permitting issues, particularly in the US. Offshore installations could also be attractive in
locations with poor shipping access at the coastline.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
Several companies have proposed concepts for offshore storage and regasification terminals,
though there is little practical experience at this stage. The essential elements of an offshore
terminal are all proven technology: e.g. offshore platform or vessel substructures, onshore
regasification design and LNG transportation. Offshore terminals will require a successful
integration of these proven elements.
Offshore terminal concepts can be classified as:
Gravity Based Structures (GBS)
Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU)
Other concepts
Concept selection for a particular site will depend on site conditions such as water depth, subsea soil, sea conditions etc. Each of the terminal concepts presents particular technical
challenges, and to date offshore LNG terminals have been found to require higher investment
cost than an equivalent conventional land-based design. Project economics will favour an
offshore design when the incremental cost is less than the cost of building the terminal further
from the market to circumvent permitting or environmental requirements.
Safety is an important aspect of all LNG installation designs, and offshore structures present
new considerations; Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) of offshore installations needs to
consider the risk of events such as ship impact to the facilities. As offshore designs are likely
to be more congested, KBR pays careful attention to mitigation measures to offset the risk of
escalation and higher consequences in terms of economic loss and casualties. Owners and
operators will set high standards and expect comparable safety performance to the excellent
record of the onshore LNG industry.
A brief review of the main offshore concepts follows:
Gravity Based Structures (GBS)
A number of companies have been developing GBS concepts, and the first LNG GBS import
Terminal is under development by affiliates of ExxonMobil, Qatar Petroleum and Edison in the
Adriatic Sea 17 km offshore Venice. [Ref. 12]
Challenges need to be addressed to construct GBS LNG terminals, and designers will over
time refine their design to address these issues, including:

Design and construction of offshore LNG storage:

Rectangular tanks are favoured for GBS designs, as the geometry is more conducive to
achieving a compact layout. Designers face the challenge of minimising weight, which is an
important factor in offshore design. ExxonMobils Modular LNG (MLNG) Tank uses internal
trusses made from 9% nickel to reduce the wall thickness of the tank.
Various options can be addressed, for example the storage tanks can be used as the base to
mount other processing equipment, or alternately storage can be mounted on a separate
structure to the regasification plant. The major considerations in this assessment are safety
and economics; the technology is new and designers are still considering a range of
concepts.

Design for extreme meteorological and ocean conditions:

A GBS is likely to be exposed to more severe conditions than an onshore plant, and it may be
necessary to consider construction of separate breakwater structures to improve conditions at
the tanker interface.
Design of the loading arms need to allow for more movement at the interface due to exposed
ocean conditions. Loading Arm vendors such as FMC of France have been developing
prototype systems to improve functionality in extreme conditions. FMSs Cable Targeting
System" (CTS) uses cable connection technology to allow the offloading arm to be connected
to vessel manifolds undergoing relative motions substantially higher than those allowed for
offloading arms fitted with standard hydraulic controls. Some operators are interested in
developing large-bore cryogenic hoses; hoses up to 20 have been tested with liquid nitrogen.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Design of large support structures

The support structures for GBS designs are generally based on large concrete caissons that
can be towed to the project site and grounded on the sea bed. There is experience of
designing such structures in the industry, and designers are aware of constraints imposed by
local factors such as meteorological, ocean and seismic conditions.
The GBS is constructed onshore and installed offshore, typical concrete quantities in the
structures considered to date are in excess of 100,000 m3. The scale of these structures
might be limited by the ability to build them, or the draft during towing.
A typical GBS architecture is illustrated in figure 17

Figure 17 GBS Terminal; artists impression

Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU)

Floating designs present similar challenges to gravity based offshore designs, but with the
additional aspect of movement, and the potential for transient non-horizontal periods. FRSU
motion is multidimensional and will affect structures, equipment and people. The degree of
motion is affected by hull dimensions and dynamics, sea conditions and the mooring system.
FRSU design requires a thorough sea-keeping analysis to optimise design and provide input
to design of the topsides facilities. The challenge of designing for motion affects several
aspects of the terminal design including:

Storage Tanks
Various designs have been considered. One of the major challenges in floating storage
design is to mitigate the impact of sloshing, particularly for membrane-type tanks. Designers
need to consider operation of partially full tanks, and ensure that transient sloshing loads as
well as long term fatigue are properly assessed.

Vaporisers
ORVs and SCVs are not favoured on a moving platform. The ORV requires a very good
verticality, some vendors suggest tolerance less than 0.5. The SCV includes a water bath in
which no liquid motion is allowed. This means that the FSRU requires the development of
new process schemes based on heat exchangers insensitive to motion.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper
Several solutions have been considered using either an intermediate fluid or water directly. As
the floating terminal is likely to have its own electrical power production based on gas turbine
generators, turbine exhaust gas heat may be recovered to perform the vaporisation although
the heat amount recovered on the gas turbine will likely not be sufficient on its own to
vaporise the nominal flow rate for LNG.
Other Concepts
A more recent development has been consideration of LNG Regasification Vessels. Daewoo
Shipbuilders [Ref. 13] have recently completed the first such vessel, based on a conventional
LNG tanker design with regasification equipment mounted on the ship to deliver gas via SPM
or loading jetty directly to market. The Exmar Energy Bridge is based on a tanker carrying
138,000 m3 of LNG and capable of delivering approx 13 MMNm3/d into a pipeline system at
up to 100 bar a. [Ref. 14] This project uses the Advanced Production Loading AS (Norway)
proprietary Submerged Turret Loading (STL) system.
Another offshore concept is to provide a SPM at an offshore location, with cryogenic pipeline
to a remote facility. This could be a transfer to onshore LNG storage, in circumstances where
a cryogenic transfer line is an economic alternate to a conventional jetty or some authors
have considered transfer via an offshore regasification unit to salt cavern storage [Ref. 15].
Krekel & Prescott [Ref. 16] point out that the concept of using SPM is well established in the
oil industry. The major technical development required to extend the SPM concept to LNG
terminals is confidence in sub-sea cryogenic piping systems.

Conclusions
The LNG terminal is just one element in a very capital intensive supply chain required to
deliver high volumes of stranded gas to distant markets. All links in this chain need to be in
place before any LNG project can proceed, and obtaining approval to build LNG terminals is
becoming a challenging link in this chain.
There are dozens of LNG terminals around the globe, and designers like KBR have several
decades of experience with their design. Most terminals have a similar design concept; the
traditional terminal is predominantly an onshore plant with a jetty, trestle, two or more
storage tanks and vaporisation by open rack vaporisers (ORVs) using sea or river water as
heating medium depending on location, with submerged combustion vaporisers (SCVs) as
back-up.
This paper has shown that no matter how simple the traditional terminal design might look,
there are plenty of opportunities to apply technical innovation to address the environmental,
social and economic concerns that might otherwise create the bottleneck in the LNG supply
chain. To illustrate this point, the paper considered the following technology areas:

LNG Vaporisers: Traditional terminals have been dominated by just 2 alternate

vaporiser designs, the Open Rack Vaporiser (ORV) and the Submerged Combustion
Vaporiser (SCV). The authors anticipate a trend towards more environmentally
acceptable schemes using ambient air to provide heating in preference to fuel gas or
water, and have found that the NPV of an investment in ambient air vaporiser
schemes can be favourable.
Heat Integration: Exploiting the synergies of integration of LNG receiving terminals
and power plants lead to large increases in energy recovery and reductions in CO2
emissions. The configuration of the new KBR processes overcomes the concerns on
GT inlet air chilling (ambient conditions, compressor suction losses) due to the
flexibility in transferring the source of heat for vaporisation between chilling the GT
inlet air and condensing the exhaust from the steam turbine.
Ethane Extraction: The world trade in LNG has been dominated by Japan as the
major importer. As a result, the specification of most traded LNG (such as higher
heating value, HHV) suits Japanese market requirements. In some new markets such
as the US, where lower HHV is required, there may be a requirement to remove
ethane and heavier components to achieve the gas specification. This paper has
reviewed several process schemes that can provide deep ethane recovery, with the
opportunity to sell an additional value added product in locations with a local demand.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

New LNG Receiving Terminal Concepts

Block 3, Forum 14 paper

Offshore Terminals: The paper has provided a brief review of offshore terminal
concepts. In short, building onshore is generally at lower cost. However, in some
markets there are local social and environmental concerns that make it impractical to
obtain the permit to build onshore; in such cases it might be economical to build
offshore.

References
[1] World Bank Group: Table 4, Liquid Effluent from Onshore Oil and Gas Production, Oil and Gas
Development, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (1998).
[2] Sinking Feeling : Offshore U.S. Terminal Developers Run into Cost, Environmental Challenges,
LNG Express, Vol. XIV, No. 10, p. 2-3, 2004.
[3] Personal communication with Ed Vogel at Selasfluid.
[4] Web page, http://www.chxheat.com/perform.html.
[5] Joseph H. Cho, Gopal Mathur, Heinz Kotzot, Charles Durr, Limitations in LNG Vaporization Process
Selection AIChE 2005 Spring National Meeting, 2005.
[6] Townsend, B., Khaligh, B., Opportunities for Elegant Power Systems Design in LNG, SMi LNG
Conference, February 2005
[7] Cho, J.H., Patel, H., Coyle, D.A., Durr, C.A., A Case Study for Integrated LNG-to-Power: Technical
Comparison of Available Cost Reduction Methods, AIChE Spring National Meeting, 2004
[8] Rogers, D.R., Gas Interchangeability and Its Effects on U.S. Import Plans, Pipeline and Gas journal,
September (2003a)
[9] Rogers, D.R., Long-term Solution Needed to Embrace Imports with Pipeline Gas, Pipeline and Gas
journal, September (2003b)
[10]
Huang, S., Coyle, D., Cho, J., and Durr, C., Select the Optimal Extraction Method for LNG
Regasification, Hydrocarbon Processing, July 2004.
[11]
Campbell, R.E., Wilkinson, J.D., Hudson, H.M., Hydrocarbon Gas Processing, U.S. Patent
4,889,545.
[12]
Roger D. Leick Adriatic LNG Terminal ExxonMobil Development Company. Presented to
Gastech 2005 March 15, 2005
[13]
Hochung Kim, JungHan Lee, Design and Construction of LNG Regasification Vessel.
Presented to Gastech 2005
[14]
Patrick Janssens, Energy Bridge The Worlds First LNG Offshore Solution. Presented to
Gastech 2005
[15]
OTV 16152 Offshore Salt Cavern Based Mega LNG Receiving Terminal, By M.M. McCall et
al, OTC Conference, May 2004
[16]
Max Krekel, Neal Prescott, Ship to Shore Transfer of LNG a New Approach Presented to
Gastech 2005

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved