Selecting Best Technologies for Designing Onshore LNG Production Plants

Saeid Mokhatab
Independent Gas-Engineering Consultant

Abstract Gas fields taken into production in the near future contain considerable amount of sulfur components which require a series of treatment processes, particularly for conditioning gas for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects. However, for optimal design of LNG production plants, process selection for the individual units must be made on the basis of an integrated approach that considers interactions between units. In fact, these processes must be selected and integrated to provide a cost-effective treating complex that removes contaminants in an environmentally friendly way. This paper discusses the available process options, their limitations and their integration opportunities, in order to achieve the right flow-scheme for the optimal design of onshore LNG production plants. 1. Introduction A typical scheme for most gas processing plants designed to produce LNG from a sour gas feed is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, field production upon arrival at processing plant will be processed in a slug catcher, which catches liquid slugs and then allows them to flow into downstream equipment and facilities at a rate at which the liquid can be properly handled. Produced gas from the outlet of the slug catcher is directed to a high-pressure (HP) separator, where final separation of liquid from gas takes place. These liquids are stabilized and then stored before sale on the condensates market. The light components stripped in the stabilization column are re-compressed and mixed with the gas from the slug catcher. The aim is to liquefy the resulting raw gas in the downstream process. The high-pressure raw gas flows through to the Gas Sweetening Unit (GSU), in which acidic components like H2S and CO2 are removed by means of chemical solvents. Simultaneous carbonyl sulfide (COS) removal in the GSU is also desired as it facilitates the downstream processing and purification steps and contributes to the reduction of the total sulfur content of the treated gas. The enriched acid gas from the GSU is processed to produce elemental sulfur in a Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU), consisting of a Claus unit and an associated Tail Gas Treating Unit (TGTU) if higher recovery rates are specified for the SRU itself. The final residual gas from the TGTU is incinerated. The treated sweet gas is then dehydrated on molecular sieves to achieve 1ppm volume of water to ensure safe processing and transmission, and then purified on a mercury guard bed to limit the mercury content to nanograms

levels (i.e. 10 nanograms per cubic meter) in order to prevent any corrosion problems in cryogenic section. Mercury is conventionally removed using nonregenerable activated carbon or activated alumina based adsorbent. The dry and mercury free gas is then cooled down to about -35C, where heavy components are liquefied. The cooling temperature is set such that the quantity of these heavy ends, extracted as natural gas liquid (NGL's), is adjusted so that in order the remaining gas composition complies with the LNG specification and a necessary smooth operation. Ethane, propane and butane are extracted by fractionation for the refrigerant make up and for the LPG market. The lean gas is condensed and sub-cooled down to about -160C to produce LNG. Generally, the LNG sales specification allows a maximum content of nitrogen of about 1% in order to controlling the Wobbe Index of import LNG. The nitrogen content of some existing gas fields is above 1%, consequently the excess of nitrogen has to be removed, and a dedicated nitrogen removal unit has to be installed. The resulting nitrogen-rich vapor is compressed and fed into the fuel gas system, while the remaining liquid at about -160C is pumped into the LNG storage tanks before export by dedicated LNG carriers. Flashed vapors and boil off gas are recycled within the process.

Figure 1 Overall Scheme of LNG Production Plant: Sequence and Requirements

2. Proposed Technologies for Designing LNG Production Plant

For a given gas composition different process configurations are available and the choice of technologies can be vast. However, for optimal design of the LNG plant, process selection for the individual units must be made on the basis of an integrated approach that considers interactions between units. The best practice to establish the optimum treating line-up for an LNG production plant should be critically examined, taking all the process and environmental limitations into account within a flexible, operable and economically justified window. 2.1 Feed Pre-Treatment Section Taking the typical scheme of an LNG production plant (as shown in Figure 1), there are several pre-treatment units to treat natural gas in order to meet the required specification of LNG product. The first specification to be met is H2S removal to < 4 ppmv, CO2 to 50 ppmv, total sulfur < 30 ppmv as S, water to 0.1 ppmv, and mercury to levels of 10 g/Nm3. This section provides an overview of the gas treating technologies available to meet the required specification of LNG product considering the integration of the Gas Sweetening Unit (GSU) with Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU), and discusses three integration aspects of the main gas treating processes involved. Key elements in selecting the optimum process for the Gas Sweetening Unit (GSU) are the requirements for full or selective removal of CO2 and the coabsorption of hydrocarbons. Such a unit could be operated with an aqueousamine-solvent or mixed physical/chemical solvent. From a sustaineddevelopment point of view, coadsorption of hydrocarbons has two unwanted effects. First, it reduces the effectiveness with which the feed gas is used in the downstream process, and second, the combustion of the hydrocarbons in the sulfur-recovery unit (SRU) will result in an increase in CO2 emission. In the aqueous-amine-solvent treating option, the coadsorption effect will be very low because the solubility of aromatics and heavy hydrocarbons in the aqueous solvent is low. In the mixed-solvent treating option, the coabsorption effect will be much stronger because of the physical solvent element in the GSU solvent. The second step in the treating process is a Molecular Sieve Unit (MSU), which brings the gas at the final specification for water and mercaptans (RSH) content. Removal of RSH in a MSU necessitates treating the regeneration gas containing RSH in a separate treating unit. There is an optimum between the amine-based GSU and the MSU for mercaptan removal. There are two options: first, mixed physical/chemical processes can be used to remove part or all of the mercaptans from the feed stream, and the mol sieve unit can be used as a polishing step. The second option is to use an aqueous amine solvent, which removes little mercaptans (say 10 15 %), leaving most of the mercaptan-removal to the mol sieve unit. Importantly, the mechanism for removal of mercaptans in the amine solvents is similar for the hydrocarbons and mercaptans; thus, some degree of co-absorption of these components cannot be avoided. This optimization should take into account three main factors: operating flexibility over the feed gas range, environmental performance, and cost effectiveness. The choice of which

process option is most suitable depends on the feed gas composition. If the mercaptan content of the feed gas is high, use of an aqueous solvent for the GSU will require construction of a very large molecular-sieve unit (MSU), which would make this option uneconomic. However, if the mercaptan content is less than approximately 400 to 500 ppm, both processes offer advantages and disadvantages. Given the magnitude of the investment in an LNG production plant, it is appropriate to carry out a rigorous treating process selection study to identify the most cost effective and fit for purpose treatment package that removes contaminants in an environmentally friendly way. Mokhatab and Meyer (2009) discuss several integration aspects of the main gas treating processes involved. The technical options considered may be a combination of both open art technology and licensed processes. However, among the alternatives, integrated solutions (Lurgi OmniSulf package, Shell and Prosernat total solutions), which are tailored to customer needs, will be the only comprehensive technology options where these integrated concepts offer the following advantages: One license contract, one overall guarantee and liability, and one license fee. Tailor-made solution to avoid multiplying internal design margins; which can result in significant CAPEX and OPEX savings. These integrated concepts are based on Lurgi/Shell/Prosernat proprietary know-how as leading technology licensors and engineering contractors that takes the feed stream and deliver the required end product in an optimal manner. The scope of engineering services continues to detailed engineering as well as assistance at commissioning and start-up and after sales services (technical assistance, training, and revamp studies). However, the results of an economic analysis will clearly indicate which alternative would be economically preferred. Determining the best treating package is very much dependent on the initial feed gas conditions, the treated gas specifications and environmental requirements. Before the treating package is selected, it is strongly recommended that an optimization study is carried out to obtain the lowest Capex/Opex and largest operating window with respect to feed gas composition (Klinkenbijl et al., 1999). In fact, the right technology, which results in a cleaner environment, improved reliability, and higher margins, has to be chosen on the basis of the environment of each individual project on a case by case basis, addressing the drawbacks and advantages of each option. Selecting the right technology and tailoring the right process design for a given application also requires both extensive industrial experience and the possibility to choose among various technologies and process options. This means, the investment in a high quality engineering consultant to provide process selection study will be well rewarded with a reliable fit for purpose and cost effective treatment package.

2.2 NGL Recovery The major options are through cooling, absorption, or adsorption based processes. However, cryogenic refrigeration process is generally the most technically advanced type of NGL recovery used today. This combines high recovery levels (typically allowing full recovery of all of the propane and heavier NGLs and recovery of 50% to more than 90% of the ethane) with low capital cost and easy operation (Lee et al., 1999). This is less attractive on very rich gas streams or where the light NGL product (C2 and C3) is not marketable, whereas for gases very rich in NGL, simple refrigeration is probably the best choice. Within the liquids recovery section of the gas processing plant, there are both operating cost and operating flexibility issues that directly impact the processing cost. While it is easily recognized that the efficiency of the selected liquids recovery process is an important factor in the processing cost, the flexibility of operating the process to either recover or reject ethane without sacrificing efficiency or propane recovery is often the critical factor (Pitman et al., 1998). As the industry matured and the demand for more efficient ethane recovery increased, several new and very clever designs have been developed. Up until now, Ortloffs gas Subcooled Process (GSP) and Residue Split-Vapor (RSV) process have been state of the-art for efficient NGL/LPG recovery from natural gas, particularly for those gases containing significant concentrations of carbon dioxide,3 which are discussed by Mokhatab et al (2006). It should be noted that the type of NGL process has a significant affect on the level pre-treatment required. It is therefore important to consider all the knock on implications before any process is selected. Choosing a best NGL recovery process requires consideration of a broad range of factors. The main variables that affect the choice of the best process for a given application include inlet conditions (gas pressure, richness, and contaminants), downstream conditions (i.e. residue gas pressure), and overall conditions (i.e. utility costs). In addition to the feed gas composition and operation mode, the most decisive technical characteristics of any process are the upstream and downstream pressure that will have a significant influence on the performance of the various technologies available (Mokhatab et al., 2006). 2.3 Liquefaction Section A number of liquefaction processes have been developed with the differences mainly residing on the type of refrigeration cycles employed. Mokhatab and Economides (2006a) present a critical overview of the LNG process and an analysis of the main methods available for the liquefaction of natural gas in an onshore LNG plant. They also discuss selection issues relating to the main technologies that affect LNG plant configuration. As can be seen, the most commonly utilized LNG technologies for onshore applications are: Phillips Optimized Cascade LNG Process (OCLP), APCI Propane Pre-cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PPMR) process, and Shell Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) process. While the Propane Pre-cooled Mixed Refrigerant (PPMR) process dominates

the industry, there has been considerable diversification of liquefaction processes in the last five to seven years. Increased competition has led to increased train capacity, improved driver integration and decreased capital costs. The PPMR process, which is applied in all Shell-advised LNG plants around the world, was originally selected as the basis for the liquefaction design. This process is generally accepted to be the most cost-effective, reliable baseload LNG process available. It covers nearly 90% of the total baseload LNG capacity installed worldwide since 1972. Optimized Cascade LNG Process (OCLP), which utilizes essentially pure refrigerant components in an integrated cascade arrangement and offers high efficiency and reliability, has been applied at the Atlantic LNG project in Trinidad, and it is the only process being used in an arctic climate. The Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) process is selected on the basis of highest plant efficiency and, accordingly, the highest production capacity for given mechanical driver power, and the lowest specific cost (Mokhatab and Economides, 2006b). Studies of the different liquefaction processes suggest there is not one of them, on its own, that is substantially more efficient than the others. Rather, each technology can be competitive within a certain range of train sizes. The ultimate choice of which process to select will remain dependent on projectspecific variables and the potential development state of novel processes. Note, LNG technology selection starts at an early stage in the life of a baseload LNG project and is typically addressed at the feasibility study and pre-FEED definition stages. Process routes must be chosen for the process itself, utilities and plant offsite units. These include proprietary and nonproprietary technologies. This also applies to the upstream part of the LNG chain, which supplies gas to the plant. Potential options must be identified and evaluation criteria established. Selection could be decided between alternative processing technologies for operating units, the type of major equipment, or utility schemes. 2.4 Integrating NGL Recovery and LNG Liquefaction Technology It is common practice for NGL extraction to stand-alone as a separate plant from LNG liquefaction facilities for various commercial or geographical reasons. One such commercial reason is when NGL recovery and sales are desired well in advance of LNG. There may also be geographical reasons to take this approach such as cases where NGL liquids are required in a different location than LNG and where a long gas pipeline separates the two plants. As still another reason, the NGL recovery plant may already exist, prior to consideration of a LNG facility. Alternatively, since all components having a higher condensing temperature than methane will be liquefied in the liquefaction process, it becomes technically practical to integrate NGL recovery within LNG liquefaction. Duplication of processing equipment and refrigeration requirements are avoided with an integrated approach. In fact, a substantial cost savings may be achieved when NGL recovery is effectively integrated within the liquefaction process. NGL recovery integration also improves overall thermodynamic efficiency. Since integration of NGL recovery into the natural gas liquefaction process allows for higher recovery of heavier hydrocarbon

components, the removal of liquefaction contaminants such as cyclohexane and benzene are also improved. This is important since these particular components, even at relatively low concentrations, may create freezing problems in the colder sections of the LNG process. Thus higher NGL recovery and less operational concerns are achieved at the same time that the frontend NGL plant is eliminated. Various configurations of the integrated NGL recovery and LNG liquefaction units exist, depending on the component selected for recovery as well as the desired recovery level, where through careful process selection and heat integration, the proper integrated LNG/NGL technologies results in lower specific power consumption and increased NPV as compared to nonintegrated facilities. 2.5 Nitrogen Removal Selection of the nitrogen rejection technology has implications on the design of both the upstream and the downstream process facilities. For high magnitude of the feed gas flow rate and the relative high nitrogen content, cryogenic processing is the only real option for nitrogen rejection. The alternatives of pressure swing adsorption or membrane technology would require excessive power to achieve sales gas specification and therefore would have a very high capital and operating cost. The main cryogenic cycles options for Nitrogen Rejection are available: Single Column Cycle, Double Column Cycle, and Pre-separation Column cycle. However, the key parameter for process selection is essentially the nitrogen content. Feed pressure, flowrate, contaminant levels and level of hydrocarbon available in the nitrogen vent are also of importance. Process optimization is focused on achieving a balance of cryogenic process simplicity, ease of operation and capital cost and compression system capital and operating cost. 2.6 Technology Selection Criteria The earlier chapters have given on overview over the different treatment steps with its advantage and disadvantages. To design the full processing plant this information together with well defined selection criteria for the different technologies and their interfaces is necessary. For selecting a certain technology it is important to take into account the interaction between this technology and the other treatment steps. Depending on the technology chosen, different schemes might be developed. They have to be evaluated taking into account the following characteristics: CAPEX and OPEX (lifecycle cost), license availability and fee, environmental and operational aspects, process safety, maintenance, utility needs, etc (McMahon, 2004). 3. Conclusion

This paper has shown the interdependence of the various processes within any LNG production plant. A process configuration cannot be simply taken for granted; it needs careful thought and evaluation giving special consideration to consequences of selecting different technologies and any peculiar requirements of downstream processes. Optimization of an LNG production plant can only be achieved through considering it as a whole entity; attempts to optimize individual process units in isolation will only result in lost opportunities. In configuring the optimum flowscheme the designer must understand the technology options available, their integration opportunities and their limitations. Technical risk, licensor experience, degree of commercialization, safety, health and environmental aspects all need to be weighed up along with the process and economic performance of the technologies concerned. Many other factors may also come into play including commercial arrangements, use of proprietary technology and licensing costs, technology availability in certain countries or concerns about intellectual property protection, client preferences, etc. which may dictate the final solution or provide restrictions on technology. This, coupled with a full understanding of the project-wide implications, will enable the designer to navigate through the minefield of technical options and arrive at the best solution for the project. 4. References

Klinkenbijl, J.M., Dillon, M.L., and Heyman, E.C., Gas Pre-Treatment and Their Impact on Liquefaction Processes, presented at the 78 th Annual GPA Convention, Nashville, TN, USA (March 1-3, 1999). Lee, R.J., Yao, J., and Elliot, D., Flexibility, Efficiency to Characterize Gas-Processing Technologies, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 97, No. 50, PP. 90 94 (1999). McMahon, D, Navigating the Technical Minefield of Gas Processing Options, paper presented at the GPA Europe Meeting, London, UK (Feb. 26-27, 2004). Mokhatab, S., and Economides, M.J., Onshore LNG Production Process Selection, SPE 102160, presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA (Sept. 24-27, 2006a). Mokhatab, S., and Economides, M.J., Process Selection Is Critical to Onshore LNG Economics, World Oil, Vol. 227, No. 2, PP. 95-99 (2006b). Mokhatab, S., Poe, W.A., and Speight, J.G., Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission & Processing, 1st Edition, Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington, MA, USA (2006). Mokhatab, S., and Meyer, P., Selecting Best Technology Lineup for Designing Gas Processing Units, presented at the GPA Europe Sour Gas Processing Conference, Sitges, Spain (May 13-15, 2009). Pitman, R.N., Hudson, H.M., Wilkinson, J.D., and Cuellar, K.T., Next Generation Processes for NGL/LPG Recovery, presented at the 77th GPA Annual Convention, Dallas, TX, USA (March 16, 1998).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Saeid Mokhatab is an internationally recognized expert in the field of natural gas engineering with a particular emphasis on raw gas transmission and processing. He has been involved as a technical consultant in several international gas-engineering projects and published over 150 academic and industry oriented papers on related topics as well as the Elseviers Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission & Processing, which has been well received by the industry and academia. He is the Founding Editor the Elseviers Journal of Natural Gas Science & Engineering, cites as a member of the editorial advisory board for most of professional oil and gas engineering journals/book publishing companies, and serves on various SPE and ASME technical committees/conferences worldwide.