Selecting technologies for onshore

LNG production
For optimal design of LNG production plants, selection of the individual units
must be made on the basis of an integrated approach

Saeid Mokhatab
Tehran Raymand Consulting Engineers

T
his article discusses the avail-
able process technology Refrigeration
system
options for onshore liquefied Feed pre-treatment
natural gas (LNG) production Gas
Gas Mercury
plants, including their limitations sweetening
dehydration
removal Pre-
& mercaptans Liquefaction
and opportunities for integration in unit removal unit unit cooling
order to achieve the right flow
scheme that takes advantage of
Off gas to
each technologys strength while atmosphere
maximising integration to minimise
capital and operating costs. Sulphur recovery Nitrogen
unit + tail gas Fractionation
removal
A typical scheme for most gas treating unit unit
unit
processing plants designed to HP
separator
produce LNG from a sour gas feed LNG
Sulphur LPG
is shown in Figure 1. Field produc-
Off gas
tion, upon arrival at the processing N2 -rich gas to
fuel gas system
plant, is processed in a slug catcher,
which captures liquid and then Condensate
Raw gas stabilisation
allows it to flow into downstream unit
equipment and facilities at a rate at
which the liquid can be handled
properly. Gas from the outlet of the Condensate
slug catcher is directed to a high-
pressure (HP) separator, where final Slug
catcher Sour water Water treating
separation of liquid from the gas stripping unit unit
takes place. These liquids are stabi-
lised and then stored before sale on Figure 1 LNG production plant: sequence and requirements
the condensates market. The light
components stripped in the stabili- is processed to produce elemental using non-regenerable activated
sation column are recompressed sulphur in a sulphur recovery unit carbon or a regenerative mercury
and mixed with the gas from the (SRU), consisting of a Claus unit removal sieve, like UOPs Hg Sieve.
slug catcher. The aim is to liquefy and an associated tail gas treating The dry and mercury-free gas is
the resulting raw gas in the down- unit (TGTU) if higher recovery rates then cooled to about -35C, where
stream process. are specified for the SRU itself. The heavy components are liquefied.
The HP raw gas flows through to final residual gas from the TGTU is The cooling temperature is set such
the gas sweetening unit (GSU), in incinerated. that the quantity of these heavy
which acidic components including The treated sweet gas is then ends, extracted as natural gas liquid
H2S and CO2 are removed by means dehydrated on molecular sieves to (NGL), is adjusted so that the
of chemical solvents. Simultaneous achieve 1 ppmv water, to ensure remaining gas composition complies
carbonyl sulphide (COS) removal in safe processing and transmission, with the LNG specification. Ethane,
the GSU is also desired, as it facili- and then purified on a mercury propane and butane are extracted
tates the downstream processing guard bed to limit the mercury by fractionation for the refrigerant
and purification steps, and contrib- content to nanogram levels (10 ng/ make-up and for the LPG market.
utes to the reduction of the total Nm3) and prevent any corrosion The lean gas is condensed and sub-
sulphur content of the treated gas. problems in the cryogenic section. cooled down to about -160C to
The enriched acid gas from the GSU Mercury is conventionally removed produce LNG.

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000478 PTQ Q2 2010 115

 Generally, the LNG sales specifi-
cation allows a maximum nitrogen
content of about 1% to control the
Wobbe Index of import LNG. The
nitrogen content of some existing
gas fields is above 1%; conse-
quently, the excess nitrogen has to
be removed and a dedicated nitro-
gen removal unit installed. The
resulting nitrogen-rich vapour is
compressed and fed into the fuel
gas system, while the remaining
liquid, at about -160C, is pumped
into LNG storage tanks before
export by dedicated LNG carriers.
Flashed vapours and boil-off gas
are recycled within the process.
Technologies for designing an
LNG plant
For a given gas composition, differ-
ent process configurations are
available and the choice of technol-
ogies can be vast. The number of
technology units and how they are
integrated significantly impacts
overall project economics and
success. Therefore, for optimal
design of the LNG plant, process
selection of 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 produc-
tion plant should be critically
examined, taking all the process
and environmental limitations into
account within a flexible, operable
and economically justified window.
Feed pretreatment section
In a typical scheme for an LNG
production plant (see Figure 1),
there are several pretreatment units
to meet the required specification of
the LNG product. The first specifi-
cations to be met are H2S removal
to <4 ppmv, CO2 to 50 ppmv, total
sulphur <30 ppmv as S, water to
0.1 ppmv and mercury to levels of
10 ng/Nm3.
CO2 and H2S in the feed gas
significantly impacts the thermal
efficiency of any LNG liquefaction
process because of the energy
required to reduce these contami-
nants in the context of the energy
put into the entire process. In fact,
a feed stream with a high concen-
tration of CO2 results in a lower
116 PTQ Q2 2010
thermal efficiency than one without.
The impact of H2S on thermal effi-
ciency is indirectly linked to the
CO2 composition (Yates, 2002).
Therefore, key elements in selecting
the optimum process for the GSU
are the requirements for full or
selective removal of CO2 and the
co-adsorption of hydrocarbons.
Such a unit could be operated
with an aqueous amine solvent or
mixed physical/chemical solvent.
From a sustained development
point of view, co-adsorption of
hydrocarbons has two unwanted
effects. First, it reduces the effec-
tiveness with which the feed gas is
used in the downstream process;
second, the combustion of hydro-
carbons in the SRU results in an
increase in CO2 emissions. In the
amine treating option, the co-
adsorption effect is very low
because the solubility of aromatics
and heavy hydrocarbons in the
aqueous solvent is low. In the
mixed-solvent treating option, the
co-adsorption effect is much
stronger because of the physical
solvent element in the GSU solvent.
The second step in the treating
process is a MSU, which brings the
gas to the final specification for
water and mercaptans (RSH)
content. Removal of RSH in a MSU
necessitates treating the regenera-
tion 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 proc-
esses can be used to remove part or
all of the mercaptans from the feed
stream, and the MSU can be used
as a polishing step. The second
option is to use an aqueous amine
solvent, which removes some
mercaptans (say, 1015%), leaving
most of the mercaptan removal to
the MSU.
Importantly, the mechanism for
removal of mercaptans in the amine
solvents is similar for the hydrocar-
bons and mercaptans; thus, some
degree of co-adsorption of these
components cannot be avoided.
This optimisation should take into
account three main factors: operat-
ing flexibility over the feed gas
range, environmental performance
and cost effectiveness. The choice of
which process option is most suita-
ble depends on the feed gas
composition. If the mercaptan
content of the feed gas is high, use
of an aqueous solvent for the GSU
requires construction of a very large
MSU, which makes this option
uneconomic. However, if the
mercaptan content is less than
approximately 400500 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 Meyer1 discuss
several integration aspects of the
main gas treating processes
involved. Among the alternatives,
fully integrated solutions have the
following advantages:
One licence contract, one overall
guarantee and liability, and one
licence fee
Tailor-made solution to avoid
multiplying internal design
margins, which can result in signifi-
cant savings in capital and
operating costs
These integrated concepts use
proprietary know-how from lead-
ing technology licensors and
engineering contractors who take
the feed stream and deliver the
required end product in the best
possible way
The scope of engineering services
continues to detailed engineering,
as well as to assistance at commis-
sioning and start-up, and after-sales
services (technical assistance, train-
ing and revamp studies).
However, the results of an
economic analysis clearly indicate
which alternative is economically
the preferred choice.
Determining the best treating
package depends very much on the
initial feed gas conditions, the
treated gas specifications and envi-
ronmental requirements. Before the
treating package is selected, it is
strongly recommended that an opti-
misation study is carried out to
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000478
obtain the lowest capex/opex and
largest operating window with
respect to feed gas composition.2 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 correct technology and
tailoring the right process for a
given application also requires
extensive industrial experience and
the opportunity to choose among
various technologies and process
options.
The most important milestone in
the chain of an LNG project is the
go-no go, which entails financial
analysis. If the owner is a major
independent and the finances are
not a barrier, selection of a process
will go ahead. When the project
needs external financing, the owner
takes the advice of a LNG consult-
ant, who recommends robust and
well-known process options to
diminish the operating risks of the
facility.
NGL recovery
Several decisions must be taken
fairly early in an LNG projects
development to define the process.
First, should NGL be recovered in
the project? This is primarily a
function of feed gas composition
and the required product specifica-
tions in the destination LNG
market. Assuming that a project
supports NGL recovery, the next
question is: where should the NGL
be extracted? The choice is either at
the point of production or at the
receiving terminal. Removal of
NGLs during LNG vapourisation
takes advantage of the fact that the
NGL components are already in
liquid form and uses this condition
during the fractionation process.
Ross et al3 discuss the advantages of
integrating the NGL recovery and
vapourisation functions into a
single integrated unit as compared
to installing segregated vapourisa-
tion and NGL recovery units.
The major NGL recovery options
involve cooling, absorption or
adsorption-based processes. How-
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000478
ever, cryogenic refrigeration is
generally the most technically
advanced type of NGL recovery
process used today. It combines
high recovery levels (typically full
recovery of all of the propane and
heavier NGLs and recovery of 50
90% of the ethane) with low capital
costs and easy operation.4 This is
less attractive on very rich gas
streams or where the light NGL
product (C2 and C3) is not marketa-
ble. For gases very rich in NGL,
simple refrigeration is probably the
best choice. The cryogenic NGL
recovery unit can also be adapted
to efficiently co-produce LNG (often
as a batch process) with little or no
loss in NGL recovery. However, the
power consumption for producing
LNG is quite high compared to
traditional baseload LNG produc-
tion plants, and the processing
efficiency of the NGL recovery unit
often drops significantly.5
Within the liquids recovery
section of the gas processing plant,
there are issues of operating cost
and operating flexibility that
directly affect the processing cost.
While 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.6 As the industry has
matured and demand for more effi-
cient ethane recovery has increased,
several designs have been
developed.
It should be noted that the type
of NGL process has a significant
effect on the level of pretreatment
required. It is therefore important
to consider all implications before
any process is selected. Choosing
the 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 pres-
sure, richness and contaminants),
downstream conditions (for
instance, residue gas pressure) and
overall conditions (such as utility
costs). In addition to the feed gas
composition and operation mode,
the most decisive technical charac-
teristics of any process are upstream
and downstream pressure, which
have a significant influence on the
performance of the various technol-
ogies available.7
Liquefaction section
A number of liquefaction processes
have been developed, their differ-
ences mainly arising in the types of
refrigeration cycles they employ.
Mokhatab and Economides8 present
a critical overview of the LNG proc-
ess and an analysis of the main
methods available for the liquefac-
tion of natural gas in an onshore
LNG plant. They also discuss selec-
tion issues relating to the main
technologies that affect LNG plant
configuration. The most commonly
utilised LNG technologies for
onshore applications are: Phillips
Optimised Cascade LNG Process
(OCLP), APCI Propane Pre-cooled
Mixed Refrigerant (PPMR) process,
and Shell Dual Mixed Refrigerant
(DMR) process. While the PPMR
process dominates the industry,
there has been considerable diversi-
fication 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, 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. OCLP utilises essentially pure
refrigerant components in an inte-
grated cascade arrangement and
offers high efficiency and reliability.
The 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.9
Studies of the different liquefac-
tion processes suggest there is none
that is substantially more efficient
than the others. Rather, each tech-
nology can be competitive within a
certain range of train sizes. The
ultimate choice of process depends
PTQ Q2 2010 117
 on project-specific variables and the
potential development state of
novel processes.
Note that technology selection
starts at an early stage in the life of
a baseload LNG project and is typi-
cally addressed at the feasibility
study and pre-FEED definition
stages. Process routes must be
chosen for the process itself, utili-
ties and plant off-site units. These
include proprietary and non-
proprietary 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 operat-
ing units, the type of major
equipment or utility schemes.
Integrating NGL recovery and LNG
liquefaction technology
It is common practice for NGL
extraction to stand alone from LNG
liquefaction facilities for various
commercial or geographical
reasons.10 However, various config-
urations of integrated NGL recovery
and LNG liquefaction units exist,
depending on the component
selected for recovery as well as the
desired recovery level. Successful
integration of NGL recovery into
the LNG value chain has a signifi-
cant effect on both process design
and overall project profitability11,
where, through careful process
selection and heat integration, the
integrated technologies result in
lower specific power consumption
and increased net present value
compared with separated
facilities.12
Nitrogen removal
There are several methods available
to remove nitrogen before it enters
the LNG plant. There are also
numerous options within any given
LNG technology to remove nitro-
gen in the liquefaction process
itself. Rejection of nitrogen into the
fuel gas stream is a common way to
handle nitrogen.13 When evaluating
the nitrogen rejection options for an
LNG technology, sensitivity cases
need to be performed for various
levels of nitrogen removal and the
118 PTQ Q2 2010
overall LNG process impact. In fact,
selection of the nitrogen rejection
technology has implications for the
design of both upstream and down-
stream process facilities. Issues to
be considered are the impact on the
size of equipment and the piping
system.
For a high feed gas flow rate and
relatively high nitrogen content,
cryogenic processing is the only
real option for nitrogen rejection.
The alternatives of pressure swing
adsorption or membrane technolo-
gies, which are often used in
small-scale LNG production plants,
require excessive power to achieve
sales gas specification and therefore
have very high capital and operat-
ing costs.14 The main cryogenic
cycle options for nitrogen rejection
are: single-column cycle, double-
column cycle and pre-separation
column cycle. However, the key
parameter for process selection
is essentially the nitrogen
content itself. Feed pressure, flow
rate, contaminant levels and
level of hydrocarbons available in
the nitrogen vent are also
important.
Conclusion
Optimisation of an LNG production
plant can only be achieved by
considering it as a single entity;
attempts to optimise individual
process units in isolation will result
in lost opportunities. For the opti-
mum flow scheme, the designer
must understand the available tech-
nology, opportunities for integration
and their limitations. Technical risk,
licensor experience, level of
commercialisation, safety, and
health and environmental aspects
all need to be weighed up along
with process and economic
performance. Other factors include
commercial arrangements, use of
proprietary technology and licens-
ing costs, technology availability in
certain countries or concerns about
intellectual property protection, and
client preferences.
References
1 Mokhatab S, Meyer P, Selecting Best
technology lineup for designing gas processing
units, GPA Europe Sour Gas Processing
Conference, Sitges, Spain, 1315 May 2009.
2 Klinkenbijl J M, Dillon M L, Heyman E C, Gas
pre-treatment and their impact on liquefaction
processes, 78th Annual GPA Convention,
Nashville, TN, 13 Mar 1999.
3 Ross F P, Walther S T, Cuellar K T, Advanced
technologies provide improved economics for
liquefied natural gas facilities, Hydrocarbon
Processing, 87, 1, 6163, 2008.
4 Lee R J, Yao J, Elliot D, Flexibility, efficiency
to characterize gas-processing technologies,
Oil & Gas Journal, 97, 50, 9094, 1999.
5 Cuellar K T,Wilkinson J D, Hudson H M, Pierce
M C, Co-producing LNG from cryogenic NGL
recovery plants, 81st Annual GPA Convention,
Dallas, TX, 12 Mar 2002.
6 Pitman R N, Hudson H M, Wilkinson J D,
Cuellar K T, Next generation processes for NGL/
LPG recovery, 77th GPA Annual Convention,
Dallas, TX, 16 March 1998.
7 Mokhatab S, Poe W A, Speight J G, Handbook
of Natural Gas Transmission & Processing, 1st
Ed, Gulf Professional, Burlington, MA, 2006.
8 Mokhatab S, Economides M J, Onshore
LNG production process selection, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, 2427 Sept 2006.
9 Mokhatab S, Economides M J, Process
selection is critical to onshore LNG economics,
World Oil, 227, 2, 95-99, 2006.
10 Elliot D, Qualls, W R, Huang Sh, Chen J J, Lee
R J, Yao J, Zhang Y, Benefits of integrating NGL
extraction and LNG liquefaction technology,
AIChE Spring National Meeting, Atlanta, GA,
1014 Apr 2005.
11 Barclay M, Yang C C, NGL Recovery process
synergies with the LNG value chain, AIChE
Spring National Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2327
Apr 2006.
12 Lee R J, Yao J, Chen J J, Elliot D, Enhanced
NGL recovery utilizing refrigeration and reflux
from LNG plants, US Patent 6 401 486, 11 Jun
2002.
13 Yates D, Thermal efficiency-design, lifecycle,
and environmental considerations in LNG
plant design, GasTech Conference, Doha, Qatar,
1316 Oct 2002.
14 Garcel J C, Liquefaction of non-conventional
gases, GPAE Europe Conference, Ashford, UK,
1416 May 2008.
Saeid Mokhatab is Process Technology Manager
for Tehran Raymand Consulting Engineers, Iran.
He has been involved as a technical consultant
in several international gas engineering projects
and has published more than 150 academic
and industry papers on related topics.
Email: saeid_mokhatab@hotmail.com
Links
More articles from the following
category:
LNG/GTL
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000478