Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

OTC-25000-MS

Floating LNG Development - Challenges and Achievements


Hamzah Ahmad, Iskandariah Roslan Abdul Wahab, Mohd Hany Suaib
PETRONAS FLNG1 Project

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25–28 March 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract

The PETRONAS Floating LNG concept was envisaged to monetise stranded gas resources as part of the effort to turn
Malaysia’s 2% hydrocarbon depletion rate into 3% growth. The two floaters for offshore Sarawak and Sabah will increase
the country’s LNG production capacity by approximately 8% (2.7 MTPA). The fast track nature of the project presents a
challenge to the Gas and Upstream Business in meeting the target date. Extensive technology selection exercises were
conducted in finalising the turret mooring, gas treating, liquefaction, LNG cargo containment and LNG offloading systems.
Designers and licensors have done rigorous design optimisation and marinisation studies on impact of floater motion and
evaluated against an extensive list of criteria, among which are:
• Proven and established onshore and offshore track records as well as experience or involvement in the delivery of
LNG plants
• Design robustness and acceptable efficiency
• Operating envelop and flexibility
• Inherent safe design

Main challenges include optimising the flexibility of the process to accept the widest range of known and anticipated feed gas
quality within Malaysian waters. Technology and equipment selection for the topside processes required extensive
investigation into vendors’ readiness to design and supply the natural gas receiving, treating, liquefying, storing and
offloading LNG equipment for first time utilisation in open sea environment. Processes and equipment design have taken into
consideration meeting operating requirements within the design motion envelope, calculated blast loads, acceleration and
sloshing effects while keeping within the topsides weight, footprint, environment and regulatory constraints. The nitrogen
cycle liquefaction process presents a unique challenge in commissioning; attributed to logistics requirement and the
complexity of the process and machinery controls.

Success in managing the complexity of the facilities design and construction within the numerous constraints of
constructability, human resource and technology will be the ultimate triumph for the PETRONAS Floating LNG Project to
become a benchmark and model for similar scale Floating LNG projects.

Keywords: FLNG, CWHE, PFHE, N2 Refrigeration, Offshore Liquefaction, Two-row Membrane


2 OTC-25000-MS

INTRODUCTION

The PETRONAS Floating LNG concept is envisaged to monetise stranded gas resources and increase LNG
production capacity as part of the effort to turn Malaysia’s 2% hydrocarbon depletion rate into 3% growth. The two floaters
for Sarawak and Sabah will increase the country’s LNG production capacity by approximately 8% (2.7 MTPA). Coupled
with the infancy of offshore LNG processing industry, the fast-track nature of the projects presents a challenge to both
PETRONAS’ Gas and Upstream Businesses in delivering the first operational facility of its kind and meeting the target date.

PFLNG1 is specified to be producing 1.2 MTPA when 230 MMSCFD feedgas is received. Designed for 20-years
operations on a 365-m (L) x 60-m (B) x 33-m (D) hull, and a set of Lean Case feedgas is known for the initial five years of
operations. The project was sanctioned with the premise of several field developments within Malaysia with possible
relocation of PFLNG1 after the fifth year. The setting of the facility design boundaries for the remaining 15 years was among
the biggest challenge during basic design. Recent discoveries then were pointing towards sour gas fields, which led to the
specifications of Phase 2 to include processing feedgas that contains 20% CO2. Earlier basic engineering work has introduced
phasing concept so as to reduce initial capital investment while allocating space for expansion in receiving variable range of
feedgas. Variation in the feedgas quality considered varying inlet conditions with regard to pressure, temperature,
composition, condensate and contaminants.

The design basis has been translated into a high-level operating philosophy and equipment design concept. The
criteria for equipment, systems or technology selection were then developed and subscribed to several key concepts:
• Proven and established onshore and offshore track records as well as experience or involvement in the delivery of
LNG plants
• Design robustness and acceptable efficiency
• Operating envelop and flexibility
• Inherent safe design
• Optimum footprints

Technology and equipment selection for the topside process require extensive assessment of vendors’ readiness to design and
supply the natural gas receiving, treating, liquefying, LNG storage and offloading systems where each process has its own
challenges for first time utilisation in the open sea environment.

The challenge of meeting the schedule has also necessitated PFLNG1 to innovate certain screening process. The
liquefaction unit process and licensor selection were combined into one ranking exercise while the CCS selection is tied to
the shortlisted shipyards that are capable to construct the facility. A major shipyard that is able to allocate a dry-dock slot at
the right time for this pioneer project is considered as a critical success factor. The liquefaction heat exchanger delivery has to
be scheduled concisely into the module erection sequence.While the interest in FLNG has picked-up pace over the past 5
years, only two FLNG projects have been sanctioned. This circumstance has not helped the LNG industry to accelerate the
proving of existing equipment in new application. PETRONAS has chosen an intermediate path by selecting proven onshore
technologies instead of a novel approach with the regenerative solvent based gas sweetening, gas turbine driven refrigerant
compression, marine loading arms and a two rows membrane CCS. This intermediate approach has proven useful for the
processes and equipment design of PFLNG1 to meet operational requirements within the design motion envelope, calculated
blast loads, acceleration and sloshing effects while abiding to the topsides weight, footprint, cost, regulatory and environment
constraints. The N2 cycle liquefaction process presents a unique challenge in commissioning; attributed to the logistics and
complexity of the process and machinery controls.

This paper intends to share several topics on the PETRONAS FLNG design concept, focusing mainly on the equipment
selection and peculiar aspects of the facility in meeting all the required provision of an LNG processing facility. It does not
cover the project management aspects of scheduling, procurement, delivery, fabrication and construction.
OTC-25000-MS 3

ABBREVIATIONS

AGRU Acid Gas Removal Unit

C3/MR Propane-Mixed Refrigerant liquefaction process

CSP Cryogenic Spill Protection

CWHE Coil-wound Heat Exchanger

DLE Dry Low Emissions

ESD Emergency Shutdown

FGS Fire and Gas System

FLNG Floating Liquefied Natural Gas

GT Gas Turbine

HC Hydrocarbon

IGF Induced-gas Floatation

LIN Liquid Nitrogen

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LNGC LNG Carrier

MLA Marine Loading Arm

MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day

MR Mixed Refrigerant

MTPA Million Tonnes per Annum

NG Natural Gas

PFHE Plate-fin Heat Exchanger

PFLNG1 PETRONAS Floating Liquefied Natural Gas project

PRV Pressure Relief Valve

SBS Side-by-side
4 OTC-25000-MS

LNG PROCESSING, CONTAINMENT AND OFFLOADING EQUIPMENT SELECTION

Refrigerant Compressor Driver

The primary criteria in determining the type of gas turbine driver for PFLNG1 was the weight, footprint and
serviceability at the operating location. Having estimated that multiples of 18-MW site-rated machines can be configured for
the 1.2 MTPA processing capacity, several models of aero-derivative engines was shortlisted. Optimising the processing train
size around aero-derivatives GT provided the lowest specific cost and specific power. Aeroderivative GTs for consideration
in this scale of LNG process were screened to GE’s LM2500+G4 and LM6000PD, Rolls Royce’s RB211-6761, MT30 and
Trent60 and Solar’s Titan 250.

Subsequent criteria were the installation history in marine environment, available aero-derivatives GT at required
speed range (without use of gearboxes) and maintenanace/technical support base. The larger industrial machines were
concluded to have no offshore compression installation record and are probably only suitable for larger scale FLNG plant.

Natural gas pre-treatment

While PFLNG1 is known to be receiving feedgas from a specific location for the first five years of operation, the
second phase of the operation is still open. The Phase 2 feedgas (anticipated high CO2) parameters were then developed from
meticulous assessment of collected data from Malaysian gas and associated gas fields. Two sets of composition (CO2, H2S,
Hg, C3, C4, C5+, water, sand, etc.) are used as the project specification.

With experience in a few membrane applications installed on fixed platform offshore Malaysia, hybrid membrane
and amine systems were assessed to meet the liquefaction process CO2 specifications. In the standalone amine versus hybrid
membrane-amine evaluation, the high HC loss and power consumption by the low-cut membrane-amine setup was among the
key criteria to opt for the standalone amine system. Amine based process was selected, and packing only internals was
decided for any column as tray applications for amine absorbers and regenerators have not been fully marinised.

Liquefaction heat exchanger

Prior to concluding the process technology and the licensor, comparison of the commonly long-lead cryogenic heat
exchanger types revealed that application of a single multiple cores PFHE being subjected to huge temperature gradient has
not been established. Among key consideration to employ CWHE for PFLNG1 process was such that the only two CWHE
suppliers are also among the two LNG process licensors in the world.

Liquefaction process technology

The liquefaction process technology and the Process Licensor selection was elaborately conducted to choose the
process and process licensor for this pioneer project. This exercise may be ordinary for onshore LNG plants, but for FLNG,
emerging players have claimed to be capable of offering more robust and flexible liquefaction processes for marine
application (relative to highly efficient C3/MR). In order not to miss out a potentially innovative process, most of the
interested licensors were invited to submit proposals.

As for evaluating the proposals, criteria weightage for the two subjects (technology and licensor) were carefully
debated to select the best offers prior to concluding the combined Process and Licensor option. Single MR and N2 recycle
systems passed through process screening to final bid stage by shortlisted Licensors. Finally the AP-N process by Air
Products’ Chemicals, Inc. was selected as first ranked, by principles that favoured established licensor along with major
criteria of process robustness, high turndown and swift restart flexibility.

In brief, the AP-N is a two N2 refrigerant compression train sharing common CWHEs. The refrigerant strings each
comprises of two main compressors feeding 3 expander-compressors that share a common high pressure discharge for the
compressor. The common discharge is then fed to the expanders, resulting in 3 levels of temperature to cool down and
liquefy the NG that passes through the tubeside of the CWHEs. With this process, the topside facility thermal efficiency is
expected to be 82% to 88%.
OTC-25000-MS 5

Other than the inherent process safety as main criteria, the other main criteria for process technology selection are as follows:
• Proven onshore operational experience; liquefaction process is proven onshore
• Process design considerations; process parameters meeting the project specifications
• General HSE design
• Refrigerant sourcing, storage and transport; logistics and availability of refrigerant source from the feedgas
• Restart time; flexible process to minimise downtime and quick recovery
• Plant equipment count, foot print, weight
• Process robustness, efficiency and reliability; process employs reliable equipment setup and able to accommodate
feed fluctuations
• Research and development on marine environment; licensor/vendor progress in marinising equipment
• Additional/other relevant evaluation criteria

Marine Loading Arm

Side-by-side LNG offloading in the open sea environment will be challenging as both PFLNG1 and the LNGC are
subjected to its own dynamic motion in response to the sea state. The articulated metal marine loading system is selected over
multi-composite hose system as it can achieve the required offloading operations with acceptable safety conditions and
reasonable operational availability. While the articulated metal marine loading system is operationally proven in onshore
installations, the multi-composite hose system requires further study to ascertain the safety aspect and technical suitability
specifically during hose connection and emergency disconnection. Proper procedure on personnel and devices transfer for
hose connection and handling of the multi-composite hose which is full with LNG after disconnection need to be put in place
and approved by governing bodies. In the design of the articulated metal marine loading system, several factors that have
been considered in the design are the size of PFLNG1 and LNGC, specific operational and shutdown envelope, sea state,
Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) data from model basin test and draft movement during operation. Complete validation
via dynamic numerical model analysis of the performances of the dynamic connection and LNG transfer is performed to
verify the behaviour of the Chiksan marine loading system during connection including the resulting loads on the manifold
flange, during transfer, disconnection, emergency release and retraction and the level of loads at its fastening area on the
PFLNG deck. To handle the dynamic motion, the articulated metal marine loading system is equipped with targeting system
to ensure smooth connection. Apart from proximity switches, the PFLNG1 LNG loading system is also equipped with
Constant Positioning Monitoring System (CPMS) to monitor movement of LNGC relative to PFLNG1 for accurate and safe
Loading Shut-down (LSD) initiation.

Cargo Containment System

LNG cargo containment system or the CCS selection is a unique process due to the licensing of CCS construction to
a few reputable shipyards. When the two row No 96 membrane system, Mark III membrane and aluminium SPB were
screened for PFLNG1, the shipyards associated with supplying these CCS systems were also shortlisted. Final selection of
No 96 was based on the no-restriction of filling limit, least susceptible to sloshing at limited sea states, and with the most
competitive cost. This led to DSME selected as the shipyard licensed by Gaztransport & Technigaz (GTT) to fabricate the No
96 two row membrane CCS. Among the key criteria in selecting the CCS for PFLNG1 are robustness, ease of inspection and
maintenance, CCS construction methodology, pre-EPC investment for fabrication, structural integrity, free-surface effect or
sloshing susceptibility, capital cost, operating cost and efficiency.

Feature for Regulatory Compliance

In complying with both Malaysian and international (World Bank) effluent and emissions standards, additional
features are added to the major equipment selected. An example is the DLE combustors included for the aeroderivate gas
turbines to meet the emission requirement. An incinerator with a fluegas scrubber is designed to comply to sulfur emission
limits. A set of hydrocyclone and IGF unit is designed to meet oil and grease limits in the produced water package effluent.
6 OTC-25000-MS

SAFETY STUDIES AND MODEL TESTS

The objective of PFLNG1 safety philosophy is to design an offshore floater which is inherently safe, fit-for-purpose
and which can be operated in safe and reliable manner. Safety design data and lessons learnt from design and operations of
LNG cargo vessels, FPSOs, LNG plants and offloading equipment were taken into consideration. A comprehensive list of
safety studies was identified and conducted during the basic design and further enhanced during detail engineering.

Hazards were identified and assessed through a series of safety studies, which has resulted in validation or
modification to PFLNG1 design. These were done through Hazard Identification (HAZID), Hazard and Operability
(HAZOP) study and Safety Integrity Level (SIL) reviews. Furthermore, safety rules from mandatory regulations are
implemented in PFLNG1 design regardless of safety assessment findings. Emphasis was placed on reducing the risk to
personnel, environment and asset to as low as reasonably practicable. In general, the following philosophies are adopted with
the intention to strive for a high level of inherent safety and verifying the design:
• Simple, proven designs are used in preference to novel ones except where these are designed to reduce risks;
• Facilities designed for minimum maintenance and high reliability and availability;
• Hydrocarbon inventory is minimised;
• The potential for ignition is minimised;
• Impact of human error is minimised;
• Facilities are designed to withstand maximum closed in pressure (maximum operating pressure shall not exceed in
any case the design pressure);
• Flanged connections in pressurised HC service are minimised;
• Processing facilities design, layout and natural ventilation arrangements should minimise the potential for
accumulations of toxic of flammable gas mixtures.

Having identified potential hazards and the safety levels above, a number of safety studies and assessments were
performed during the course of the basic design to identify, qualify and quantify the risks and subsequently establish the
design mitigations and ensure adequate protection of personnel, asset and environment. Simulations of the potential
consequences of accident scenarios identified by the failure case were carried out during the FEED. The results are used as
inputs to define or check the general arrangement of the plant, safety distances, protection of the main safety functions and
equipment, passive and active fire protection, cryogenic spill protection, blast overpressure protection, emergency refuge
provision and evacuation of personnel.

Detailed definition of methodologies and software used to perform the studies below were described in an
assumptions register, which also included scenarios to be studied, areas of concern, assumptions for modelling and the
assessment criteria. All of the technical safety studies completed during basic design phase were updated or checked during
the engineering phase, among those:
• Fire Risk analysis
• Cryogenic Risk analysis
• CFD Explosion Risk analysis
• Emergency Systems Survivability analysis (ESSA)
• Evacuation, Temporary Refuge, Escape and Rescue analysis
• Ship Collision study
• Fire Integrity analysis
• Dropped Object study
• Smoke and Gas Dispersion analysis
• Flare Flame-out and Atmospheric Vents Dispersion study
• CFD Helideck Dispersion and Helideck Impairment study
• Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)
• Noise and vibration studies
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) including Air Dispersion study

Parallel to the safety studies conducted to validate the safety aspect, model tests were carried out to prove the robustness of
the hull and marine systems in the anticipated prevailing sea and wheather condition. The CCS sloshing analysis was
performed to demonstrate that PFLNG1 can be operated safely against sloshing for holding and offloading operation with the
GTT reinforced No 96 membrane CCS. The mooring wave basin study was performed to investigate the seakeeping and
stationkeeping behaviour of the PFLNG1 as well as the SBS behaviour during offloading. Finally the wind tunnel model test
determines wind related issues that are likely to influence design and operational aspects of the floaters, for both cases of
isolated FLNG hull and FLNG-LNGC in the side-by-side configuration.
OTC-25000-MS 7

PARTICULAR APPROACH IN DESIGN

Phasing Concept for Equipment, Piping and Instrument

Equipment only required in Phase 2 is not installed in Phase 1. The systems that are significantly affected are the
turret, feedgas receiving facilities, mercury removal and AGRU. Additional risers may be installed in the turret for Phase 2,
while provision for the third riser is also allocated. Slots are allocated for three umbilicals as well as space for an additional
pig receiver. Space for Feedgas compressors is provided to maximize gas recovery in future. The AGRU will experience
changes with the addition of a bulk CO2 removal absorber, regeneration flash column, pre-cooler and the associated booster,
semi-lean and transfer pumps. Another feedgas pre-cooler will be added in the heavy HC removal unit due to the higher
temperature range specified for the incoming feedgas in Phase 2. Tie-in points and plot space for Phase 2 has been
provisioned in the EPC design stage. The acid gas incinerator and fluegas scrubber may have to be replaced depending on the
actual expected Phase 2 feedgas specification.

Whilst MEG tanks have been installed in Phase 1 because they have to be fitted into the hull, MEG injection is a
provision for Phase 2 hydrate inhibition. Two deepwell pumps and booster pumps can be installed on the topsides if the
requirement for hydrate inhibition in the turret arises in Phase 2. Two seawater booster pumps could also be added for the
acidgas incinerator scrubber if required.

Certain equipment outlet dimensions will remain unchanged but internals will have to be replaced. This is mainly
the case for several columns and vessels internals, where they need to be adjusted or optimised when entering Phase 2
operation. Some examples of this group are the coalescers, demisters and filters in Phase 1 AGRU vessels. For the equipment
subject to modification between Phases 1 and 2, additional sections on the Process Datasheet cover the expected range of
operating conditions.

Cryogenic Spill Mitigation

Bringing LNG processing offshore introduces additional challenges in managing cryogenic spills. One can argue
that LNGC entails cryogenic fluid piping on the main deck. FLNG however encompass bigger areas of potential leakage and
at varying elevations. In PFLNG1 case, a risk based approach was taken to determine the extent and duration of cryogenic
spills. Considering the risks, the general philosophy to manage crogenic spills is to immediately divert any spillage overboard
to avoid large flammable or asphyxiant cloud generated by pool vaporisation on the decks. LNG or liquid N2 will vaporise
and will not generate any significant adverse effect on the marine environment.

By design, prevention of cryogenic spillage during normal operation or accidental event focuses on:
• minimising the potential for cryogenic release by applying proven standards for equipment and piping handling
cryogenic fluids (e.g.: continuous welding) with marine condition (i.e: saltwater corrosion) considerations; particular
attention at commonly known leakage sources (e.g.: flanges, valves, pumps)
• minimising large inventories of cryogenic liquids
• providing detection and isolation means for potential cryogenic release to limit the release volume with project’s
FGS and ESD philosophies
• containing cryogenic releases to avoid migration of cryogenic liquid pool
• providing rapid collection and drainage systems for cryogenic liquid disposal overboard
• protecting critical elements against cryogenic contact (by material selection or CSP coating)

Cryogenic spills are mitigated by providing collection and drainage for rapid evacuation of the cryogenic fluid. The process
deck is plated to provide physical segregation between the process deck and the main deck. Spillage is collected by an open
gutter system on the process deck. Collected fluid will be routed to the sea surface through a vertical pipe running along side
of the hull. Depending on the location, the vertical piping will terminate at an elevation below the cargo deck of an LNGC on
the starboard side or to a level slightly below the main deck on the portside. This setup is to avoid direct contact with the hull.
CSP coamings with similar channeling for overboard discharge are provided on the main deck. Modules adjacent to the
cryogenic area are also provided with CSP coaming and gutter.
8 OTC-25000-MS

Nitrogen Inventory for Start-up

The AP-N applied for PFLNG1 poses a unique challenge for the project execution. Both the refrigerant circuit
inventory is approximately 80 tonnes at pressure and highly dependent on N2 make-up and availability. The topsides LIN
inventory of about 100 MT is capable to supply 17 MT/h for refilling the refrigerant circuit operation. However this
inventory is good for one fill, and replenishment of the LIN is required. N2 liquefying for LIN storage is only operational
when the N2 refrigerant is operational, where first fill of the LIN storage is necessary for commissioning and initial start-up
offshore. Other than 2.7 MT/h from the N2 generator package, LIN refilling is only via isocontainer once the initial LIN
inventory brought to hook-up site is consumed. Standby isocontainers for the commissioning duration could be expensive
and in limited supply in East Malaysia.

Commissioning requirement is much greater. It has been estimated that defrosting the refrigerant loop alone will require
approximately 60 MT of N2 (not at operating pressure) before dryness is achieved, while ¾ of that volume is vented during
defrosting. The remaining 65 MT is a necessity to get to the system pressure, replenishment of the LIN tank is then necessary
to proceed with refrigerant loop cooling down. More supply of LIN would have to be transported onboard in case of
depressurisation during cooling down/start-up. Given the tight commissioning period to first LNG drop for the project, it is
critical to have mitigation plans for additional N2 supply beyond the first LIN fill and backup isocontainer.

SUMMARY

Floating LNG has recently been considered a game-changing solution to a typical onshore LNG plant to process
natural gas resources. PETRONAS has taken the challenge and embarked on the step to develop its capacity in offshore
liquefaction facility to monetise stranded gas fields in Malaysia. As a typical first of its kind development, surprises along the
project development are not uncommon. However, mitigations and contingencies are in place to ensure surprises are
minimised during the operational phase through comprehensive studies, design optimisations and simulations undertaken
during the design phase. PETRONAS is confident that the FLNG will be successfully executed to achieve reliable operations.
The challenge ahead is to construct the facility to meet the Ready for Sail Away date and perform the offshore
commissioning works.

As of January 2014, PFLNG1 has achieved the overall progress of more than 60%, with completion of engineering
at 97%, procurement at 75% and construction at 25%. It is expected that the project would signify PETRONAS solution in
adding value to marginal offshore gas resources and will become a benchmark for execution of similar-scale floating LNG
facility.

Potrebbero piacerti anche