DRIVER SELECTION FOR LNG COMPRESSORS

14th December 2004 Dr Sib Akhtar

MSE (Consultants) Ltd Carshalton, Surrey SM5 2HW sib.akhtar@mse.co.uk http://www.mse.co.uk Tel: 020 8773 4500

Driver Selection for LNG Compressors

Introduction Drivers Used in Past & Present Projects Factors Influencing Driver Selection Potential Future Applications Pros & Cons of:
Steam Turbines Industrial Gas Turbines Aero-derivative Gas Turbines Electric Motors

Conclusions and Observations

MSE 2004

Introduction
History Early LNG Trains Steam Driven Development of Gas Turbines The LNG Growth Pause
US & UK became self sufficient in Gas Japan and later Korea needed secure energy-LNG Japan remains the biggest importer of LNG

Re-emergence of LNG Demand New Markets

Gas Shortages in US Re-opening of LNG terminals Expansion of LNG in Europe UK to become net importer of Gas

MSE 2004

Common LNG Process Systems

Phillips Cascade Process
Three Pure Components
Propane Ethylene Methane

APCI (Air Products)

Two Components
Propane Mixed Component Refrigerant

MSE 2004

New Emerging LNG Process Systems

Linde Process
Three Mixed Refrigerants

Axens Liquefin Process

Dual Mixed Refrigerant

Shell Process
Dual Mixed Refrigerant

MSE 2004

Factors Influencing Compressor Driver Selection

Plant Capacity Process Used Choice and Number of Refrigerant Streams Compressor Configuration Plant Location; Ambient Conditions Plant Availability Operational Flexibility Economic Factors - CAPEX & OPEX
MSE 2004

Gas Trade Flows

MSE 2004

Source: Energy Information Administration The Global LNG Market Status & Outlook

LNG Import Capacity

MSE 2004

Source: Energy Information Administration The Global LNG Market Status & Outlook

LNG Export Capacity

MSE 2004

Source: Energy Information Administration The Global LNG Market Status & Outlook

LNG Processes
Phillips Optimised Cascade and Air Products (APCI) processes dominate the LNG plants currently under design, construction & operation New processes include:
Axens (DMR) Linde (Statoil) Turbo-Expander (BHP)

MSE 2004

Phillips Cascade Process

Many plant still being designed and built using the cascade process simple and reliable Three pure components used for refrigeration:
Propane pre-cooling Ethylene Methane

MSE 2004

Phillips Cascade Process

Propane pre-cooling
Centrifugal compressors Typically 2 x ~30 MW Gas Turbines (e.g. Frame 5)

Ethylene and Methane cycles

Centrifugal compressors Typically 2 x ~30 MW Gas Turbines (e.g. Frame 5) for each cycle

MSE 2004

Phillips Cascade Process ALNG Trinidad

Propane pre-cooling
Centrifugal compressors 2 x Frame 5 C upgraded to D

Ethylene and Methane cycles

Centrifugal compressors 2 x Frame 5 C upgraded to D for each cycle

Plant Capacity 3 MTPA Raised to 3.3 MTPA High Availability 95-96%

MSE 2004

Phillips Cascade Process ALNG Optimised Design

Phillips Cascade Process

MSE 2004

Phillips Cascade Process

Simple to design and operate Simple cycle Frame 5 gas turbines mechanical drive No helper turbine or large motor needed for start-up Increased size with two gas turbine trains for each refrigerant process Parallel compressor trains avoids capacity limits Increased CAPEX due to more (six) trains offset by increased availability 95-96% with parallel train operation Loss of one train does not cause plant shut down Production carries on with reduced capacity Refrigerant and exchangers temperature not affected by one train trip enabling quick restart
MSE 2004

APCI Process
Most of existing plant are using the APCI process with 3 3.3 MTPA Fr 6 / Fr 7 combination Train capacities up to 4.7 MTPA built or under construction using Fr 7 / Fr 7 combination Higher Capacities to 7.9 MTPA being announced with Frame 9 GT Two main refrigeration cycles:
Propane pre-cooling Mixed refrigerant liquefaction and sub-cooling
MSE 2004

APCI Process
Propane pre-cooling
Centrifugal compressor (to 15 25 bar) Side-streams at 3 pressure levels Typically requires a ~40 MW Gas Turbine (e.g. Frame 6) plus Helper Motor or Steam Turbine Compressor sizes reaching maximum capacity limits Added aerodynamic constraint; high blade Mach numbers due to high mole weight of propane (44) Prevents utilisation of full power from larger gas turbines (Frame 7)
MSE 2004

APCI Process
Mixed refrigerant liquefaction and sub-cooling
Axial LP for Shell Advised Plant Centrifugal HP compressor (45 48 bar) Typically requires ~70 MW Gas Turbine (e.g. Frame 7) plus Helper Motor or Steam Turbine

MSE 2004

 MSE 2004

ELLIOTT IN LNG
A HISTORY OF FIRSTS
Worlds first large-scale liquefaction plant (CAMEL Arzew, Algeria) Worlds first baseload refrigeration plant (Phillips - Kenai, Alaska) Worlds first gas turbine driven LNG compressors (Phillips, Alaska) Worlds first single-mixed refrigerant (APCI) process compression (Esso (Exxon) Marsa el-Brega, Libya) Worlds first dual-shaft (GE Frame 5) gas turbine driven compressor strings (P.T. Arun (Mobil) Indonesia) Worlds first C3-MR (APCI) process compression (P.T.Arun Indonesia) Worlds first GE Frame 7 driven Propane MR compressor (Ras Gas 1&2 Ras Laffan, Qatar) Worlds largest four-section Propane MR compressor (Ras Gas 3 Ras Laffan, Qatar - UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
MSE 2004

Partial List - ELLIOTT LNG Plants

End User
C.A.M.E.L. Arzew, Algeria

Process
Cascade

Capacity MM T/Yr
1.3

# of Units
3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 4 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 2 2 2

Service
Propane Ethylene Methane 1 Methane 2 Vapor Propane Methane 1 Methane 2 MR-1 MR-2 MR-1 MR-2 Propane Feed Gas Feed Gas Feed Gas Propane MR-1 MR-2 Propane MR-1 MR-2 Propane

Phillips Petroleum Kenai, Alaska Esso Libya Marsa El Brega, Libya Sonatrach Arzew, Algeria Abu Dhabi Liquefaction Co. Das Island, Abu Dhabi P. T. Arun Liquefaction Co. Lhokseumawe, Indonesia Ras Laffan Liquefaction Co. Qatar

Cascade

1.1

Mixed Refrigerant

3.2

Mixed Refrigerant & Propane Mixed Refrigerant & Propane Mixed Refrigerant & Propane Mixed Refrigerant & Propane

16.4

3.0

9.0

6.0

MSE 2004

APCI Process
Mixed refrigerant liquefaction and sub-cooling Large volumetric flows Two casing arrangements (LP and an HP)
Axial LP / centrifugal HP compressor (45 48 bar) Typically requires ~70 MW Gas Turbine (e.g. Frame 7) plus Helper Motor or Steam Turbine LP and HP compressor speeds compromised LP axial compressor (higher efficiency) HP centrifugal compressor
MSE 2004

APCI Process
APCI

MSE 2004

Example of APCI Process Evolution

Petronas MLNG, located in Bintulu, Sarawak First trains designed in the 70s:
3 x Centrifugal compressors 3 x Steam Turbine drivers ~ 37 MW each

MSE 2004

Example of APCI Process Evolution

Extension trains designed in the 90s:
Propane pre-cooling:
Centrifugal compressor 30 MW Gas Turbine & 7 MW Steam Turbine

Mixed component refrigeration (MCR):

LP axial compressor & HP centrifugal compressor 64 MW Gas Turbine & 7 MW Steam Turbine

MSE 2004

RAS GAS I & II RAS LAFFAN, QATAR

MSE 2004

RAS GAS III (&IV), RAS LAFFAN, QATAR

UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION

MSE 2004

Axens Liquefin Process

Mixed refrigerants for pre-cooling, liquefaction and sub-cooling duties Liquefin development studies presently oriented towards increasing capacity to 6 MTPA with:
2 x Frame 7 Gas Turbines for main compression 2 x Frame 5 Gas Turbines for power generation

Higher capacities possible using:

Frame 9 GTs Electric motors Steam turbines etc.
MSE 2004

Axens Liquefin Process

Similar to APCI with Propane compressor replaced with Mixed Refrigerant for pre-cooling Allows more balanced flows, refrigeration loads and power between the two compressors Avoids the process design limits associated with Propane compressors

MSE 2004

Axens Liquefin Process

Axens

MSE 2004

Shell DMR Process

Ref O G J July 16 2001 Ref O G J July 16 2001

Similar to Axens but with twin parallel compressor trains for each process stream Use of aero-derivative or VSD motors Shell claim 4.5 - 5.5 MTPA and lower cost

MSE 2004

Linde Process
Mixed refrigerants for pre-cooling, liquefaction and sub-cooling duties Minimum of Three Gas Turbine or electric motors needed for compressor driver 4.3 MTPA plant under construction with VSD motor drivers and onsite power generation with aero-derivative gas turbines

MSE 2004

Linde Process

MSE 2004

Process Design, Driver Ratings & Compressor Configuration

APCI process uses larger and larger gas turbines to reduce CAPEX in a single train configuration; bigger gas turbine have lower $/kW Frame 7EA used for Mixed Refrigerant Frame 6 being replaced by Frame 7 for Propane for larger plants The plants are single train i.e. each machine is designed for 100% capacity and arranged in series
MSE 2004

Process Design, Driver Ratings & Compressor Configuration

Phillips Optimised Cascade process have used 2x50% compressor configuration and achieved cost savings and high availability Shell DMR process appears to favour twin train configuration and achieves 4.5 - 5.5 MTPA with larger aero-derivative

MSE 2004

Gas Turbines Used in LNG Plant

Heavy Duty Gas Turbines:
Mechanical drive shown in blue Power generation shown in yellow

MSE 2004

Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines Aero-Derivative for LNG Plant Potential

Aero-derivative Gas Turbines:

MSE 2004

Combined Cycles and LNG Plant Potential

Combined Cycles:
ISO Pow er (kW ) Heat Rate (kJ/kW h) Efficiency (%) LM1600PE 18591 7605 45 LM2500PE 31048 7186 50 LM2500+ 6STG 40912 6981 52 LM6000PC 55007 6764 53 LM6000PD Sprint 59142 6876 52 RB211-24GT RT62 39760 7005 51.4 Trent 50 64458 6780 53.1 Trent 60 72268 7189 50.1

MSE 2004

Economies of Scale

MSE 2004

Source: Gower and Howard, Changing Economics of Gas Transportation

Economies of Scale

MSE 2004

Source: Introduction to LNG, University of Houston Institute for Energy, Law and Enterprise

Steam Turbines - Pros

Several established Vendors Size; may be built to exact process specification Mechanical drive up to 130 MW not a problem Constant speed power generation 6001100 MW High reliability; 30 years life is achievable High availability; compressors & steam turbines may both achieve 3 years non-stop operation, no need for inspection Steam is often required elsewhere in process Mixed fuel; boilers can utilise varying fuel mix whereas gas turbines require fuel specification to be maintained Higher thermodynamic efficiency than simple cycle GT (but lower efficiency than GT-steam combined cycle) Power output relatively unaffected by ambient conditions
MSE 2004

Steam Turbines - Cons

Perceived as old Victorian technology Physically very large; boilers, condensers, desalination plant (for make-up water), water polishing plant etc. CAPEX of steam turbine plant is higher than simple cycle GT (but similar cost to combined cycle) Overhaul of steam turbine similar to large frame GT (but interval between overhauls is twice as long!) Added complexity in steam auxiliaries, including feed heating, boiler feed pumps etc.

MSE 2004

Industrial Gas Turbines - Pros

Simple cycle GT is uncomplicated in its design Low CAPEX Economies of scale when using large frame GTs Extensive operational experience with mechanical drive applications Large population; perceived as low risk technology Skid mounted; easier to install than a steam system Smaller plant footprint; less extensive civil works Lower NOX than Aero-derivative GT Range of sizes available: Frame 5
Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 9
MSE 2004

~ 30 MW ~ 40 MW ~ 75 MW ~ 110 MW

Industrial Gas Turbines - Cons

Paucity of Vendors! Low thermal efficiency, high CO2 emissions Maintenance is intensive, involving prolonged on-site work which reduces plant availability Fixed sizes and fixed optimal speeds Process and compressors must be designed around the GT (unlike steam turbines) Process may not make full use of the GT power Power output highly sensitive to ambient conditions e.g. typical large GT: 100% power At 15 C
~95% power ~88% power ~82% power
MSE 2004

At 20 C At 30 C At 40 C

Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines - Pros Aero-Derivative

Higher thermal efficiency than Industrial GT; 38-42% compared to 28-32% for similar size Industrial GTs in simple cycle Smaller footprint area than Industrial GT because of aero design Shorter maintenance period; modular design allows gas engine and power turbine sections to be swapped out Off-site maintenance (in factory) Thus, higher plant availability Most engines have free power turbines for variable speed operation (within a range) Large helper motors or steam turbines may not be needed for start-up Range of sizes available: RB211
LM6000 Trent
MSE 2004

~ 30 MW ~ 40 MW ~ 55 MW

Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines - Cons Aero-Derivative

Paucity of Vendors (essentially only 2)! Higher NOX than Industrial GTs Engines need more care and maintenance due to higher operating pressures and temperatures and design complexity Fixed sizes and fixed optimal speeds Process and compressors must be designed around the GT (unlike steam turbines) Process may not make full use of the GT power Power output highly sensitive to ambient conditions Fuel quality is critical even more than in Industrials! Limited operating experience for LNG, although extensive for offshore mechanical drive and power generation Powers greater than 60 MW not available in simple cycle Dry Low Emissions (NOX) technology adds complexity Higher risk technology than Industrial GTs
MSE 2004

Combined Cycles - Pros

Mitigates some of the cons of Industrial GTs Adds some of the pros of Steam Turbines Essentially, 50% extra power / 50% extra thermal efficiency / 50% lower CO2 emissions Allows optimisation of process and compressors Steam turbine can be used for start-up and additional power Steam may be required elsewhere in the process

MSE 2004

Combined Cycles - Cons

High CAPEX, increased complexity, more extensive civil works same as for Steam Turbine Combined cycles are not presently favoured by LNG plant designers, but may be considered when CO2 is taxed!

MSE 2004

Variable Speed Electric Motors - Pros

Can be made to suit, allowing optimisation of process and compressors Higher availability of LNG plant than if using GTs or Steam Turbines Reduced manning levels May avoid gearboxes for 3000-3600 rpm compressor speeds (large flow capacity compressors) Power generation may be off-site Lower CAPEX if power is bought from the grid Simple layout, reduced civil works
MSE 2004

Variable Speed Electric Motors - Cons

Most LNG plant are in remote locations; off-site power generation of 400-500 MW not available! Very high CAPEX if power generation is built alongside LNG High OPEX (although savings may be possible) Limited experience with high power VSDs; 45-55 MW is achievable, 65 MW is the maximum Electrical issues at compressor start-up; grid peak current and fault levels Power generation using GTs must happen somewhere; CO2, NOX and sensitivity to ambient conditions is similar to a GT (unless power generation is using a combined cycle)

MSE 2004

Conclusions and Observations

LNG drivers are predominately Industrial Heavy Duty Gas Turbines e.g. GE Frames 5, 6, 7 even 9! Frame 5s generally used on older LNG plant, although ALNG in Trinidad was recently fitted with Frame 5Ds; these are demonstrating high overall availability at low CAPEX 3.3 MTPA with 6 x Fr 5 Fr 6 / Fr 7 combinations replaced Steam Turbines at MLNG Now Fr 6 / Fr 7 commonly used at NLNG, Oman LNG, Qatar LNG 3.3 3.5 MTPA Fr 7 / Fr 7 combinations used at Qatar LNG, but with poor use of GT power because of non-optimal process, process had to be redesigned ~4 MTPA Larger and larger trains are pushing the limits of compressor technology i.e. Axials for Mixed Refrigerant and largest centrifugals for Propane
MSE 2004

Conclusions and Observations

When parallel trains are used (instead of series) e.g. ALNG:
Smaller driver sizes can be used e.g. Frame 5s Compressor capacities are halved, so centrifugals may be used instead of axials Plant availability is enhanced Improved operability, re-starting after a train failure is simpler and quicker Plant costs are surprisingly lower

MSE 2004