Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a) NGH Production
Compressor
Condenser
(Using seawater
as cooling media)
Throttle
valve
Feed
water
Hyd.+
water
Separator
Reactor
Hyd.+
water
Water
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Dryer
Heat
Exchanger
(Freezing)
Storage
For transporting the natural gas hydrate at atmospheric pressure, the temperature of the
hydrate slurry should be lowered to about -15 C [4]. The required heat of hydrate formation
and the cooling duties are provided by the refrigeration cycle as shown in Fig. 1. Based on the
condenser and chiller operational conditions, propane is used as refrigerant in this cycle. The
details of the process have been given by [1].
M &S
0.82
(2.11 + Fc )
Installed Cost, $ =
(658.3)(bhp )
280
(1)
In this equation, M&S is the Marshall and Swift cost index, which is used for updating the cost
correlation. We took a value of 1094.4 for mid-2003 [8, 10]. The parameter Fc depends on the
compressor type. The heat exchangers installation costs are estimated by the following
equation:
M &S
0.65
(2.29 + Fc )
Installed Cost, $ =
(474.7 ) A
280
(2)
The surface area, A, is estimated based on the heat exchangers duties, the overall heat
transfer coefficients and the input and output streams temperatures. The parameter Fc
depends on the heat exchanger type, design and operational pressure.
The installed cost of the separator, as a pressurized tank, can be estimated using the
following equation [8]:
M &S
1.066
Installed Cost, $ =
He 0.802 (2.18 + Fc )
(937.6)D
280
(3)
The installed cost of the dryer, a rotary type, is estimated using the cost correlations given by
Peters and Timmerhaus [11]:
M&S
Installed Cost, $ =
exp ( 0.853 ln ( A / 0.093) + 5.778 )
561
(4)
(5)
To estimate the operation and maintenance costs, O&M, the following equation by Douglas
[8] is used:
(6)
In this equation, Raw Material is the cost of natural gas at the field which has been assumed
$4.710-4/MJ [12]. The mean heat content of natural gas is assumed to be of 39.98 MJ/m3 [7].
It is assumed that the electricity cost, adjusted to the mid-2003, is $0.06/kWh [8]. The onsite
costs are given in the previous sections.
(7)
where the capacity is in ton of natural gas fed to the reactor per day. Six processing steps are
assumed for the proposed process shown in Fig. 1. Based on four shift operations a day and
eight hours work per day for each shift position, dividing Eq. (7) by six will yield the required
number of men per day. The revenue of the natural gas has been assumed to be $2.84103
/MJ [12].
Assuming 20 years as useful life of the plant and continuous discount rate, i, equal to 8%, the
amortized total capital investment is obtained by:
19
exp(0.08 i )
i =0
Tot. Inv.
(365 capacity )
exp(0.08 20)
(8)
Dividing the O&M cost obtained in Eq. (6) by the plant capacity, the amortized O&M cost can
be obtained in $ per ton. Finally, the total product cost is the summation of the amortized total
capital investment and O&M. This term might be expressed in $ per m3 or $ per MJ of natural
gas.
Train 1
Acid Gas
Removal
6
Dehydration
Liquefaction
LNG
Tanks
29.510 m /d
T=311 K
P=6.89 MPa
C1 97.04 mole%
CO2 2.01 mole%
H2S 0.5 mole%
7.5 mtpa
LNG
Sulfur
Recovery
Sufur
Loader
75.9 ktpa
Sulfur
Train 2
Acid Gas
Sweet Gas
A
B
S
O
R
B
E
R
Sour Gas
Heat
Exchanger
Rich DEA
R
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
O
Lean DEA
Table 1: DEA circulation rate, heating load and designed parameters of equipments for one of
the sweetening unit with a feed rate of 260 MMSCF/D
0.0987 m3/s
26119 J/hr
639 m2
8.53 ft
19.81 ft
5884 J/hr
29.4 m2
92,544 J/hr
362.8 m2
28
16.76 m
The sweetened gas from the acid gas removal unit is saturated with water. To prevent ice
formation during liquefaction, the gas should be dried to the bone. To achieve this goal,
molecular sieve adsorption units are used. A dehydration unit works unsteady and needs two
or three towers to adsorb water. While a tower adsorbs water, the second tower is being
regenerated and the third one is being cooled. Fig. 4 shows a schematic diagram for a
conventional dehydration unit. Because of high rate of natural gas, 10 parallel dehydration
units are used per each train. In Table 2, the designed parameters are presented.
Calculations were made by a package developed by Campbell Company [15].
Inlet
Gas
A
D
S
O
R
B
I
N
G
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
O
R
Outlet
Gas
R
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
O
L
I
N
G
Heater
Condenser
Feed temperature
Feed pressure
Feed rate
Water content of the feed
Dehydration cycle time
No. of towers per unit
Height of each tower
Total Height of each tower
Diameter of each tower
Mass of absorbent per each tower
Heating load for regenerating tower
Total cooling load for cooling tower
311 F
6.79 MPa
5369 kmol/hr
0.001 kg/standard m3
8 hr
3
3.04 m
4.27 m
2.07 ft
7119 kg
11297 MJ/hr
4273 MJ/hr
Gas chilling and liquefaction process is shown in Fig. 5. The refrigerant used in the unit is a
mixed refrigerant. The liquefying power of the unit depends to a large extent on the use of
throttling process and the heat exchanger. Using a thermodynamic simulation package,
namely Ez-Thermo [16], the compositions of the mixed refrigerants were determined such
that the refrigerant becomes liquid at low pressures and a temperature of approximately 140
K. The composition of the mixed refrigerant and the design parameters are given in Table 3
and 4, respectively.
The Claus process is the conventional way of producing elemental sulfur from H2S in sulfur
recovery unit. Many reactions are involved in generating H2S to S. The two main reactions
are, however,
2H 2 S + 3O 2 2H 2 O + 2SO 2
(9)
2H 2 S + SO 2 3S + 2H 2 O
(10)
There are different types of designs for Claus process [17]. The process used in this study is
shown in Fig. 6. In this unit a furnace converter, two reactors and three condensers are used
to accomplish the above reactions. The designed parameters are given in Table 5.
Pre-treated
Natural Gas Feed
P=6.89 MPa
T= 311 K
LNG Product
P=0.10 MPa
T= 112 K
Compressor
First stage
heat exchanger
Second stage
heat exchanger
Third stage
heat exchanger
Components
C1
C2
C3
N2
mole%
44
38
15
3
Pressure
Temperature
Feed rate (methane)
Rate of circulating liquid
Heating load
Surface area of heat exchanger
Compressor work
6.76 MPa
312 K
14.36 106 m3/d
160938 kmol/hr
106.4 MW
731.2 m2
30.4 MW
HPS
Acid Gas
Feed
WHB
RF
R1
R2
LPS
LPS
LPS
C1
C2
C3
BFW
BFW
Air
BFW
Legend:
RF:
WHB:
R1, R2:
C1, C2, C3:
BFW:
HPS:
LPS:
BFW
Reaction Furnace
Waste Heat Boiler
Catalytic Converters
Condensers
Boiler Feed Water
High Pressure Steam
Low Pressure Steam
Liquid Sulfur
Results
For a typical natural gas system, with the specified composition, the economic parameters of
the NGH process (excluding the shipping cost) have been estimated. The operational
conditions and other process variables are given in Table 6. The exchanger duties,
compressor power, the installed costs of different equipments and the NGH production costs
are presented in Tables 7 and 8, respectively [1].
The effects of seawater temperature, as a heat sink for the refrigeration cycle, and the
hydrate storage temperature on the economic parameters of the NGH production process
have been studied by Javanmardi et al. [1]. The results are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The other
operational conditions in these figures are the same as those given in Table 6.
The distances between some potential markets and Asalluyeh port, located near the South
Pars gas field, and the number of required NGH and LNG ships have been given in Table 9.
The required NGH and LNG ships have been estimated based on the speed, capacity and
loading + unloading + waiting period for each type of the carrier.
Table 6: Operational conditions and other design variables for the NGH production process
Equipment
Specification
Compressor
Power, 10.6 MW
Input pressure, 200 kPa
Output pressure, 1270 kPa
compressor, 0.8 (isentropic)
Duty, -34.5 MW
Surface Area, 3530.0 m2
Pressure, 1270 kPa
Duty, 2.7 MW
Surface Area, 221.0 m2
Pressure, 200 kPa
Duty, 0.2 MW
Duty, 21.2 MW,
Temperature, 285.4 K
Power, 0.2 MW
6.4
Condenser
Heat Exchanger
Dryer
Reactor
Pump
Moles of propane#/mole of natural
gas
No. of Storage Tanks (for 10 trains)
#
Table 8: The installed costs of different equipments of the NGH production process
Equipment
Installed cost*, US $
Compressor
Condenser
Heat exchanger
Separator
Dryer
Reactor
Pump
Storage tank
Total capital investment for each train
Amortized Capital Investment
Amortized O&M cost
Total cost (for the NGH production
chain)
17.39106
2.41106
3.98105
1.09106
2.57105
1.49106
4.5104
1.98106
59.12106
$ 5.9010-4/MJ
$ 1.2210-3/MJ
$ 1.8110-3/MJ
30
Amortized Cap. Inv., $/MJ
Amortized O&M cost, $/MJ
25
Cost10
20
15
10
5
0
275
285
295
305
Temperature of seawater, K
315
35
Amortized Cap. Inv., $/MJ
30
Cost
25
20
15
10
5
0
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
Country
Port
Distance,
km
Japan
Korea
Taiwan
China
India
Turkey
Spain
Belgium
Tokyo
Incheon
Kaohsiung
Shanghai
Hazira
Marmaris Eriglisi
Barcelona
Zeebrugge
11982
11334
9612
9816
2352
6334
8556
11556
No. of
NGH
ships
9
9
8
8
4
6
7
9
No. of
LNG
ships
15
14
13
13
7
11
12
14
For the system and the process operational conditions given in Table 1, the total NGH cost,
including the shipping cost, for different gas markets have been given in Table 10.
In Table 11, the installation costs for acid gas recovery unit, dehydration unit, liquefaction unit
and sulfur recovery units of the LNG process are given. Given also in Table 11 are the
installation costs for the above units per train and per plant.
Table 10: The total product cost of the NGH for different gas markets
Country
Japan
Korea
Taiwan
China
India
Turkey
Spain
Belgium
Table 11: Installations costs for the equipments in each unit, train and plant
of the LNG process
$5,749,551
$11,499,102
$22,998,204
$665,775
$3,328,894
$6,657,750
$42,700,392
$82,400,784
$35,003,088
$70,006,176
$343,792,955
$4.7410-4/ MJ
$2.8410-3/ MJ
$37.47 / ton
$500 / month
Country
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
China
India
Turkey
Spain
Belgium
Fig. 9 illustrates the NGH and LNG cost for transporting natural gas to different countries.
LNG and NGH are approximately sold $2.8410-3/MJ or more based in delivery to the
receiving port. As shown in this figure, when the LNG costs are compared to the cost of
transporting by NGH, still it is cheaper to transport by LNG. This can be attributed to the fact
that the NGH process is risky and not well established.
0.003
LNG
NGH
0.0025
$/MJ
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
Country
um
Be
lg
i
ai
n
Sp
rk
ey
Tu
di
a
In
na
Ch
i
an
Ta
iw
ea
Ko
r
S.
Ja
pa
n
Conclusions
The LNG and NGH costs for transporting natural gas from Asaluyeh port to eight potential
markets have been compared. When it is considered that LNG price is $2.8410-3/ MJ or
more, the idea of transporting natural gas from Asaluyeh port seems to be promising.
The capital cost for the NGH method, however, is less than that of the LNG as an established
method. This point, i.e. avoiding the capital cost investment for the infrastructure
constructions of the LNG method, is an important point for the case of transportation of
stranded gas. Moreover, the NGH is safer and easier to store. The shipping cost is also
significantly cheaper. Especially for the case of stranded gas, the NGH method can be
considered as an alternative for transportation of natural gas.
List of Symbols
A
Area, m2
bhp
Compressor power, kW
Diameter, m
Fc
He
Height, m
Interest rate
M&S
References
1. Javanmardi, J., Kh. Nasrifar, and M. Moshfeghian, Economic Evaluation of Natural Gas Hydrate as
an Alternative for Natural Gas Transportation, The 12th GPA-GCC Chapter Technical Conference,
Kuwait, May 5, 2004.
2. Gudmundsson, J. S., and A. Borrehaug, Frozen Hydrate for Transportation of Natural Gas, 2nd
International Conference on Natural Gas Hydrate, Toulouse, France, June, 2-6, 415-422, 1996.
3. Chang, S., Comparing Exploitation and Transportation Technologies for Monetisation of Offshore
Stranded Gas, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19
April, (SPE paper 68680), 2001.
4. Gudmundsson, J. S., V. Andersson, O.I. Levik, Gas Storage and Transport Using Hydrates,
http://www.ipt.unit.no/~ngh/library/paper4/paper4.html
5. Parrish, W. R. and J. M. Prausnitz, Dissociation Pressures of Gas Hydrates Formed by Gas
Mixtures, Ind Eng Chem Proc Dev, 11, 26-35, 1972.
6. Holder, G. D., G. Gorbin, and K. D. Papadopoulos, Thermodynamic and Molecular Properties of Gas
Hydrates from Mixtures Containing Methane, Argon and Krypton, Ind Eng Chem Fund, 19, 282-286,
1980.
7. Vysniauskas, V. and P.R. Bishnoi, A Kinetic Study of Methane Hydrate Formation, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
38, 1061-1072, 1983.
8. Douglas, J. M., Conceptual Design of Chemical Process, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY,
1988.
9. Guthrie, K. M., Capital Cost Estimating, Chem. Eng., 76, 114, 1969.
10.Park, M. H., N. S. Park, H. Park, H. S. Shin and B. D. Kim, "An Economic Analysis for Potential
Application in Korea", Desalination, 114, 209-221, 1997.
11.Peters, M. S. and D. Timmerhaus, "Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineering", third
edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,, NY, 1981.
12.Adibi, S., H.R. Bakhtiari, Investigation of Possibility of LNG Production and Export in Iran, 12th Oil,
Gas & Petrochemical Congress, Tehran, Iran, 2003.
13.Gudmundsson, J. S., and A. Borrehang, Natural Gas Hydrate: an Alternative to Liquefied Natural
Gas, www.ipt.unit.no/~jsp/forskning/hydrater
14.Moshfeghian, M., Ez-Sweet Software, Personal Communication, 2003.
15.Gas-Cap Software, John M. Campell Company, Norman, 2002.
16.Moshfeghian, M., Ez-Thermo Software, Personal Communication 2003.
rd
17.Maddox, R. N., Gas Condition and Processing (Vol. 4): Gas and Liquid Sweetening, 3 ed.,
Campbell Petroleum series, Norman, 1982.