The World of Energy

Chapter 30 LNG Technology - Processes

30.5. Drivers & Compressor Configuration

Analysis

Ch. 30 - 56
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

Ch. 30 - 57
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
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

Ch. 30 - 58
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

Ch. 30 - 59
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)
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

Ch. 30 - 60
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

Ch. 30 - 61
Elliott Compressors in LNG
-scale liquefaction plant (CAMEL
Arzew, Algeria)
- Kenai,
Alaska)

Alaska)
-mixed refrigerant (APCI) process
compression (Esso (Exxon) Marsa el-Brega, Libya)
-shaft (GE Frame 5) gas turbine driven
compressor strings (P.T. Arun (Mobil) Indonesia)
-MR (APCI) process compression (P.T.Arun
Indonesia)

(Ras Gas 1&2 Ras Laffan, Qatar)
-section Propane MR compressor (Ras
Gas 3 Ras Laffan, Qatar - UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

Ch. 30 - 62
APCI Process Evolution
Petronas MLNG, located in Bintulu, Sarawak

3 x Centrifugal compressors
3 x Steam Turbine drivers ~ 37 MW each

Ch. 30 - 63
 APCI Process Evolution

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

Ch. 30 - 64
APCI RasGas I & II, Qatar

Ch. 30 - 65
RAS GAS III (&IV), RAS LAFFAN, QATAR

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Ch. 30 - 66
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

Ch. 30 - 67
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

Ch. 30 - 68
Shell DMR Process

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

Ch. 30 - 69
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

Ch. 30 - 70
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

designed for 100% capacity and arranged in
series
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

Ch. 30 - 71
Gas Turbines Used in LNG Plant
Heavy Duty Gas Turbines:
Mechanical drive shown in blue
Power generation shown in yellow

Aero-derivative Gas Turbines

Ch. 30 - 72
Combined Cycles and LNG Plant Potential

Ch. 30 - 73
Partial List - ELLIOTT LNG Plants

Ch. 30 - 74
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 600 1100 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

Ch. 30 - 75
Steam Turbines - Cons

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.

Ch. 30 - 76
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 ~ 30 MW
Frame 6 ~ 40 MW
Frame 7 ~ 75 MW
Frame 9 ~ 110 MW

Ch. 30 - 77
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 At 20 C
~88% power At 30 C
~82% power At 40 C

Ch. 30 - 78
Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines - Pros
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 ~ 30 MW
LM6000 ~ 40 MW
Trent ~ 55 MW

Ch. 30 - 79
Aero-Derivative Gas Turbines - Cons

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

Ch. 30 - 80
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

Cons
High CAPEX, increased complexity, more extensive

Combined cycles are not presently favoured by

LNG plant designers, but may be considered when
CO2 is taxed!

Ch. 30 - 81
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

Ch. 30 - 82
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)

Ch. 30 - 83
Driver Selection for LNG - Summary

LNG drivers are predominately Industrial Heavy Duty Gas Turbines

Frame 5s generally used on older LNG plant, although ALNG in

Trinidad was recently fitted with Frame 5Ds; these are
6 x Fr 5
Fr 6 / Fr 7 combinations replaced Steam Turbines at MLNG

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

Larger and larger trains are pushing the limits of compressor

technology i.e. Axials for Mixed Refrigerant and largest centrifugals
for Propane
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

Ch. 30 - 84
 LNG Train Capacity of 1 F-7 or 3 F-5
1 F-7EA = 79 MW + 6 MW Helper/Starter, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating

Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
1.8 mmTpa
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
2.1 mmTpa
F-7 C3 MR

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 1.8 F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

mmTpa

Ch. 30 - 85
 LNG Train Capacity of 2 F-7EA
1 F-7EA = 79 MW Site Rating, + 6 MW Starter/Helper ST

F-7 ? F-7
Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
3.6 mmTpa
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa, F-7 C3 MR F-7 MR MR

4.2 mmTpa

F-7 C3= GB C1 C1

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 3.8
mmTpa F-7 C2= GB C1 C1

Ch. 30 - 86
 LNG Train Capacity of 3 F-7EA
1 F-7EA = 79 MW Site Rating, + 6 MW Starter/Helper ST

F-7 MR MR F-7 MR MR

Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
5.4 mmTpa F-7 MR MR

F-7 C3 C3 F-7 MR MR

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa, F-7 MR MR
6.3 mmTpa

F-7 C3= C3= F-7 C2= C2=

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, 5.6
mmTpa
F-7 C1 C1 C1 C1

Ch. 30 - 87
LNG Capacity, Power & Technology Matching

6.5
Capacity (MMTPA)
6.0

5.5

5.0
C3/MR
3 x F-7
4.5
6K
Casc.
4.0
Casc. 3 x F-7
9K
3.5 9 x F-5 SMR
Casc. 3 x F-7
C3/MR 15 K
8 x F-5 6K
3.0 2 x F-7
12 K
Casc. 4K
2.5 Casc.
2 x F-7
6 x F-5 SMR
2 x F- 6K
2.0 10 K 7
4K
1.5 C3/MR
1 x F-7
Casc.
1.0 SMR 2K
3 x F-5 1 x F-
7
0.5 5K
2K

0.0

Ch. 30 - 88
 LNG Train Configuration @ 1.75 mmTpa
1 F-7EA = 79 MW, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating

Single MR
47.4 MW/mmTpa,
83 MW
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa,
71 MW
F-7 C3 MR

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa, F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

80 MW

Ch. 30 - 89
 LNG Train Configuration @ 3.5 mmTpa
1 F-7EA = 79 MW, 1 F-5D = 26.5 MW Site Rating

F-7 ? F-7
Single MR + 15
47.4 MW/mmTpa, MW
165 MW S/T
F-7 ? F-7

C3/MR
40.5 MW/mmTpa, F-7 C3 MR F-7 MR MR

142 MW

F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

Cascade
45.3 MW/mmTpa,
159 MW
F-5 C3= F-5 C2= F-5 C1

Ch. 30 - 90
SMR Possible Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa
Single MR - 47.4 MW/mmTpa, 213 MW

F-7 MR MR MR ST

F-7 MR MR

F-7 MR MR MR ST

+ 55 MW S/T
F-7 MR MR

ST MR MR

F-7 MR MR
F-7 MR MR

F-7 MR MR

+ 55 MW S/T
Ch. 30 - 91
 C3/MR Possible Config. @ 4.5 mmTpa

C3/MR - 40.5 MW/mmTpa, 183 MW

+ 40
F-7 C3, ? MR ST F-7 MR, ? MR ST MW
S/T

+ 40
F-7 C3 C3 MR ST F-7 MR MR MR ST MW
S/T

+ 40
ST C3 C3 F-7 MR MR F-7 MR MR MW
S/T

Ch. 30 - 92
Cascade Configuration @ 4.5 mmTpa
Cascade - 45.3 MW/mmTpa, 204 MW

F-5 C3= F-5 C2=

F-5 C1 C1 C1

F-5 C3= F-5 C2=

F-5 C1 C1 C1

F-5 C3= F-5 C2=

F-7 C3= GB C1 C1 ST
+ 70
MW
S/T
F-7 C3= GB C1 C1 ST

Ch. 30 - 93
2 Frame 9 Nominal 7.5 mta

PRO PANE LP
MR

MP
N2 MR MR

Ch. 30 - 94
3 Frame 9 Nominal 9 mta

PRO PAN E
G EN ER ATOR

LP MP
MR MR MR

LP
N2 G EN ER ATOR

Ch. 30 - 95
3 Frame 9 Nominal 10 mta

PROPANE HP
MR

LP MP
MR MR

LP
N2 GENERA TOR

Ch. 30 - 96
Electric Motor Drive 7 10 mta
Arrangement depends
on maximum motor C3
40 PRO PANE 40
size and desired train MW S TAG E 1 -3 MW S TAG E 4

capacity

Example:
55 MW maximum 55 LP 55 MP HP
MW MR MW MR MR
motor size
Nominal 8 mmTpa

40 LP 40 HP
MW N2 MW N2

Ch. 30 - 97
LNG Mechanical Drive Evolution

160
Large gas turbine
140
Small gas turbine
Capacity worldwide (Mtpa)

120
Steam drive
100

80

60
?
40

20

0
1980 1990 2000 2005 2015
Start-up until