+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Mg 360 deg assessment

Mg 360 deg assessment

Date post: 22-Apr-2015
Category:
Upload: mukesh-kumar-gupta
View: 551 times
Download: 3 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
 
32
360 DEGREE ASSESSMENT 360 DEGREE ASSESSMENT FLNG FORUM 2010:24 MARCH PRESENTED BY MUKES GUPTA – MD CANADOIL ENGINEERING © 2010 Canadoil Group © MG www.canadoilgroup.com
Transcript
Page 1: Mg 360 deg assessment

360 DEGREE ASSESSMENT 360 DEGREE ASSESSMENT FLNG FORUM 2010:24 MARCHPRESENTED BY MUKES GUPTA – MD CANADOIL ENGINEERING

© 2010 Canadoil Group  © MGwww.canadoilgroup.com

Page 2: Mg 360 deg assessment

SIMPLIFIED LNG PROCESS BLOCK DIAGRAM (TYPICAL)( )

Page 3: Mg 360 deg assessment

360 DEG ASSESSMENT – WHY LARGE SIZE FLNG?

FCNG

FLOATING POWER PLANTPROBABLE FUTURE SOLUTION ….MG’S IDEA MAR 2010!

FCNGFLOATING PIPE TO CARRY CNG

COPY RIGHT  2010 ©………….  [email protected]

Page 4: Mg 360 deg assessment

IDEA OF FLOATING GAS TO LIQUID PLANT TO AVOID ENERGY WASTE IN QLIQUEFACTION & REGASSIFICATION

Page 5: Mg 360 deg assessment

FLOATING POWER PLANT 220 MW……….CASE STUDY

Page 6: Mg 360 deg assessment

FLOATING POWER PLANT (FPP) IN COMBINATION WITH FCNG( )

Page 7: Mg 360 deg assessment

BARGE MOUNTED FLOATING POWER PLANT

Page 8: Mg 360 deg assessment

FLOATING POWER PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN………

Page 9: Mg 360 deg assessment

T t ti f N t lTransportation of Natural gas

Pipelines vs Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)• Pipelines are convenient and economical for onshore p

transport of natural gas • Offshore, as the water depth and distance increase pipeline 

transport of gas becomes difficulttransport of gas becomes difficult. • LNG for offshore transport of gas.• LNG is liquid at 260 oF and atmospheric presure• LNG is liquid at –260 oF and atmospheric presure, 

transported in specially designed ships. • 25% of the trade movement of natural gas in 2002 was as25% of the trade movement of natural gas in 2002 was as 

LNG. (BP Statistical Review, 2003)

Page 10: Mg 360 deg assessment

Li fi d N t l G (LNG)Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

• Liquefied gas is transported over long distances e.g., 2500 miles and more2500 miles and more. 

LNG Technology

• Capital intensive• Capital intensive

• Onshore and transportation needs

• Good demand market is essential

• Steady and large supply of reserves• Steady and large supply of reserves

Page 11: Mg 360 deg assessment

Estimate of LNG Cost ReductionsEstimate of LNG Cost Reductions1970’s vs Today1970’s vs Today

2.532.53

1970 s vs. Today1970 s vs. Today

30% 30% decline decline of costs of costs

1 541 54 00..5050

0.490.49

into into pipeline pipeline

1.801.801.541.54 00..5050

11 0000 00 40400.400.40

11..0000 00..4040

LiqueLique--factionfaction

TransTrans--portationportation

RegasRegas--ificationification

TotalTotal TotalTotalLiqueLique--factionfaction

TransTrans--portationportation

RegasRegas--ificationification

Source: McKinsey & Company / El Paso$/MMBtu 2 500 mile voyage

act oact o po tat opo tat o ificationification factionfaction portationportation ificationification

$/MMBtu—2,500 mile voyage

Page 12: Mg 360 deg assessment

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG)( )

Advantages

• Simplicity• Simplicity• Inexpensive onshore facilities• Can start with very modest transporting needs

E ffi i t• Energy efficient• Can exploit isolated supply sources • Suitable for small demand markets

Example: A 1200 MW plant requiring around 125 MMscf/d would be well suited for CNG import rather than LNG, which would require awell suited   for CNG import rather than LNG, which would require a generating capacity of 5000 MW (!) of gas‐fired generation (if all used for that purpose).

Page 13: Mg 360 deg assessment

C d N t l G (CNG)Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

• Compressed gas (1500 to 2500 psi and 0 to ‐ 40 F)

• Two technologies for CNG transportTwo technologies for CNG transporta. The Cran & Stennings approachb The Enersea approachb. The Enersea approach 

Example:  Consider the transportation of 300 MMscf of gas as CNGCNG

Using the Cran & Stennings approachActual volume of CNG: 1 76x106 ft3Actual volume of CNG: 1.76x106 ft3

Using the Enersea approachA l V l f CNG 1 2 106 f 3Actual Volume of CNG: 1.2x106 ft3

Page 14: Mg 360 deg assessment

CNG TCNG Transport

Courtesy Enersea

Page 15: Mg 360 deg assessment

CNG Cargo Containment SystemCNG Cargo Containment System

Courtesy Enersea

Page 16: Mg 360 deg assessment

An Example Calculation for the CNG pProcess

• Assume two standard volumes of CNG that are to be transported

• Calculate the actual volume of natural gas that would be stored at a range of pressures and temperatures.

• Estimate the compression and refrigeration needs• Estimate the number of ships requiredp q• Calculate the final unit price of the gas delivered• Optimum condition is chosen by minimizing the final unit p y g

price of the gas delivered 

Page 17: Mg 360 deg assessment

T t ti f thTransportation of the gas

90% f th i t t i l d i i hi i f th90% of the investment involved is in shipping of the gas. 

Loading and unloading is possible and easy with small facilities.

Page 18: Mg 360 deg assessment

E ti t d b f hiEstimated number of ships

Factors for determining the number of ships: loading rate of the gas, distance for which the CNG is transported and the time required for a ship to make one 

l t lcomplete cycle. 

Distance No. of shipsmiles miles

1000 41500 52000 62500 73500 8 to 95000 11 to 12

Page 19: Mg 360 deg assessment

C t f t t tiCost of transportation

• For voyage distance of 2500 milesC t f CNG t t $1 86 $2 43/M f• Cost of CNG transport: $1.86‐$2.43/Mscf (depending on pressure and temperature)

• Published Cost of LNG transport: $1.89/Mscf A th di t d CNG b• As the distance decreases CNG becomes more attractive than LNG 

Page 20: Mg 360 deg assessment

C i f CNG d LNGComparison of CNG and LNG

Size of investment for a 500MMscf/d plant CNG LNGCNG                       LNG

Reserves:                     Modest                   LargeProcessing cost: MM$30‐40 MM$750‐2000*Processing cost:        MM$30 40            MM$750 2000Transportation costs: MM$230/ship MM$160/shipUnloading costs: MM$16 20 MM$500 550Unloading costs:        MM$16‐20 MM$500‐550Total investment:       $1‐2 billion** $2‐3 billion**

* Depending upon the location of the production site** Depending upon the number of ships used for the transport of the gas. Depending upon the number of ships used for the transport of the gas.

Page 21: Mg 360 deg assessment

T i l t t f LNG j tTypical cost components for LNG project

Unloading11%

Liquefaction50%

Shipping39%

Page 22: Mg 360 deg assessment

T i l t t f CNG j tTypical cost components for CNG project

Unloading6%

Compression and loading

5%

ShippingShipping89%

Page 23: Mg 360 deg assessment

C i f LNG d CNGComparison of LNG and CNG

Price of the delivered gasLNG value chain per MMBTUpExploration and Production: $0.5‐1.0/MMBTULiquefaction: $0.8‐1.2/ MMBTU.Shi i $0 4 1 5/ MMBTU*Shipping: $0.4‐1.5/ MMBTU*.Regasification and Storage: $0.3‐0.5/ MMBTU.$1.00 as netback for the investors $

Final price of LNG: $3.00‐5.20/MMBTU.

* For transport distances from 1000 miles to 5000 miles

Page 24: Mg 360 deg assessment

C i f LNG d CNGComparison of LNG and CNG

CNG value chain per MMBTUExploration and Production: $0 5‐1 0/MMBTUExploration and Production: $0.5‐1.0/MMBTU

Processing and transportation: $1.08‐3.82/MMBTU*$1 00 tb k t th i t$1.00 as netback to the investor

Final unit price of CNG: $2.58‐5.82/MMBTU 

* For transport distances from 1000 miles to 5000 miles

Page 25: Mg 360 deg assessment

C i f iComparison of gas prices 

Distance LNG CNG (Case I) CNG (Case II)miles $/MMBTU $/MMBTU $/MMBTUmiles $/MMBTU $/MMBTU $/MMBTU 500 3.55 2.72 2.72 1000 3.65 2.74-2.84 2.82-2.901500 3.75 3.06-3.10 3.15-3.262000 3.85 3.30-3.37 3.11-3.622500 3 95 3 44-3 90 3 50-3 982500 3.95 3.44 3.90 3.50 3.983500 4.25 4.08-4.43 3.98-4.345000 4.65 4.84-5.49 4.70-5.43

Case I: Transported Volume = 3.5×106 ft3

Case II: Transported Volume = 5.0×106 ft3

Price of gas: $0.75/MMBTU, Liquefaction: $1.0MMBTU, Regasification: $0.4/MMBTU

Usage of water‐cooled compressor raises the unit price of the gas by0.01/MMBTU.

Page 26: Mg 360 deg assessment

C i f CNG d LNGComparison of CNG and LNGAdvantages of CNG over LNG• Requirement of lower throughput of gas for a project

I l f l i l• Involvement of lower capital• Ease of deployment … faster implementation of a project• Ability to access stranded reserves and monetize themAbility to access stranded reserves and monetize them• Majority of the investment is in the shipping, making the assets movable 

and reducing the risk involved

DisadvantagesInability to transport large volumes of gas such LNGDisparity in the volume transport hinders commercial possibility of CNG

Page 27: Mg 360 deg assessment

C i f CNG d GTLComparison of CNG and GTL

• GTL (Gas‐to‐liquids) technology converts natural gas into hydrocarbon liquidsinto hydrocarbon liquids. 

• Impetus for the GTL technology: Clean fuel obtained as product and easy transportation

• Main products: Middle distillates like gasolineMain products: Middle distillates like gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel,naphtha and diesel  

Page 28: Mg 360 deg assessment

R l th GTL t h l lRole the GTL technology can play

Page 29: Mg 360 deg assessment

G t Li idGas to Liquids

• The Fischer‐Tropsch synthesis (F‐T synthesis) is one of the most important technologies for GTL.of the most important technologies for GTL. 

• A main advantage of the F‐T products is the absence of sulphur nitrogen and complex cyclic hydrocarbonsof sulphur, nitrogen and complex cyclic hydrocarbons resulting in almost no emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and unburned hydrocarbonsnitrous oxides and unburned hydrocarbons.

• For 100 barrels of liquids 1 MMscf of gas is needed

Page 30: Mg 360 deg assessment

P j t C t i tProject Constraints

LNG GTL CNGLNG         GTL              CNG

Reserves              Large       Large     Medium to Small

f llInfrastructure       Large       Large             Small

Investment           Large      Medium*  Medium to Large

Transportation      Large      Medium*         Large

* Depending upon the number of ships required.

Page 31: Mg 360 deg assessment

Worldwide areas of interest for application of CNG technology

Page 32: Mg 360 deg assessment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (PHOTOGRAPHS; ARTICLES & PRESENTATION….)· ABS· ABS

· Shel l

FPC· FPC

· Technip

· FlexLNG

· QG

· ConocoPhillips

· Saipem

· DNV

· Aker

· Waller Marine

· EnerSea Votrans

· E & P (Brian)

· Asim Deshpande & Michael EconomidesEconomides

· CE & CG Team (Bill / Milind) & others


Recommended