1. 360 DEGREE ASSESSMENT
FLNG FORUM 2010:24 MARCH
PRESENTED BY MUKES GUPTA – MD CANADOIL ENGINEERING
© 2010 Canadoil Group © MG
www.canadoilgroup.com

2. SIMPLIFIED LNG PROCESS BLOCK DIAGRAM (TYPICAL)
( )

3. 360 DEG ASSESSMENT – WHY LARGE SIZE FLNG?
PROBABLE FUTURE SOLUTION ….MG’S IDEA MAR 2010! FLOATING POWER PLANT
FCNG
FLOATING PIPE TO
CARRY CNG
COPY RIGHT 2010 ©…………. MUKESG@CANADOILENGINEERING.NET

4. IDEA OF FLOATING GAS TO LIQUID PLANT TO AVOID ENERGY WASTE IN
Q
LIQUEFACTION & REGASSIFICATION

5. FLOATING POWER PLANT 220 MW……….CASE STUDY

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

7. BARGE MOUNTED FLOATING POWER PLANT

8. FLOATING POWER PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN………

9. Transportation of Natural gas
T t ti fN t l
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 difficult.
transport of gas becomes difficult
• LNG for offshore transport of gas.
• LNG is liquid at 260 oF and atmospheric presure
LNG is liquid at –260 and atmospheric presure,
transported in specially designed ships.
• 25% of the trade movement of natural gas in 2002 was as
25% of the trade movement of natural gas in 2002 was as
LNG. (BP Statistical Review, 2003)

10. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Li fi d N t l G (LNG)
• Liquefied gas is transported over long distances e.g.,
2500 miles and more.
2500 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

11. Estimate of LNG Cost Reductions
1970 s vs.
1970’s vs Today
2.53
0.49 30%
decline
of costs
1.54
1 54 0.50
1.80 into
pipeline
0.40
1.00 0.40
Lique-
Lique- Trans-
Trans- Regas-
Regas- Total Lique-
Lique- Trans-
Trans- Regas-
Regas- Total
faction
act o po tat o
portation ification faction portation ification
Source: McKinsey & Company / El Paso
$/MMBtu—2,500
$/MMBtu 2 500 mile voyage

12. COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG)
( )
Advantages
• Simplicity
• Inexpensive onshore facilities
• Can start with very modest transporting needs
• Energy efficient
E ffi i t
• 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 a
well 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).

13. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
C d N t l G (CNG)
• Compressed gas (1500 to 2500 psi and 0 to ‐ 40 F)
• Two technologies for CNG transport
Two technologies for
a. The Cran & Stennings approach
b. The Enersea approach
b The Enersea approach
Example: Consider the transportation of 300 MMscf of gas as
CNG
Using the Cran & Stennings approach
Actual volume of CNG: 1 76x106 ft3
Actual volume of CNG: 1.76x10
Using the Enersea approach
Actual Volume of CNG: 1.2x106 f 3
A lV l f CNG 1 2 10 ft

14. CNG T
Transport
Courtesy Enersea

15. CNG Cargo Containment System
CNG Cargo Containment System
Courtesy Enersea

16. An Example Calculation for the CNG
p
Process
• 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
p q
• Estimate the number of ships required
• 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

17. Transportation of the gas
T t ti f th
90% of the investment involved is in shipping of the gas.
90% f th i t t i l d i i hi i f th
Loading and unloading is possible and easy with small facilities.

18. Estimated number of ships
E ti t d b f hi
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
complete cycle.
l t l
Distance No. of ships
miles
1000 4
1500 5
2000 6
2500 7
3500 8 to 9
5000 11 to 12

19. Cost of transportation
C t ft t ti
• For voyage distance of 2500 miles
• C t f CNG t
Cost of CNG transport: $1.86‐$2.43/Mscf
t $1 86 $2 43/M f
(depending on pressure and temperature)
• Published Cost of LNG transport: $1.89/Mscf
• A th di t
As the distance decreases CNG becomes more
d CNG b
attractive than LNG

20. Comparison of CNG and LNG
C i f CNG d LNG
Size of investment for a 500MMscf/d plant
CNG LNG
CNG LNG
Reserves: Modest Large
Processing cost: MM$30 40 MM$750 2000
Processing cost: MM$30‐40 MM$750‐2000*
Transportation costs: MM$230/ship MM$160/ship
Unloading costs: MM$16‐20
Unloading costs: MM$16 20 MM$500‐550
MM$500 550
Total 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.

21. Typical cost components for LNG project
T i l t t f LNG j t
Unloading
11%
Liquefaction
50%
Shipping
39%

22. Typical cost components for CNG project
T i l t t f CNG j t
Unloading
6%
Compression
and loading
5%
Shipping
89%

23. Comparison of LNG and CNG
C i f LNG d CNG
Price of the delivered gas
LNG value chain per MMBTU
p
Exploration and Production: $0.5‐1.0/MMBTU
Liquefaction: $0.8‐1.2/ MMBTU.
Shipping: $0.4‐1.5/ MMBTU*.
Shi i $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

24. Comparison of LNG and CNG
C i f LNG d CNG
CNG value chain per MMBTU
Exploration and Production: $0.5‐1.0/MMBTU
Exploration and Production: $0 5‐1 0/MMBTU
Processing and transportation: $1.08‐3.82/MMBTU*
$1.00 as netback to the investor
$1 00 tb k t th i t
Final unit price of CNG: $2.58‐5.82/MMBTU
* For transport distances from 1000 miles to 5000 miles

25. Comparison of gas prices
C i f i
Distance LNG CNG (Case I) CNG (Case II)
miles $/MMBTU $/MMBTU $/MMBTU
500 3.55 2.72 2.72
1000 3.65 2.74-2.84 2.82-2.90
1500 3.75 3.06-3.10 3.15-3.26
2000 3.85 3.30-3.37 3.11-3.62
2500 3.95
3 95 3.44 3.90
3 44-3 90 3.50 3.98
3 50-3 98
3500 4.25 4.08-4.43 3.98-4.34
5000 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 by
0.01/MMBTU.

26. Comparison of CNG and LNG
C i f CNG d LNG
Advantages of CNG over LNG
• Requirement of lower throughput of gas for a project
• I l
Involvement of lower capital
fl i l
• Ease of deployment … faster implementation of a project
• Ability to access stranded reserves and monetize them
Ability to access stranded reserves and monetize them
• Majority of the investment is in the shipping, making the assets movable
and reducing the risk involved
Disadvantages
Inability to transport large volumes of gas such LNG
Disparity in the volume transport hinders commercial possibility of CNG

27. Comparison of CNG and GTL
C i f CNG d GTL
• GTL (Gas‐to‐liquids) technology converts natural gas
into hydrocarbon liquids.
into hydrocarbon liquids
• Impetus for the GTL technology: Clean fuel obtained
as product and easy transportation
• Main products: Middle distillates like gasoline
Main products: Middle distillates like gasoline,
kerosene, jet fuel,naphtha and diesel

28. Role the GTL technology can play
R l th GTL t h l l

29. Gas to Liquids
G t Li id
• 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 hydrocarbons
of sulphur nitrogen and complex cyclic hydrocarbons
resulting in almost no emissions of sulfur dioxide,
nitrous oxides and unburned hydrocarbons.
nitrous oxides and unburned hydrocarbons
• For 100 barrels of liquids 1 MMscf of gas is needed

30. Project Constraints
P j tC t i t
LNG GTL CNG
LNG GTL CNG
Reserves Large Large Medium to Small
Infrastructure Large Large Small
f ll
Investment Large Medium* Medium to Large
Transportation Large Medium* Large
* Depending upon the number of ships required.

31. Worldwide areas of interest for application of CNG technology

32. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (PHOTOGRAPHS; ARTICLES & PRESENTATION….)
· ABS
· Shell
· FPC
· Technip
· FlexLNG
· QG
· ConocoPhillips
· Saipem
· DNV
· Aker
· Waller Marine
· EnerSea Votrans
· E & P (Brian)
· Asim Deshpande & Michael
Economides
· CE & CG Team (Bill / Milind)
& others