You are on page 1of 14

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG

Block 3, Forum 13 poster

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Jafar Javanmardi, Shiraz University of Technology
Khashayar Nasrifar, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Mahmood Moshfeghian, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
Hesam Najibi, University of Petroleum Industry
Abstract:
Gas hydrates (or clathrate hydrates) are icelike crystalline compounds formed from water and
small gas molecules such as methane and nitrogen. Within the hydrate lattice, water
molecules form a network of hydrogen bonded cagelike cavities that host the small "guest"
gas molecules which are required to stabilize the structure. The resulting crystalline structures
thermodynamically are solid solutions.
Natural gas is a major source of energy as well as a chemical feedstock. The worldwide
consumption of natural gas is rapidly increasing. However, gas markets are normally far away
from production fields. There are many possible technologies of transporting gas from
production fields to consumer elsewhere as a fuel or as a chemical feedstock in a
petrochemical plant, where gas is 'converted' into valuable products. Methods for
transportation of natural gas include pipelines (PNG), Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG,
compressed natural gas (CNG), gas to hydrate (NGH), gas to liquids (GTL), gas to
commodity, GTC, such as glass, cement or iron, and gas to wire (GTW), i.e. electricity.
Transportation of natural gas as hydrate or CNG is feasible at costs less than for LNG and
where pipelines are not possible. The competitive advantage of the NGH or CNG routes over
other non-pipeline gas transport processes is that they require simple technology. These
could be options for handling niche markets for gas reserves which are stranded, associated
gas which cannot be flared or re-injected, or small reservoirs which cannot otherwise be
economically exploited. They should be far easier to implement and feasible at lower capital
costs.
In this work, based on the process for conversion of natural gas to Natural Gas Hydrate*,
NGH, the amortized total capital investment, operation and maintenance costs and total cost
for production of NGH have been obtained and compare with the LNG method. The effects of
different operational conditions such as seawater temperature as a cooling media and hydrate
storage temperature have been investigated. The economic parameters for marine
transportation of NGH and LNG from Asaluyeh port in the south of Iran to the different
potential gas markets, as a case study, have been obtained. Also, the required NGH and LNG
ships and their operation costs for different gas markets have been obtained.
Keywords: Natural Gas, Gas Hydrate, LNG, Gas Transportation, Economics
*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)

Keywords: Natural Gas, Gas Hydrate, LNG, Gas Transportation, Economics


Introduction:
The worldwide consumption of natural gas, as one of the most important energy resources, is
rapidly increasing. To respond to such a demand of natural gas, the alternatives for bringing
natural gas to the markets should be investigated and compared to the popular methods such
as LNG.
Preventing the hydrate formation and therefore unplugging the gas transmission lines may be
the preliminary industrial concern of this phenomenon. Some applications, however, such as
the transportation of natural gas in the form of frozen hydrate (NGH) are considered by some
researchers as an alternative [2-4].

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
Liquefaction of natural gas reduces its volume by approximately 600 times, thus making it
more economical to transport between continents via specially designed tankers. It becomes
cheaper than transporting natural gas in offshore pipelines for distances greater than 3540
km. on the other hand, one cubic meter of solid methane hydrate will release 170 standard
cubic meter of methane.
South-Pars gas field is the largest Irans natural gas field. It is geologically an extension of
Qatars 10.2 1012 standard m3 North Field. South-Pars was first identified in 1988 and
estimated to contain 3.4 1012 standard m3 of natural gas or even more. Natural gas from
South-Pars is planned to be shipped to port Asaluyeh by pipelines where having separated
liquid hydrocarbons, the natural gas is intended to feed some petrochemical plants, boost the
pressure of some mature oil reservoirs, be exported by pipelines and possibly by liquefied
natural gas (LNG).
In following, the economic parameters for natural gas transportation in the form of NGH and
LNG, from Asaluyeh port in the south of Iran to the different potential gas markets, have been
estimated and compared.

a) NGH Production

a-1) NGH Process


The process for production of NGH is shown in Fig. 1 [1]. This figure shows 25 MMSCF/D
NGH plant which is consisted of 10 trains. In this process, having passed the natural gas
through a dryer, it is fed to the reactor. The dryer acts as a pre-cooler of the natural gas
stream. Also, it reduces the water content of the water-natural gas hydrate slurry that is
coming from the separator. In the reactor the heat of hydrate formation is removed. For this
purpose an external refrigeration cycle is used. The reactor pressure and feed water
temperature are known. Therefore, the existing models can be used to predict the equilibrium
hydrate formation conditions in the presence of pure water [5, 6]. In order to maximize the
hydrate formation rate, the reactor temperature has been assumed to be 2 C below this
equilibrium temperature [7].

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

Figure 1: The NGH production process [1].

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].

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
The reactor, heat exchanger, dryer, and condenser duties are estimated using mass and
energy balances for each unit. The installed cost of each unit for the proposed process is
estimated using shortcut methods given by Douglas [8]. The onsite cost, corresponding to the
installed equipment costs for the units shown in Fig. 1 can be estimated directly from
Guthrie's correlations [9].
The installed cost for the compressor in Fig. 1 is estimated by the following equation [8]:

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)

where A is the peripheral surface area of the dryer in m2.


The heat of hydrate formation should be removed in the reactor. Thus, it acts as a heat
exchanger and Eq. (2) can be used to estimate its installed cost. The overall heat transfer
coefficient of 283.9 W/m2-C {50 Btu/(hr.ft2.F)} is a reasonable assumption for this parameter
in the reactor. The power and consequently installed cost of the pump are estimated using
available correlations [11].
Assuming 7 days as uncertainty in the arrival of ships to the port, we should have storage
tanks to store the product of the plant in this period. Taking 40000 m3 as the capacity of each
tank, the total number of tanks is estimated. In this case, Eq. (3) is also applicable to predict
their installed cost.
The total capital investment for the hydrate production process is estimated directly from the
total installed costs of equipments [8]:
Tot. Inv., $=2.36(Onsite)

(5)

To estimate the operation and maintenance costs, O&M, the following equation by Douglas
[8] is used:

O & M = 1.031(Raw Matl. + Util.) + 0.186(Onsite )


+ 2.13(Operating Labor ) + 0.0256(Revenue)

(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.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
In this work, it is assumed that the labor cost per day per person is $18. The required "manhour/day-processing step" can be estimated by the following equation [11]:

Operating Labor = exp(2.791 + 0.234 ln (capacity ))

(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:

Amortized Tot. Inv. =

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.

a-2) Marine Transportation of Natural Gas


The NGH ships can be built to carry 250,000 m3 of hydrates and the capital cost of the NGH
ships has been reported to be US $80 million per ship [13]. In this work the amortized O&M
cost of the hydrate shipping is estimated at US $12 million per year per ship and the bulk void
fraction of the stored hydrate is assumed to be 16% [13]. The average speed of the NGH
carriers has been reported 15.4 knots [2]. This information can be used to estimate the
duration of each round trip for a given distance between the NGH production plant and the
gas market. These calculations are based on 12 days as loading + unloading + waiting period
for each ship per each round trip. In this manner, and knowing the plant capacity, the required
number of the NGH ships can be estimated.
b) LNG Production

b-1) LNG Process


The process of producing LNG with given compositions and conditions is depicted in Fig. 2.
This figure shows a 7.5 mtpa (million tons per annum) LNG plant which is consisted of 2
trains with production of 208 tons of sulfur a day as side product. The process also produces
29.7 tons of disposed water a day.
The sweetening units are used for removing acid gases. In this unit, diethanol amine (DEA) is
used as the absorbing liquid. A schematic diagram for a typical sweetening unit is shown in
Fig. 3. Because of high rate of sour natural gas, two acid removal units with feed rates of 260
MMSCF/D are designed per each train. The calculations of different parts of this unit are
made by a package named Ez-Sweet [14]. The designed parameters are given in Table 1.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster

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

14.84 tons of water /d


104 tons of sulfur /d

Sulfur
Recovery

Sufur
Loader
75.9 ktpa
Sulfur

Train 2

Figure 2: Flowchart for the LNG plant with two trains.

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

Figure 3: Schematic diagram for acid gas removal

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster

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

Amine-amine heat exchanger


DEA circulation rate
Heating load
Surface area of the heat exchanger
Absorber
Diameter
Hight
Regenerator
Condenser cooling load
Condenser surface area
Boiler heating load
Boiler surface area
Number of trays
Height of the still

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

Figure 4: Schematic diagram for dehydration unit

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster

Table 2: Designed values for one of the dehydration unit

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

Figure 5: Schematic diagram for liquefaction unit

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster

Table 3: Composition of the mixed refrigerant in the liquefaction unit

Components
C1
C2
C3
N2

mole%
44
38
15
3

Table 4: Designed values for one of the liquefaction unit

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

Figure 6: Schematic diagram for the sulfur recovery unit


Table 5: Designed values for one of the Claus process unit

Rate of sour gas


Pressure of sour gas
Rate of carbon dioxide
Rate of hydrogen sulfide
Rate of air
Compressor work
Heating load for air heater
Condenser 1 surface area
Condenser 2 surface area
Condenser 3 surface area
Volume of each reactor
Length of each reactor
Diameter of each reactor
Rate of low pressure steam
Rate of high pressure steam
Rate of produced sulfur

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

0.384 106 standard m3/d


1.03 MPa
13875 kmol/d
3255 kmol/d
7749 kmol/d
25 MW
3.287.106 MJ/d
16.44 m2
8.73 m2
22.76 m2
35.03 m2
3.79 m
1.89 m
971,560 kmol/d
581,120 kmol/d
104,420 kmol/d

Liquid Sulfur

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
The daily production capacity of LNG is equal to 20550 tons/d. If the ships delay for 9 days,
the tanks should be large enough to store the produced LNG for 9 days. The LNG produced
in this period is equivalent to 5 storage tanks with 85,000 m3 capacity each. Eq. (3) is also
applicable to predict their installed costs.
The installation costs for equipments are also calculated using the correlations given by
Douglas [8]. The total capital investment and the operation and maintenance cost are
estimated using Eqs. 5 and 6. Finally, the total product cost is expressed by summing these
costs. The interest rate, i, and the useful life of the plant have been assumed as the same as
the NGH plant. The heating value of feed (methane) is equal to 802 MJ /kmol.

b-2) LNG Shipping


The price for the 138,000 m3 class of LNG ships might be considered $170 106. The
average speed of this type is equal to 20 knots. In this case 14 days have been considered
for loading + unloading + waiting period for each ship per each round trip.
The amortized O&M cost of the LNG shipping is estimated $11 106. This parameter is
$12 106 for Japanese port.

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

Feed natural gas composition (mole


fraction)
Pressure of the reactor
Temperature of the feed natural gas
Temperature of the feed water
Temperature of the stored hydrate
Temperature of seawater (cooling water)
Plant useful life
Interest rate
No. of train (parallel)
Volumetric flow rate of hydrate/train

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

CH4 0.94, C2H6 0.04, C3H8


0.02
6000 kPa
300 K
300 K
258 K
300 K
20 years
8%
10
4160 m3/day {25MMSCF/D}

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
Table 7: Specification of different equipments of the NGH production process,
obtained from mass and energy balances

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)
#

The refrigerant of the refrigeration cycle is Propane.

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

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

For each train

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster

30
Amortized Cap. Inv., $/MJ
Amortized O&M cost, $/MJ

25

Cost10

Total Product Cost (NGH Production Chain), $/MJ

20
15
10
5
0
275

285
295
305
Temperature of seawater, K

315

Figure 7: Effect of seawater temperature on the economic parameters


of the NGH production process

35
Amortized Cap. Inv., $/MJ
30

Cost

25

Amortized O&M cost, $/MJ


Total Product Cost (Production), $/MJ

20
15
10
5
0
245

250

255

260

265

270

Temperature of stored hydrate, K


Figure 8: Effect of hydrate storage temperature on the economic parameters
of the NGH production process

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

275

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster

Table 9: Distances between some gas markets and Asalluyeh port


and the numbers NGH and LNG ships

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

NGH cost, $/MJ


2.84410-3
280610-3
270110-3
271110-3
223710-3
249310-3
263510-3
282510-3

Table 11: Installations costs for the equipments in each unit, train and plant
of the LNG process

Sweetening installation costs


Per unit
Per train (there are 2 units)
Per Plant
Dehydration installation costs
Per unit
Per train (there are 5 units)
Per Plant
Liquefaction installation costs
Per train (there is only one unit)
Per Plant
Sulfur recovery installation costs
Per train (there is only one unit)
Per plant
Storage tank installation costs
Per Plant (there are 5 tanks)

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

$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

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
To calculate the total LNG cost, we need some information given in Table 12. Finally, the
production cost of the LNG for different gas markets have been given in Table 13.
Table 12: Feed, product and labor costs of the LNG process

Natural gas price


LNG price
Sulfur price
Labor salary

$4.7410-4/ MJ
$2.8410-3/ MJ
$37.47 / ton
$500 / month

Table 13: Production cost for delivering LNG to gas markets

Country
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
China
India
Turkey
Spain
Belgium

LNG cost, $/MJ


2.1110-3
1.9910-3
1.9110-3
1.9110-3
1.4510-3
1.7610-3
1.8410-3
1.9910-3

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

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved

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

Natural Gas Transportation, NGH or LNG


Block 3, Forum 13 poster
Figure 9: Total LNG and NGH cost for transporting natural gas to different markets

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

Parameter in equations (1), (2) and (3)

He

Height, m

Interest rate

M&S

Marshall and Swift cost index

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.

Copyright World Petroleum Congress all rights reserved