OTC 4786
Offshore Methanol Production: Selection of Carriers for
Different Plant Capacities
by G.C. Widbom and C.O. Thorsson, Swedyards Development Corp.
Copyright 1984 Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 16.lh Annual oft in Houston, Texas, May 7-9,1984. The material is subject to correction by the author, Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
ABSTRACT
Methanol production is considered a feasible
alternative to flaring associated gas or develop-
ment of marginal gas fields. In order to fully
appreciate the problems for a floating process
plant, a series of scale model tests and theoreti-
cal calculations were carried out for different
type of barges for petrochemical process plants
designed for operation offshore. Motions and forces
caused by waves, wind and current are compared with
those for semi submersibles and tankers as other
potential carriers of process plants. Further,
extensive tests were performed to evaluate the
technical feasibility of operating a methanol-water
distillation process subject to wave-induced ir-
regular motions.
Coneeptual designs and cost estimates are made
for methanol plants ranging from 100 MTPD to 3 000
MTPD with natural gas or associated gas as feed-
stock. As carriers of the plants, purpose-built
barges and semi submersible platforms as well as
converted tankers are considered. A comparison is
made of the methanol production costs using diffe-
rent plant carriers and related to different plant
capacities.
INTRODUCTION
Floating Production System (FPS) are today
attracting more and more attention and there are
several good reasons for this - both financial and
operational.
Over the last five years the offshore industry
has made the first tentative steps and the 80's
will see a major breakthrough in the use of flo-
ating production platforms.
The relative cost of production in deep water
will be high, and it will be how this cost can be
minimized that will lead to success or failure of a
particular scheme.
References and illustratl0ns at end of paper
91
The above has been said concerning oil produc-
tion offshore. This paper will deal with offshore
methanol production but the two products may in the
future often be mentioned together. Maybe one way
of producing oil economically is - by also pro-
ducing methanol.
For marginal gasfield developmen~ or instead
of flaring associated gas in connection with oil
production many alternative uses of the gas have
been studied, such as generation of electric power,
refrigeration to LPG and LNG, conversion to
methanol or ammonia. Swedyards Development Corp.
has concentrated on conversion of the gas.
Especially concerning floating offshore production,
methanol has been of special interest with regard
to its predicted growing market.
METHANOL PROCESS
The advantages of the methanol process over
other possible ways of converting natural gas to a
commercial product are the relative simplicity of
the process and the ease in handling the methanol.
The conversion of natural gas to methanol usually
requires a pre-treatment stage to remove any hydro-
gen sulphide which would poison the catalysts used
in the conversion process. The desulphurized gas is
then passed with high pressure steam over a nickel
catalyst in the reformer to produce a gas consist-
ing of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and dioxide. This
gas is then compressed and passed over a catalyst
in radial flow converters to produce methanol and
water. The reaction is shown schematically in
fi gure 1.
When process plants are operated off-shore,
the process equipment is inevitably subjected to
the wave-induced motions of the carrier. The
motions mainly affect reformers, large rotating
equipment, tanks, some metering and control
instrumentation, and gas-liquid contacting devices
such as distillation columns.
 The low-temperature energy needed for methanol
distillation is available practically for free
onboard the carrier since the methanol process is
overall energy producing. If the methanol were to
be distilled elsewhere, energy corresponding to
approximately 10% of the produced methanol would be
required for such distillation.
Raw methanol from the process contains approx-
imately 15% water. Therefore, all alternatives to
onboard distillation would include transportation
of substantial amounts of water. Optimization of
the water content with respect to onboard distil-
lation and transport costs normally yields an op-
timum around 0.1-0.5 %of water depending mainly on
tranport distance. Therefore, onboard distillation
is economic. To confirm the technical feasibility
of such distillation, we have performed extensive
pilot tests.
Distillation tests
In the pilot plant, figure 2, test columns are
mounted on a motion simulator. All other equipment
is assembled on two modules, one containing the
heat exchangers and most of the instrumentation,
and the other containing the bottom drain tank and
pumps. Capacity and the main dimensions are:
Reboiler &condenser capacity Max 5 000 kW
Column 1: Inside dia 1 000 mm
Packed height 2 200 Jl1T1
Column 2: Inside dia 600 mm
Packed height 2 200 mm
3 700 mm
4 700 mm
Liquid vol. in plant
during operation 3 m3
Internal reflux-ratio 0.6-1.4 kmol/kmol
To simulate the effects of full scale motions
on the columns, a hydraulic motion simulator is
used. The simulator has 3 degrees of freedom:
roll, pitch and heave motion. A diagram of the
simulator principle is shown in figure 3, and
characteristic data are:
Roll ampl itude Max +/-15 deg
Pitch ampl itude Max +/-20 deg
Heave amplitude Max +/-475 Jl1T1
Frequency at max amplitude Max 1/8 Hz
Two types of motions are used in testing:
- Regular motions such as static sinusoidal
heave motions, etc.
Irregular motions derived from scale model
testing of barges and other off-shore structures.
The irregular motion patterns are based on
scale model tests carried out in irregular long-
crested waves, wind and current for a barge desig-
ned to carry a methanol production plant. The
motions and accelerations measured in these tests
were recorded on tape. The recordings are evaluated
and transformed to the simulator positions required
to achieve full-scale motion of the test column.
92
Column efficiency was primarily evaluated as
height of packing to a theoretical step (HETS) and
in connection with each motion test, a reference
test with the column in a vertical position was
performed. The efficiency of a column under motion
is expressed as relative efficiency, ie, the ratio
of HETS of the reference test to HETS during
motion.
At first, influence of static inclination was
tested. A considerable decrease in column efficien-
cy is noted already at very small angles, figure 4A
This is caused by clearly developed liquid and gas
maldistr~bution in the packed bed.
Static inclination can be regarded as the
lower limit in column efficiency, all motions be-
tween the vertical position and a static incli-
nation angle will improve the efficiency. This was
clearly noted at the tests with sinusoidal
motions.
The results from the regular motion tests
indicate that the loss of efficiency during normal
operation due to motion is very small, figure 4B.
This was also confirmed by test with irregular
motions where efficiency drops of the same order of
magnitude was noted.
It is difficult to maintain motions around an
exactly vertical position during actual operation
of a floating structure. Wind pressure, sea states,
or imperfect ballasting may lead to motions around
an off-vertical position. Such conditions were also
tested and the results indicate a considerably
lower efficiency of the column.
BARGE MODEL TESTING
The testing of the barge was done not only to
give basic data to the testing of the process under
motion. For the design of the barge, its anchoring
system, the securing of tall and heavy process
towers and other components, criteria for the
motions, their amplitude and frequency and the
accelerations have to be established.
Specifically the influence of the hull form of
the forebody on motions and accelerations was tes-
ted as also the effect of motion suppression sys-
tems. The results of barge tests were then compared
with corresponding values for semi submersibles and
large tankers.
The methanol plant barge, from which the test
started, is shown in figure 5. The shape is essen-
tially a rectangular box, Length = 140 m, Breadth
= 74m, Depth = 20 m and max Draught = 10 m. It has
three main sections; Accommodation and service
forward, methanol storage tanks in the middle and
the process plant aft. It is anchored with a SALS
(Single Anchor Leg Storage) mooring.
The SALS mooring system comprises a riser con-
nected to the sea floor by a universal joint and a
yoke with a submerged buoyancy cylinder connected
to the top of the riser by another universal joint
and a swivel. The permanently submerged buoyancy
tank generates the required restoring force while
ensuring a continous pretension on the riser. The
yoke is connected to the front of the barge by two
hinges.
The forces in the hinges between the barge and
the mooring system, the motions of the barge and
accelerations and relative motions at different lo-
cations on the barge were tested for different
barge shapes. Towing resistance was considered and
two different barge shapes were selected and tested
in high waves.
The wave spectra used in the tests had sig-
nificant wave heights, H 1/3, ranging from 2.5 to
7.5 m. (H 1/3 = the mean value of the one-third
highest waves in the spectrum). The corresponding
wind speeds were 24 - 62 knots. The current was 2
knots.
Measuring parameters were:
Hinge forces in X and Y directions
Riser tension
Riser angle around X and Y axis
Barge surge, sway and heave motions
Barge pitch, roll and yaw angles
Accelerations in four points
The points and directions of the acceleration
measurements were so chosen that from the results
the accelerations in all three directions x, y and
z, longitudinal, transverse and vertical, can be
calculated for any points in (and above) the barge.
One measuring point for the accelerations was the
top of the distillation column. From video-recor-
dings the number of shippings of green water over
the bow was counted.
Basic test results
The results of these tests are shown in
figure 6. Barge C gave smaller hinge forces and
consequently smaller riser angles and surge motions
than the other barge types. Barge D gave the smal-
lest pitch angles and accelerations. The number of
shippings of green water over the bow was less for
barge C than for the others and was very much re-
duced when barge C was outfitted with breakwater on
the bow.
Calculations were made of accelerations of
four box-shaped barges with lenghtlbreadth ratio of
1.5 to 4 in irregular short-crested seas for three
main headings. At main wave direction 0 degrees
(following seas) the accelerations decrease with
increasing LIB. At main wave direction 45 degrees
the accelerations increased with increasing LIB. At
main wave direction 22.5 degrees the accelerations
are independent of LIB.
Towing
Different shapes of the fore body and aft body
of models A and C were tested in still water with
regard to resistance and course keeping at a draft
of 5 m. By changing the angle at the bottom rake on
barge A from the original 36 degrees to 20 degrees
the speed at a towing force of 600 kN increased by
33 %. The same increase in speed was obtained by
making a radius at the fore bottom corner, but
shape C gave the lowest towing resistance corre-
sponding to 60 % increase in speed in still water.
93
Survival
To test survival condition two barge shapes
were selected for further tests in higher waves
modified A and C. The nominal wave heights used
were H 1/3 = 7.5 -18.0 m. Two water depths 90 m and
195 mwere used. The mean values of the hinge for-
ces were about 50 % lower for C at all wave heights
except 18 mwhere they were 30 % lower. The heave
motions, the pitch angles and the accelerations in
x and z directions were smaller for C.
The relative motions were smaller for C except
for the point in the centre line forward. It is
seen here that with the increased freeboard forward
the barges will take green water over the bow for
the maximum waves of spectra with Hl/3 above 10 m.
The process equipment at the aft part of the barges
is well protected. In the centre line aft there
will be a peak which for the rectangular barge A
can reach the deck level for the highest waves.
The forces, motions and accelerations showed
no difference for the two water depths tested.
MOTION COMPARISON OF CARRIERS
For comparison between the tested barges and
other potential carriers of the methanol plant we
have also noted corresponding values for semisub-
mersibles and tankers as being the most probable
carrier types. Figures 7 and 8 show heave, pitch
and roll motions and x, y and z-accelerations in
shortcrested sea for the compared types. The barge
is here represented by the A shape.
The values for the semisubmersible are uprated
to a semi with a payload of about 10 000 tonnes
which corresponds to the operational weight of a
2 000 MTPD Methanol plant. Its motion characteris-
tics could be considered as representative for
super semi-subs. The curves for tankers are rep-
resented by 230 000 taw tanker with L = 320 m, B =
45.6 m and a draught of 11 m, corresponding to a
displacement of 130 000 tonnes.
The fact that the tanker and the barge have a
SALS mooring but the semi has the conventional
catenary type of mooring does not disturb the com-
parison since the anchoring arrangement as such has
little influence on the heave, pitch and roll
motions of the carrier when exposed to the same
wave direction. However, the semi is in a fixed
position, whereas the tanker and the barge are
weathervaning. This explains why tanker and barge
are shown in head sea whereas the semi's roll ang-
les are shown in beam sea being the worst con-
dition. This is not an entirely fair comparison,
since it is possible also for the semi to head the
sea by a single point mooring or dynamic positio-
ning, when the roll angles will be smaller.
As expected the semi has the most favourable
motion behaviour. The tanker is better than the
barge with regard to heave and pitch on account of
its larger LIB and the ship shape. For the same
reason the roll angles are greater for the ships.
In short crested waves the ship will also have a
slight tendency to draw the aft body towards the
waves (to an angle from head sea). This is special-
ly noted when a shuttle tanker is moored in tandem.
This will increase the roll angle for the ship.
From the barge tests we can note that a longer
barge (ship) gives a considerable reduction of the
pitch angle and the x-accelerations in the top of
the tower and also the hinge forces and riser ang-
les are reduced by a ship shape stem.
With the Tension Leg Platform (TLP) roll,
pitch and heave are almost eliminated. Only hori-
zontal motions are of any significance and much
greater than for the semi. The Articulated Leg
Platform (ALP) or guyed tower should also be men-
tioned as a potential process carrier where motions
are reduced to a minimum.
Motion damping
The tanker and the barge have on the whole
larger motions than other carriers and the possi-
bilities of reducing the motion responses were
looked. at.
A stabilizing pontoon system was tested. The
system consisted of a submerged pontoon fitted to
vertical columns mounted to the front of the barge.
It decreased the pitch angles and accelerations in
the x-direction with about 60 %. However, this had
the effect of increased x-forces in the hinges and
also increased riser angles and surge motions. In
wave heights above 5 m the stabilizing pontoon
increased the roll angles and thus, also the acce-
lerations in the y-direction.
Another motion damping system investigated was
a pitch suppression system consisting of tanks
placed at the forward and aft ends of the barge.
The tanks are open to the sea at the bottom and
they are connected with air ducts. The system acts
by balancing air pressure and water pressure. A
computer simulation was made and the calculations
showed damping of the pitch of about 50 %.
There are of course other comparable damping
systems. The need for a damping system is entirely
dependent on the environmental conditions.
However, during most operating conditions
except for extremely severe ones the process effi-
ciency is only reduced by less than 10 % compared
to an on-shore based process. With regard to motion
behaviour all the above potential carriers are
suitable to efficiently produce methanol.
SIZE OF METHANOL PLANT
The deciding factors for the production capa-
city of a methanol plant on a floating carrier are
otherwise:
quantity of gas available. 1 000MTPD
methanol plant requires approximately 35
MMCFD gas supply.
required deck area.
required deck load capacity.
n
34
In deciding the nominal capacity of the plant
one has to consider that the flow of associated gas
may vary and facilities to control variations
should be foreseen. It is not feasible to run the
plant on less than say 50 % output during a longer
period.
Plant weight and area
From fig 9 we can see the operational weight and
area demand for a methanol plant in relation to its
produciton capacity. Considering that space and
weight capacity is costly offshore every effort
should be used to minimize area and weight as far
as possible with regard to maintenance and safety.
Since the object is to use low-priced gas or
even gas with a negative value there is no special
point in making a sophisticated energy saving
methanol process. On the contrary robust standard
equipment should be used and with a high grade of
modularization. This is of special interest regar-
ding smaller plant capacities.
Applying the above requirements on different
types of carriers the following points can be ob-
served.
Tankers and barges are favoured in having good
deck area and nuch displacement to carry extra
loads. They are always combined with storage capa-
city. On a large tanker it is possible to combine
oil and methanol production facilities. This
would be possible even up to large production capa-
cities of methanol.
Semisubmersibles now in oil production have
limited possibilities to take extra load and area
for a methanol production combined with the oil
production. Even such a small wthanol plant as for
100 MTPD requires a deck load of over 1 000 tonnes
and an area about 1 500 m2, space which is not
readily available on an oil production semi.
The TLP, ALP, Tripod towers etc. are compar-
able to the semis with regard to availability of
area and load capacity for a methanol plant.
Storage
The diagrams do not include any space for
storage of the methanol product. The demand for
storage capacity is highly dependent on the distan-
ce to the market. However, a buffer minimum of say
two weeks production should be allowed for.
The storage capacity for methanol on a semi is
preferably achieved by enlarging the pontoons in a
square or ring configuration. Where additional
storage is necessary it could be provided in the
form of a moored tanker connected via a subsea
pipeline.
The export of the product may be complicated
to do direct from the semi and in this case a per-
manently moored storage tanker will also simplify
the handling of the product.
CONSTRUCTION
TIME
For an economic comparison between the barge,
semi and tanker alternatives one also has to look
at their different cost escalations during the con-
struction period and the total project time from a
decision to go ahead until commissioning of the
plant.
It may be assumed that by converting an exis-
ting tanker into a carrier a considerable project
time reduction would be possible. However, the time
for procurement of reformer, compressors, etc. will
decide a major part of the programne. On the other
hand a tanker may be mobilized at a late stage of
the project and thus save capital costs.
Fig 10 indicates the difference in project
time for a tanker-based large plant compared to one
based on a barge and semi. These two are in this
respect considered equal.
For a small methanol plant with reciprocating
compressors and other standard equipment, the tan-
ker as a carrier may be even more favorable.
ECONOMY
When looking at the economy of producing
methanol offshore two alternative cases have been
considered:
A The carrier is exclusively built for the
methanol plant. In this case it will utilize gas
from a marginal natural gas field or be located
close to an oil production facility giving a large
amount of associated gas.
B The carrier will be built for the produc-
tion of both methanol and oil from associated oil
and gas sources.
In case A the methanol production will alone
bear the total investment cost of plant including
carrier and the operational costs. It is easy to
realise that this is a more viable concept for
large scale plants only.
In the case of tankers we consider using laid-
up low cost second hand tonnage. The same philoso-
phy could be adapted for second hand semis as well.
However, in the economic analysis we have used
newbuilding costs for the semis, as at present very
few semis having sufficient payload capacity are
idle.
Today case B should be of special interest
where associated gas is used as feedstock. We have
been studying aplant designed for producing oil
and methanol. The methanol plant can be regarded as
a marginal investment and will in itself be viable
and add considerably to the total viability of the
project. Considering the present low cost of second
hand tankers with an already sufficient area and
weight capacity no extra investment is calculated
for the carrier in this alternative. An example of
this concept is the FOMPSO (Floating Oil and
Methanol Production, Storage and Offloading system)
shown in figure 11.
(3K
ad
Figure 12 shows the relationship between capi-
tal cost and methanol output for floating plants
excluding the cost of the carrier and mooring.
Fig 13 gives an indication of the calculated
methanol production costs for varied plant capa-
cities on a newbuilt semisubmersible or barge com-
pared to a converted tanker based plant(FMPSO). The
cost of associated gas is assumed at O value. The
cost relation when using a combined oil and
methanol plant FOMPSO is also noted.
The combination of oil and methanol production
on a semi may in reality be of interest only for
smaller methanol production capacities, whereas a
supertanker would be able to accommodate plants up
to 2 000 MTPD.
The comparison of production costs is rather
rough and does not include for instance the advan-
tage of the semis softer motion behaviour with
regard to any reductions in costs for maintenance,
insurance, etc.
Plant relocation
Since the use of Floating production is pri-
marily intended for early production or for margin-
al fields it is of interest to study the influence
on the economy of relocation of a plant between two
different fields. The following costs are invol-
ved.
- extra cost to cover design for worst ex-
petted environmentalconditions during the
lifetime of the plant.
- cost of disconnection and reinstallation at
new site.
cost of changing mooring system for new
site.
- loss of production for downtime during
relocation period.
Without having the necessary data it is not
possible to make a calculation but a few points may
be mentioned.
When changing site conditions,especially water
depth,the mooring system changes can be costly.
However, some of the sofisticated equipment such as
the swivel can be reused on the new location and
riser, chains, etc. may be rearranged for a later
use. However, in view of reducing downtime it often
pays to preinstall new under-water equipment before
disconnection from the old site. This shortens the
overall time for relocation considerably, say from
three months to less than one month down time.
CONCLUSIONS
- It is technically feasible to produce and
distill methanol in a plant under motion at sea.
The efficiency of the plant is only marginally re-
duced.
 - A plant will survive and stay at its mo-
oring at all weather conditions. The technology of
mooring and motion control is well developed.
- Semisubmersibles are excellent with regard
to motion behaviour. Barges and tankers are viable
carriers specially considering their greater load
and storage capacity.
- Combined oil and methanol production faci-
lities on a converted tanker, FOMPSO, is an attrac-
tive concept and show low methanol production cost
also for small plant capacities.
- Restrictions in flaring of associated gas
and the need of cheap feedstock for energy conver-
sion will promote combined facilities for produc-
tion and processing of oil and gas. This will lead
to new types of floating plants.
..
30
REFERENCES
1. Beare, A.J and Jern I., Utilization of Pro-
duced Gas on Floating Production Systems,
paper presented at the Marginal Oilfield
Development Conference, London, September 29-
30, 1983.
2. Svensson, H., Distillation Onboard an Off-
shore Operated Floating Plant, paper presen-
ted at the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Spring National Meeting, Anheim
1982.
3. Thorsson, C.O., Survival Conditions for a
Floating Plant, paper presented at the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Spring National Meeting, Houston, 1983
4. Thorsson, C.O., Model Tests with a Floating
Plant for Methanol Production - Motions and
Accelerations in Irregular Seas, Wind and
Current, paper presented at the RINA Inter-
national Symposium on Developments in Floating
Production Systems, London, 1984
5. Facey, E.R. and Dyer R.C., Production on
Floating Platforms - The Next Generation,
paper presented at the Deep Offshore Tech-
nology Conference in Malta, Oct. 1983
 METHANOL FROM NATURAL GAS .
PROCESS STAGES.

r
STEAM
-
. +

L
GAS COOLING
DE -
AND WASTE
b REFORMING
HEAT RECOVEI?
COMPRESSION b
SYNTHESIS DISTILLATION
SULFURIZATION
i

EEDSTOCK

FUEL TAIL GAS

WASTE METHANOL
WATER
JATURAL GAS
FIG. 1

(t
,
(:J jli

FIG. 2
PILOT DISTILLATION PLANT

FIG 3 MOTION SIMULATOR, MAIN PRINCIPLE DIAGRAM

 HETSR
Aiiiii_ ~
l? 20 25 INC
10
1,0 , 1

0,9 -

0,8 -
\

A.
RELATIVEEFFICIENCYAS FLINCTIO)4
OF
STATIC COLUMN INCLINATION
/

006
#
FIG.5,BARGE-MOUNTED2000 14TPDMETHANOLPLANT BY SWEDYARDSDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION

0,5 -
,,

Ohi -
COMPARISON OF BARGE SHAPES,DRAFT = lLIM
1 *

ALL FIGURES IN PER CENT OF VALUE$ FOR BARGE SHAPE A

A
5 10 15 20 MEAN OF VALUES FOR ,7 = 2,5 - 7,5 M
~olo DEG. SINGLE AMP,

SHIPPING GREEN
B. NATER OVE THE BOW
RELATIVEOISTILLATIONEFFICIENCYFOR A COLUMN BARGE SHAPE MAX HINGE MAX RISER SIGN. PITCH SIGN, X-ACC
NUMBERS F ? HOUR
.\ . AS A FUNCTIONOF MOTION AMPLITUOE(AMP). FORCESX-DIR, ANGLE ANGLE TOP OF TOWER ,3 = 5.2 M ]1/3 = 7.5 M
95

\ 100 100 100 100 10 37

90 -
91 83 95 93 0 32
\
s

55 r \
I 80 77 91 89 0 25
DISTILLATION EFFICIENCY VERSUS: 81)
FIG.4, A, STATIC COLUMN INCLINATION
B, MOTION AMPLITUDE 8Q 86 70 71 B 40
. ---- - .- -. -- - .- - . ---- ----- - .- -..

> 104 > 111 - 40 - 40 11 NO RUN

SHAPE C I/t I BREAKWATERS

FIG. 6.
 2
LLl
> m
-=i \
= r-l
s

0
0
N

~:,
,,
,,..,.
!$ .*

,.,,,
:,:..
,,
,::: z
,.,, %
.:::::,,
,,,,,,
,...:, . c+
,,:.,
,,:.
,.:.:,
z ,.:.,
r ,.,
Z ,:..,
E
n- ~
&m
.2
; :~ 0
0
g t.i- --
Lt.
z

!iF
f-cl
E
z

Id

1
 PLANT OPERATIONAL WEIGHT 10NNES
15000

~ 1

o 25 50 75 100 A OF TIME

EERING
.........
I

......
I ; 500Q imlmmlm P T{~E

CARRIER:
..-
6 ..:--------
!11
1-- CUREMEN1
m
..+
.J:.:...
,~:.:.:.
,~:.:.:.
F
;,:.:.
I ,, TANKER
I I CONS1 JCTION
2500 3$4 m
.....:,:,,,,.:.:
::::::,:.:.:.:.
P
500 1000 , fll W
PM h5y CA PAClf/O

1 3K UP
REQUIRED DECK SPACE
SQM
Ii

E: ,....
..........
....
.....
....
:%oW
. ...............
....
.
.......-..
........
.
.......-
UPPE ? DECK
......
...
........
............
..+...
. .....................
..........
,..........................
.............. .......
......................>
...,...,
.....>.....
.,.......+.
.........................+..
....................
....................... ....
.................. ....... ..

5noo
FIG.1O, PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE

.::

I I
2000 3000 MTPO
1000 D 2000
500
PLAhT CAPACITY
FIG. 9
 FLARE
#ETlW3L SWTMES IS SCCTIOll
HELICOPTER PM Acwmi[cl OTL PM3DUiT IEM SECTION IfiFRT GAS SECT[L?# RIFOPHI!lG SECTION i

.,.
.,. + ?.. +
, m--r---> ,
m.

n
U3!PRESSOE : DEMLIMTIO II
. .. . . . . . . ..

,~- - - - :, : i~-iTotiGE --kiii+=--~ ~-~,ti;,~~-~

- -. .. . . . ... ----- .. .. . .-. , ~

DESALTEO WATER

FIG.11, FOMPSO

CAPITAL COST/SIZE OF FLOATING METHANOL PLANTS

EXCLUDING VESSEL AND MOORING

1s0

/
100

50

500 1000 1 I 20 o
FIG.12) OUTPUTCAPACITYTONNES/DAY METHANOL
 METHANOL PRODUCT I ON COST
1985

GAS COST: ZERO

USD/MT
400

20C

o
0 1000 2000 3000
PLANT CAPACITY MTPD

FIG. 13