Offshore Natural Gas Liquefaction
Process and Development Issues
David Wood and Saeid Mokhatab, David Wood & Associates; and Michael J. Economides, University of Houston
Summary
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has yet to be deployed in the devel-
opment of offshore fields in spite of several detailed studies com-
pleted and offshore technology development demonstrating its
technical feasibility. The perceived risks associated with deploying
unproven technology in a high construction cost and volatrile gas
price environment have so far inhibited offshore liquefaction
projects. The potential deployment of such technologies is of para-
mount importance considering the massive volumes of natural gas
currently deemed as “stranded” and the exploitation of which is
compelling not only because of the inherent economic benefit but
also because of the otherwise adverse impact on oil production. It
is conceivable that deep water offshore locations may contain
quantities of natural gas rivalling those of onshore locations. Such
a statement cannot even be confirmed because drilling for offshore
natural gas reservoirs, expected to be found considerably deeper
than oil reservoirs, has been unattractive exactly because of the
absence of coherent exploitation strategies. If anything, the mere
presence of large natural gas deposits even in the form of solution
gas in oil is now often considered as largely undesirable because of
the cost of just handling non-monetized natural gas. This paper
discusses potential offshore LNG processes and reviews natural
gas liquefaction cycles in the context of compactness, ease of
operation, process safety, and efficiency.
Particular attention is paid to the lower-efficiency turboex-
pander processes for plant capacities up to 3 million tonnes per
annum (MTPA, approximately 0.43 Bcf/d). These cycles offer
several advantages over the alternative optimized cascade and
mixed refrigerant (MR) liquefiers for offshore applications.
Introduction
Increasing global demand for natural gas is supporting the rapid
growth and diversification of worldwide LNG production capacity.
As demand continues to grow and the value of natural gas remains
high in the major consuming markets, the impetus to monetize
more difficult and remote gas resources also grows. There is a
drive to develop stranded gas fields that have remained undevel-
oped for many years to satisfy the thirsty energy markets with a
cleaner fuel than coal or oil (in terms of lower emissions of green-
house gases and other pollutants) that has kept the industry keen to
develop the technology that will enable it to ultimately deploy
floating liquefaction facilities on a commercial basis. Unfortu-
nately it was the major international oil companies that conducted
most of the early research, development, and feasibility studies,
focused on deploying large-scale facilities to develop the very
large gas reserves that are material to them. There are, however,
very few giant gas fields located in remote offshore regions avail-
able to the majors for such deployments.
The future potential to deploy floating liquefaction probably
lies in medium size gas fields, or aggregations of smaller fields
with associated gas, developed by medium sized independent com-
panies. However, the restrictions of more stringent no-flaring rules
being introduced in many countries (e.g. Nigeria and Angola) may
prompt some existing offshore producers of giant volatile oil and
Copyright © 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 109522) was accepted for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Tech-
nology Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11–14 November, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 25 May 2007. Paper peer approved 17
August 2007.
December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
wet gas fields to aggregate gas from several such fields and de-
velop large-scale (>4 MTPA capacity) floating liquefaction as an
alternative to building and operating expensive gas re-injection
facilities. The potential to unlock offshore gas reserves without the
need to invest in capital-intensive pipeline infrastructure, infield
platforms, and onshore infrastructure and to minimize exposure to
geopolitical and security risks is also attractive to upstream
LNG operators.
Process Design Criteria
Offshore natural gas liquefaction has moved closer to commercial
viability as the value of LNG has increased during the past few
years. This has increased interest in both onshore and offshore
liquefaction projects. Offshore liquefaction requires the develop-
ment of new and innovative technologies and processes because
their project economics are impacted by different criteria to on-
shore liquefaction facilities. For offshore applications, process de-
sign criteria such as compactness, weight, modular design, process
safety, minimized weather-related downtime, and storage sloshing
impacts become more important. Offshore floating liquefaction
has generated interest because it offers the potential to (Barclay
and Yang, 2006):
• Avoid flaring or reinjection of associated gas.
• Monetize smaller or remote fields of nonassociated gas.
• Reduce exposure to public and increase security of facilities.
• Lower LNG production costs.
The realization of large barge-mounted floating production,
storage, and offloading (FPSO) facilities for oil production and
LPG production (e.g. West Africa, such as Chevron’s Sanha LPG
FPSO offshore Angola) indicates that large complex facilities for
handling gas offshore can be deployed on a commercial and safe
basis. Floating LNG regasification has arrived on the scene before
floating liquefaction [e.g., “Energy Bridge” and numerous gravity-
based structures (GBS) and floating storage and regasification
units (FSRU) planned for deployment in the Gulf of Mexico
and offshore Italy]. This is because regasification is a simpler
technology with a smaller offshore footprint than offshore lique-
faction. Nevertheless, offshore LNG offloading and storage issues
resolutions and facilities developed for regasification will be trans-
ferable to offshore liquefaction and reduce risk and cost of its
ultimate deployment.
However, there are still some hurdles to overcome to make the
concept economically viable for offshore gas liquefaction or float-
ing LNG (FLNG) facilities. The hurdles are not all technical. Geo-
politics represent another formidable stumbling block. Countries
that stand to gain the most from floating liquefaction plants, such
as Nigeria, for example, often insist upon substantial local content
in its manufacture, which is almost impossible to accommodate on
a commercial basis. Most governments also prefer the guarantees
of long-term deployment and local direct and indirect employment
that an onshore facility provides. On the other hand, in some
regions, placing LNG production (or in the case of the US, re-
ceiving) facilities a significant distance from shore can remove
actual or perceived public safety risks compared to the onshore
alternative. Similarly, environmental impacts associated with ini-
tial site planning approvals and future decommissioning and site
restoration become less onerous for offshore, particularly for float-
ing facilities.
Technical Challenges and Feasibility Issues
Feasibility studies for floating liquefaction facilities conducted by
the major international companies date back to the late 1980s, with
1
paper studies going back to the 1970s. David Wood was involved
in evaluating late 1980’s feasibility studies conducted by Mobil for
potential deployment offshore the Persian Gulf and Papua New
Guinea. Shell also invested heavily in research and technical de-
signs during the early- and mid-1990s for potential deployment in
a number of international locations. None of these projects mate-
rialized because of unfavorable economics (high breakeven LNG
sales price) and the high level of technical risk. The key technical
challenges that a floating gas liquefaction facility will have to
combat have been known and in the public domain for some time
(e.g. Natural Gas Technology 2001; Eriksen et al. 2002).
Space and Weight Requirements
• Floating systems are space limiting, inherently requiring
safety considerations.
• High equipment density to overcome space and weight constraints.
Ease of Operation/Startup/Shutdown.
• Bad weather/ extreme environmental conditions may require
sudden shutdown of the plant. Thus, floating liquefaction facilities
are generally targeted for benign waters. Liquefaction process
trains are most efficient when operated continuously with very
infrequent shutdowns. An increase in operational interruptions
should be expected offshore and this will adversely impact on
operational efficiency.
Flexibility and Efficiency.
• Required process flexibility vs. efficiency, reliability, ease of
installation, operation, and maintenance. Potentially serving dif-
ferent fields with varying gas compositions throughout plant life-
time, the facilities have to build in some flexibility to the process
in terms of operating capacity and feed-gas quality. This issue has
efficiency and economic implications.
Safety.
• Safe offloading of liquefied gas products to visiting LNG
carriers under demanding environmental conditions requires more
robust mooring and loading-arm technologies than those devel-
oped for sheltered, land-based ports. The transfer of LNG at cryo-
genic temperatures through hoses and loading arms is challenging.
• Control of process-related hazards (e.g., mechanical integrity
of process equipment, ignition source control systems, and explo-
sion overpressure) require more robust designs and operating sys-
tems offshore.
• Control of vessel collision hazards (e.g., visiting LNG carri-
ers, merchant vessels traffic, supply vessels and tugs) and other
standard marine safety requirements add to the complexity of
safety management and emergency-response procedures of such
facilities.
Vessel Motions.
• Moving decks are challenging for process-equipment oper-
ability and efficiency.
• Sloshing stresses in partly filled tanks have to be contained.
Relative motions between an offshore production facility and LNG
carriers during loading and offloading operations are key design
issues. Vessel motion is the key limiting factor in deploying float-
ing facilities in harsh environments.
Chemical Process Systems.
• Cooling-system complexity and, with some liquefaction pro-
cesses, obligation to handle potentially large inventories of hydro-
carbon refrigerants (e.g., propane) represent a major hazard adding
to safety concerns and cost.
• Process-related accidental hydrocarbon releases (both of re-
frigerants and partially processed natural gas) are also considered
to be a key safety risk.
From the foregoing, it is clear that offshore natural gas lique-
faction has different process requirements than do traditional on-
land baseload plants. While thermodynamic efficiency is the key
technical process selection criteria for large onshore natural gas
liquefiers, the high-efficiency precooled mixed refrigerant and op-
timized cascade plants that dominate onshore LNG installations
2 December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
are unlikely to meet the diverse technical and safety needs of
offshore liquefaction facilities.
Offshore liquefaction technology developers have been drawn
by the requirements of process simplicity, low weight, and small
footprint toward established and proven onshore peak-shaving
technology. Considering that all process technologies are dealing
with the thermodynamic constraints imposed by natural gas com-
positions, technologies that best fit tried and tested machinery are
those most likely to succeed commercially. Key criteria that in-
fluence process selection and plant optimization for offshore liq-
uefaction lead unavoidably to some trade-offs and compromises.
Historical Progress Toward
Offshore Liquefaction
It was in the mid-1990s that substantial work backed up with
specific experimental testing of offshore liquefaction designs was
first performed. Shell, with its FLNG and Floating Oil and Natural
Gas (FONG) concepts for processing gas and associated gas, re-
spectively (Faber et al. 2002), was one of the pioneering operators
to invest in research and experimental testing of the concept. Fos-
ter Wheeler was one of the earliest facilities contractors involved
in detailed feasibility studies and to demonstrate a willingness to
engineer such projects (Raine and Kaplan 2003; Raine et al. 2003).
The onshore gas-liquefaction industry is now quite focused on
high-capacity plants in the range of 4 to 8 million metric tonnes per
annum (MTPA), but such plants require a processing “footprint”
that is well outside what is achievable offshore. Realistic offshore
process capacities are in the 1 to 3 MTPA range (Sheffield 2005),
which is of less interest to the large companies trying to diversify
and build capacity in their international liquefaction portfolios.
Some key issues to be identified in the early studies were:
• The nature of an LNG process is such that significant
power is required (approximately 50 MW for each 1 MTPA) to
drive the compressors.
• The cryogenic processing conditions make severe de-
mands on piping layouts in a more congested offshore process-
ing configuration.
• The storage of LNG requires specialized containment sys-
tems, with the tanks operating at continuously changing degrees
of fill.
• LNG transfer from the FPSO to the shuttle carrier requires
specialized loading equipment.
An earlier study was carried out by BHP Billiton for potential
deployment at location in the Bayu-Undan gas condensate field in
the Timor Sea (Dubar et al. 1998). The envisaged GBS considered
incorporating a conventional cylindrical LNG storage tank of
170,000 m3 alongside a 1.5-MTPA improved nitrogen cycle liq-
uefaction train. A joint industry project (JIP 1999), part of the Gas
Utilization Research Forum (GURF) initiative involving Chevron
and several other oil and gas companies, focused on the exploita-
tion of marginal gas fields and showed that a compact plant could
be developed using one of several liquefaction technologies (OGJ
1999). It also demonstrated that LNG storage in the hull could be
of either a membrane system or self-supporting design.
In the late 1990s Mobil also developed a floating liquefaction
plant design involving a large square concrete structure with a
moon-pool. Generally known as the “doughnut,” the design had
inherent desirable stability and safety characteristics (Naklie et al.
1999). Black and Veitch and ABB Randall in contemporaneous
studies identified simplified liquefaction process appropriate for
small-scale production (Price 1998; Foglietta 1999).
In 2000, a European consortium of mainly French contractors
led by Bouygues Offshore and involving M.W.Kellogg, Techni-
gaz, and GTT, completed the Azure R&D project, partially funded
by the EU’s Thermie Programme and supported technically and
financially by several major oil and gas companies (Shell, Total,
ChevronTexaco, and Conoco). The Azure project focused on ana-
lytical and experimental work to:
• Demonstrate the integrity of the membrane containment sys-
tem in its partially filled mode, when “sloshing” of the liquid
contents places major forces upon the membrane structure.
• Prove aspects of the control of an LNG transfer system.
 • Develop the design for a novel concrete hull.
• Develop steel hull designs for LNG FPSOs.
• Develop topside layouts to meet safety and operabil-
ity requirements.
The work was focused on small-scale and mid-scale design
concepts for liquefaction plants and also looked at the issues re-
lating to offshore FSRU reception terminals (Mayer and Shef-
field 2001).
In 2001, Shell developed several concepts targeted at specific
potential project developments. The most advanced was the Sun-
rise project (Offshore Northern Australia) involving a 5-MTPA
capacity facility using the Shell’s dual mixed refrigerant (DMR)
liquefaction process to be deployed on a large barge (400×70 m) to
have some 240,000 m3 of LNG and 85,000 m3 of condensate
storage. The concept was claimed to cost 40% less than a similar
land-based projects, mainly because of savings in the offshore
facilities and the avoidance of a pipeline. The Australian govern-
ment, and some of the field partners (including ConocoPhillips)
and potential customers, however, opted for a low-risk, land-based
facility, and the offshore option was shelved. Shell also evaluated
the same concept for the Kudu field off Namibia, but this was not
followed through because of an appraisal well downgrading field
gas reserves.
Further feasibility work on this concept was carried out by
Statoil and Shell in the Gulf of Guinea, where there are several
stranded wet gas fields, including the Statoil-operated Nnwa field
and adjacent shell-operated Doro field. The study completed in
late 2003 resulted in a basic FLNG plant design, but partners
found development costs to be higher than anticipated and shelved
the project (Upstream 2004). Moored in 1300 m of water, the
FLNG would liquefy between 0.6 and 1.3 Bcf/D centred at Nnwa
/ Doro and gathering gas from other nearby fields. The concept
also involved:
• LPG and condensate production that would be included in
the development.
• A novel riser tower using cold water from ocean depths
would precool the gas before it reached the FLNG.
• Large topsides: weight up to 60,000 tonnes; area some
30,000 m2.
• A crew of almost 200 housed aft.
• Steel hull: 498 m long with a 76-m beam. Alternative con-
crete hull (435 m long and 105 m wide) would be more expensive.
• Schedule for design and construction would be 4 years from
start to finish.
Statoil, in conjunction with Linde and Aker Kvaerner, have
designed a liquefaction concept based on the mixed fluid cascade
(MFC) process chosen for the Snøhvit facility, which is nearing
startup by year-end 2007. Snøhvit liquefaction train was designed
to be assembled on a barge in Spain for transport to Melkøya in
northern Norway; so many marinization issues had to be addressed
for this project despite its not being an offshore development.
Statoil believes that the MFC process can successfully be used for
offshore gas liquefaction facilities. Progress with an offshore liq-
uefaction project in Nigeria is slow for a number of reasons, not
least political and security issues. The Nigerian government’s
strategy is to back onshore facilities that ensure a longer-term
commitment with a tangible facility ultimately ending up in state
control and more local involvement in construction.
ABB Lummus Global started working in 2003 to evolve a
smaller scale of floating liquefaction plant that is economically
viable with lower volumes, such as the associated gas at a large
remote offshore oil development. Its system is viable for stranded
gas volumes between 0.3 and 3 Tcf and it estimated the total cost
of a phase-one (dry gas only) liquefaction FPSO vessel ready for
operation at approximately $400 million (Upstream, January
2005). This includes three liquefaction trains processing a total of
225 MMscf/D between them with storage for 135,000 m3 of LNG.
The lowest feasible feed gas supply rate for such a small-scale
vessel is some 50 MMscf/D. ABB’s “LNG alone” system has a dry
weight of less than 6000 tonnes and would be approximately 100
meters long. The size of the hull is determined by the storage
capacity needed. The liquefaction process is based on the “dual
December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
turbo-expander cycle” developed and patented by the Randall Gas
Technologies division of ABB.
Small-scale offshore liquefaction operations in the 1- to
3-MTPA range using of a nitrogen cycle for liquefaction have been
favored by other recent studies (e.g., Finn 2002; Foglietta 2004).
However, by mid-2006, no investment had yet been firmly com-
mitted to developing an offshore liquefaction project. Neverthe-
less, this vast body of work now suggests that there are few if any
outstanding technical issues to prevent future developments. More-
over, prevailing LNG prices worldwide above US $5/MMBtu
make the breakeven price for potential offshore developments
more attractive than they have ever been. In spite of capital costs
now estimated to be in a comparable range to onshore projects—
which perhaps appears misleadingly optimistic on an unrisked ba-
sis (especially for the “first of a kind” project)—no developers
have stepped forward.
Offshore Liquefaction Process Technologies
Life-cycle assessment for offshore liquefaction of natural gas in-
cludes the same process design issues as a land-based plant, with
safety being paramount. Some recent design studies have consid-
ered mixed refrigerant cycle technology, including the propane
pre-cooled cycle (C3MR)—the most common process employed
for baseload onshore liquefaction plants, and the single-stage re-
frigeration cycle (Price and Mortko, 1998). However, as already
outlined, for offshore liquefaction the criteria for technology se-
lection differ substantially from onshore facilities. The capital cost
of the processing facilities is only a fraction of total project cost,
so technology selection and process design must be considered in
the context of total, full-cycle project economics. If all aspects of
the process and plant design are actually based on the plant being
located on an FPSO, this constrains the choice of liquefac-
tion technology.
Alternative Refrigeration Process Cycles
Three generic types of refrigeration cycle have been utilized for
natural gas liquefaction: the cascade, mixed-refrigerant, and ex-
pander cycles. Each has its own merits. There are variants of each
cycle, with some common features between them (Vink and
Nagelvoort 1998; see Shukri 2004 for an overview of gas-
liquefaction technology). For example, in both the mixed-
refrigerant cycle and the expander cycle, the feed gas may be
precooled by a conventional propane vapor compression cycle.
This is also a feature of the cascade cycle. Liquefaction-process
selection and design is influenced by site location, ambient con-
ditions, and availability of utilities, as well as the specific feed gas
quality and conditions. Therefore, comparison of alternative cycles
is instructive, both for development of the optimal process concept
and in customizing specific designs.
Optimized Cascade. In this cycle, natural gas is cooled, con-
densed, and subcooled in heat exchange with propane, ethylene (or
ethane), and, finally, methane in three discrete stages. Each refrig-
erant circuit normally has three or four refrigerant expansion and
compression stages. After compression, propane is condensed with
cooling water or air, ethylene is condensed with evaporating pro-
pane, and methane is condensed with evaporating ethylene. Phil-
lips-optimized cascade process is a modified and updated version
(Fig. 1) of the simple process used in a pioneering plant built in
Alaska in the 1960s, and has been used for the Atlantic LNG plant
in Trinidad and for recently completed base load plants in Egypt
and Darwin, Australia, and is being applied in Equatorial Guinea
under development. Train capacities of up to 3.6 MTPA have been
constructed, with all such plants built by contractor Bechtel.
Refrigeration and liquefaction of the process gas is achieved in
a cascade process using three pure-component refrigerants: pro-
pane, ethylene, and methane, each at two or three pressure levels.
This is carried out in a series of brazed aluminium, plate-fin heat
exchangers arranged in vertical cold boxes. Precooling could be
carried out in a core-in-kettle-type exchanger. The refrigerants are
circulated using centrifugal compressors. Each refrigerant has par-
allel compression trains. Frame 5 gas-turbine drivers have been used.
3
Fig. 1—Optimized cascade simplified process schematic.
This has the advantage of thermodynamic efficiency, but the
disadvantage offshore of large plot plan and multiple refriger-
ant handling.
The cascade cycle requires less power than any other liquefac-
tion cycle, mainly because the refrigerant flow is lower than in
other cycles. It is also flexible in operation because each refriger-
ant circuit can be controlled separately. Specific power is low, but
the plant is relatively complex and has a large number of equip-
ment items. Each main refrigerant requires its own storage, which
would need to be imported or a separate support vessel for an
offshore plant.
The main disadvantage of the cascade cycle is the relatively
high capital cost because of each refrigeration circuit having its
own compressor (with associated suction drums and interstage
coolers) and refrigerant storage. The large number of equipment
items and the large plot space mean that this cycle is neither
technically nor economically viable for offshore applications.
Economies of scale dictate that the optimized cascade cycle is
suited to large train capacities, where the low heat exchanger area
and low power requirement offset the cost of having multiple
machines. The cascade cycle is claimed to be competitive vs. the
C3MR process at such scales.
Mixed Refrigerant. The MR cycle employs a single mixed re-
frigerant, comprising nitrogen and hydrocarbons, in place of the
several pure refrigerants of the cascade cycle. Various forms of
MR have been used in base-load plants and in smaller-scale plants.
The machinery configuration is simple and the power requirement
is usually only slightly higher than for a cascade cycle. The re-
frigerant composition is specified so that it evaporates over a tem-
perature range similar to that of the natural gas being liquefied.
This provides close matching of composite cooling and warming
curves of the process gas and the refrigerant, which results in a
more efficient thermodynamic process requiring less power per
unit of LNG produced and hence smaller machinery. Even so, a
typical MR system usually has a lower efficiency than a cascade
cycle because refrigerant flow is high and the associated thermo-
dynamic losses lead to inefficiency. Furthermore, the MR is more
susceptible to changes in feed-gas conditions, which may neces-
sitate large design margins to be used, which in turn can reduce
performance and efficiency.
Mixed refrigerant technology has been assessed for offshore
liquefaction based on both single mixed-refrigerant and dual
mixed-refrigerant (DMR) cycles (Johnsen and Christiansen 1998;
Naklie 1998; Price and Mortko 1998; Bliault 2001; Sheffield and
Mayer 2001). The latter consumes less power but is more complex.
Shell has concluded that the single mixed refrigerant is suitable for
smaller capacities of approximately 2 MTPA of LNG production,
while the dual mixed-refrigerant cycle is suitable for capacities up
to some 5 MTPA (Bliault, 2001). A dual mixed-refrigerant process
forms part of Shell’s onshore Sakhalin Island liquefaction project,
with a capacity of 4.8 MTPA per train. Process configuration is
similar to the propane precooled mixed-refrigerant process, with
the precooling conducted by a mixed refrigerant (made up mainly
4 December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
Fig. 2—Air-cooled dual mixed refrigerant simplified process
schematic. Onshore, it potentially offers cost and time savings
because of simplified plant requirements.
of ethane and propane) rather than pure propane. Another main
difference is that the precooling is carried out in a spiral-wound
heat exchanger rather than kettles (Fig. 2).
The dual mixed-refrigerant cycle minimizes hydrocarbon in-
ventories compared to either the single mixed-refrigerant cycle or
the C3MR cycle most commonly used onshore. It also gives lower
flaring rates in the event of compressor trip and refrigerant blow-
off. However, all mixed-refrigerant cycles require storage of flam-
mable hydrocarbons. This presents a significant challenge in com-
piling an offshore safety case and requires a significant amount of
deck space. Any cryogenic plant needs good distribution of two-
phase streams into heat exchangers, particularly mixed-refrigerant
cycles. Failure to do this can result in a lack of production capac-
ity. Good distribution can be difficult because of vessel movement,
and this can be a major factor in limiting use of mixed refrigerant
technology to only calm seas.*
Mixed-refrigerant cycle plants are sensitive to changes in feed
gas conditions, as they rely on small temperature differences be-
tween the composite cooling and warming streams to give reason-
able process efficiency. Onshore, long plant runtimes are normal
and operators have the time to optimize plant performance. Off-
shore, the very opposite may be true. Refrigerant compositions
need to be adapted for different feed-gas conditions, which can
make performance optimization difficult. Dual mixed-refrigerant
technology gives improved operability over single mixed-
refrigerant cycles but is expensive for all but the largest facilities.
Mixed-refrigerant plants inevitably take longer to start up and
stabilize than plants using other refrigerant cycles because of the
need for precise blending of the refrigerant mix. This is a signifi-
cant consideration in an environment where frequent startup and
shutdown are to be expected.
Turbo Expander. Turbo-expander refrigeration cycles are well
proven for cryogenic liquefaction, including LNG peak-shaving
and large-scale industrial gas liquefiers. Compression and work-
expansion of a suitable fluid, typically nitrogen, generates refrig-
eration. The cycle gas is boosted in the brake-end of the expander.
While this process has been used to liquefy natural gas, it has low
efficiency because a gas with uniform flow rate through the cycle
cannot closely match the cooling requirements in the process gas.
Several variations on a single expander reverse-Brayton cycle may
improve efficiency significantly (Foglietta 2002). If only one stage
of work-expansion is employed, then power consumption is ex-
cessive and only justifiable for small plant capacities. Expander
cycles use all gas (or mostly gas) refrigerants and offer lower
efficiency to other technology options, but many benefits for off-
shore liquefaction.
Initial work on offshore liquefaction considered precooling by
freon (Kennett et al. 1981) but subsequent work has concentrated
* Private communication, 2001.
on the use of a second expander (e.g. Finn et al 2002, Fig. 3). Both
expanders can operate over the same pressure ratio but at different
temperatures or alternatively the “cold end” expander operates
over a much larger pressure ratio. The two expanders are mounted
on a common skid. They enable the natural gas to be cooled and
condensed at small temperature differences, so heat exchanger size
increases but specific power reduces.
Mechanical refrigeration in a precooling cycle, based on pro-
pane or other refrigerant, can reduce power consumption by
cooling the feed gas and also chilling the cooling water, so that
the cycle compressor discharge temperature can be reduced.
However, increased plant complexity, reduced overall reliability,
and need for refrigerant storage are crucial disadvantages of pre-
cooling offshore, though there may be grounds for considering it
on larger facilities.
A major benefit of using nitrogen as the cycle fluid is that it is
inherently safe. Storage of hazardous hydrocarbons adjacent to, or
within, the processing plant is avoided and there is no need for
major hydrocarbon flaring if the refrigerant compressor trips (Finn
et al. 2002).
Expander cycles using N2 as the refrigerant have the potential
to be extremely compact because they feature (Barclay and Den-
ton 2005):
• All gas service so there is no large refrigerant storage and
management system, decreasing plot requirements and weight.
• Decreased offset distances because the refrigerant is non-
flammable and places fewer constraints on equipment positioning.
• Most of the surface area is dedicated to gas/gas service with
flexible orientation.
The expander cycle is simple and has fewer items of equipment
than alternative refrigeration cycles. This leads to reduced plot
space and facilitates modularization. Heat exchanger cores can be
arranged as needed. This allows the design of conformal cold
boxes and modularized plant layout. Note that although the refrig-
erant circulation rate and main heat exchanger duty are signifi-
cantly decreased in expander cycles, the required heat transfer
surface area may not decrease because the refrigerant heat transfer
coefficient is also much lower.
Expanders are highly reliable on nitrogen consumption and
maintenance requirements are minimal. Nitrogen is maintained in
the gaseous phase at all points of the refrigeration cycle, so dis-
tribution in the heat exchangers is not a concern, unlike other
refrigeration cycles. As a result, plant performance is much less
sensitive to vessel movement. The nitrogen expander design is
flexible to changes in feed-gas conditions and requires minimal
operator intervention. Control of specific temperatures is not as
important as with mixed refrigerant cycles, and the process is
inherently more stable and robust. An important attribute is the
ability to easily and quickly shutdown in a safe and controlled
Fig. 3—Double nitrogen turboexpander plant simplified process
schematic (Finn et al. 2000; Finn 2002). The second stage ex-
pander avoids excessive power consumption.
December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
manner and to startup quickly; a plant can be started from a cold
condition in no more than an hour, unlike a mixed-refrigerant plant
that may require many hours to reach stable performance. All of
these attributes make a double nitrogen turbo-expander plant well
suited to offshore deployment.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, the double nitrogen ex-
pander cycle outperforms the C3MR, DMR, and optimized cas-
cade cycles (alternative proven liquefaction technologies) for off-
shore deployment on the following key selection criteria:
• Low overall deck space requirement.
• Low equipment count.
• Avoidance of handling and storage of hazardous hydrocar-
bon refrigerants.
• Simplicity of operation (fewer safety hazards).
• Ease and speed of stabilizing production when subjected to
frequent shutdowns and restarts.
• Low sensitivity to vessel motion.
• Low weight.
• Low capital costs.
• High flexibility to changes in feed-gas conditions (compa-
rable to optimized cascade).
• Ease of installation and maintenance.
• Low operating costs.
Ease of operation, low equipment count, and quick startup are
clear advantages of nitrogen turbo-expander cycles. The high
equipment count and startup time for MR processes is a function
of refrigerant management and the inherent properties of the pro-
cess. The number of storage tanks, separators, valve manifolds,
and instruments and controls required to adjust and control the
refrigerant charge and composition in the MR processes is high.
Cold production in a turbo-expander process is largely inde-
pendent of the process gas. While the double nitrogen expander
cycle does require more power than the more complex and ther-
modynamically efficient cycles, the simplicity of the process and
other critical factors listed still make it cheaper and safer. Power
consumption of less than 0.5 Kw-hr /kg is attainable which trans-
lates, with a margin, to some 200-MW requirement for a 3-MTPA
plant requiring, which could be achieved by several gas turbines
(e.g., light-weight, aero-derivative types such as General Electric
LM-6000, each with some 43.7-MW output) which would con-
sume approximately 12% of the feed gas as fuel (Finn et al. 2002).
Most of the power requirement is for the nitrogen cycle com-
pressors. It is the power requirement that is the key limiting factor
on the 3-MTPA plant capacity for the double nitrogen expander
cycle option.
Broader Challenges Associated With Offshore
Liquefaction Plants
Several technical challenges face operators wishing to deploy
floating gas liquefaction facilities.
LNG Storage. The transport of LNG in marine carriers is well
established. However, partial fill conditions in an FLNG facility is
the prevailing status, as the LNG is processed prior to offtake. This
may result in sloshing, which is of particular concern in membrane
tanks. The consideration of loss of containment must also be ad-
dressed when considering hull fabrication. The use of concrete for
the hull provides benefits in the storage of cryogenic fluids, as it
retains its structural integrity when in contact with the LNG, but
traditional steel ship designs are cheaper to build.
A catastrophic tank failure could result in subsequent large-
scale discharge of LNG into the sea. This would be followed by a
rapid phase transition, which could cause serious structural dam-
age to the offshore facility, with possible stability loss. Prevention
of such an occurrence is a key safety requirement of offshore designs.
Marine Offloading of LNG Cargoes. Offloading LNG in a ma-
rine environment requires bulk LNG carriers to approach and berth
alongside a floating facility. This is routinely achieved for crude
oil cargoes in various designs of floating production storage and
offloading (FPSO) facility worldwide, but constitutes a major haz-
ard concern for the offshore LNG option. There are hazards asso-
5
ciated with potential collisions with approaching LNG carriers.
Also, the offloading dynamics must be designed to cope with
relative motions between the floating structure and the ship that
exceed those expected from shore-based jetties.
If offloading is considered with a typical spread-moored con-
figuration such as those that might be found offshore West Africa,
then side-by-side offloading could be considered. This provides
the benefit in that typically LNG carriers load at midships, pro-
viding more flexibility. However, in less benign seas, weather
vaning and tandem offloading configurations are more appropriate.
To facilitate this, a number of technology suppliers have designed
flexible loading arms for transfer of LNG between the production
vessel and the tanker such as the SBM soft yoke mooring and
offloading (SYMO) system (Sheffield and Mayer 2001; Faber
et al. 2002).
Operation and Maintenance. Operating and maintaining an off-
shore gas production and liquefaction facility of whatever design
would require a substantial workforce. In some cases, offshore
crews could reach some 250 people. Accommodating, supplying,
and providing adequate emergency evacuation protection for such
a large offshore population is a challenge and would be a major
operating cost component for such a project.
Equipment Densities. Some offshore liquefaction concept de-
signs have much higher equipment densities than those typically
associated with onshore liquefaction plants. High equipment den-
sity substantially increases the potential for explosions in the event
of an ignited gas release, which would have higher impact severi-
ties, perhaps escalating to total facility loss.
Feed-Gas Compositions. Designing FLNG facilities intended to
receive feed gas from multiple field usage introduces the need for
additional gas-conditioning facilities when field gas compositions
differ. Gas-processing equipment capable of handing well fluids
with varying natural gas liquids (NGLs), carbon dioxide, water, or
hydrogen sulphide compositions will add to facility cost, equip-
ment density, and operational complexity.
High Inherent Marine Safety Requirements Favor Nitrogen
Turboexpanders. The LNG industry has built an excellent safety
record that must continue to be aggressively protected as existing
plants age and novel processes and production schemes are com-
mercialized. DMR and Optimized Cascade processes have large
flammable refrigerant inventories, high refrigerant circulation rates
through process lines, and extensive overpressure potential and
flare requirements. This makes these processes inherently less safe
than nitrogen turbo-expander processes. Expander processes have
higher inherent safety because the refrigerant is inert.
Hydraulic design of the liquefaction process should consider
the special constraints created by the marine environment and
motion impacts on various LNG process equipment items (Ha-
tanaka et al. 2001; Waldie 2002). Appropriate designs for the
process equipment and plant layouts are possible to ensure that
both turbo-expander and /or DMR processes, depending on selec-
tion, are fit for purpose.
Plant Efficiency Comparisons. The high efficiency of C3MR
cycles is the result of 30 years of operation and refinement. For
example, trains 1 and 2 of Oman LNG, operational in 2000, have
a power requirement of 12.2 kW*day/ton (Barclay and Denton
2005). In contrast, small-scale (i.e., a capacity of some 125 tonnes
of LNG per day), single N2 turbo-expander gas-liquefaction cycles
in operation have unit power requirements of between approxi-
mately 20 and 40 KW*day/ton, requiring in some cases more than
three times the power requirement on a unit basis as a baseload
plant such as Oman LNG.
Expander-based processes are steadily improving with ad-
vances in plate fin heat exchangers, turbomachinery, and process
configuration. Expander cycles shift the key efficiency determin-
ing element of the process from the LNG heat exchanger to the
expander. Expander efficiency is critical to efficient operation, as
are compressor efficiency and process configuration. Dual-
expander processes for gas liquefaction (e.g., ABB Randall) are
6 December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
expected to achieve unit power requirements of between approxi-
mately 15 and 20 kW*day/ton (Barclay and Denton 2005). Pro-
pane precooled dual-expander processes may approach the effi-
ciencies (approxinately 13.5 kW*day/ton) of state-of-the-art
C3MR cycles. However, by involving propane precooling off-
shore, the inherent advantages of low flammable refrigerant in-
ventory, low equipment count, and simplicity are sacrificed.
Conclusions
• Dual nitrogen turbo-expander cycles are better suited to floating
offshore liquefaction facilities than traditional liquid refrigerant
processes, and satisfy most of the critical technical selection
criteria for offshore deployment.
• Low efficiency and high power consumption (compared with the
C3MR and optimized Cascade cycles) are the only serious dis-
advantages with the turbo-expander cycle, and this limits ca-
pacity to approximately 3 MTPA, but does not outweigh the
other advantages.
• For reasons of maximum project size and materiality, it will not
be the major companies and large existing liquefaction operators
that deploy FLNG first. Most of them are sceptical that it can
deliver baseload scale (4 MTPA) plants on a commercial basis.
• Most of the nonprocess technical issues associated with offshore
liquefaction (e.g., storage, offloading, reliability, uptime, and
safety) have now been satisfactorily solved.
• Political and governmental hurdles still remain. Many govern-
ments much prefer a liquefaction plant to be built onshore to
guarantee local employment and community benefits and long-
term commitment of the facility to their country. For specific
projects, the challenge for operators is to convince governments
that FLNG may be the only way that the stranded gas will be
developed for the foreseeable future.
• Total project economics and achieving low capital and operating
costs over the full project cycle are the key factors now con-
fronting investment decision-makers for future FLNG projects.
• Current gas and LNG prices in the key global markets are high
and breakeven costs for the latest offshore liquefaction designs
are well below them, and are comparable with onshore plants of
similar capacity.
• Time, technology, and economics are therefore ripe for this in-
novative technical solution to stranded offshore gas to finally
move off the drawing board.
References
Barclay, M. and Denton, N. 2005. Selecting Offshore LNG Processes. LNG
Journal 10: 34–36.
Barclay, M.A. and Yang, C.C. 2006. Offshore LNG: The Perfect Starting
Point for the 2-Phase Expander? Paper OTC 18012 presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1–4 May.
Bliault, A. 2001. Shell Floating LNG Plant, Technology Ready for Project
Development. Offshore 61 (5): 102.
Dubar, C., Forcey, T., Humphreys, V., and Schmidet, H. 1998. LNG Tech-
nical Overview. Paper presented at the International Conference and
Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG 12, Perth, Australia, 4–7
May.
Eriksen, R., Brandstorp, J.M., and Cramer, E. 2002. Evaluating The Vi-
ability of Offshore LNG Production and Storage. Paper presented at the
GasTech 2002 Conference, Doha, Qatar, 23 October–1 November.
Faber, F., Resweber, L.R., Jones, P.S., and Bliault, A.E.J. 2002. Floating
LNG Solutions From the Drawing Board to Reality. Paper OTC 14100
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 6–9 May.
Finn, A. 2002. New FPSO Design Produces LNG From Offshore Sources.
Oil & Gas Journal 100: 56–63
Finn, A.J., Johnson, G.L., and Tomlinson, T.R. 2000. LNG Technology for
Offshore and Mid-Scale Plants. Paper presented at the Annual GPA
Convention, Atlanta, Georgia, March.
Foglietta, J. 1999. New LNG Process Scheme. Paper presented at the
Annual GPA Convention, Nashville, Tennessee, March.
Foglietta, J. 2002. Production of LNG Using Dual Independent Expander
Refrigeration Cycles. Paper presented at the AIChE Spring Meeting,
New Orleans, March.
Foglietta, J. 2004. Small Scale LNG Production. Paper presented at the
Annual GPA Europe Conference, Amsterdam, 8–9 September.
Hatanaka, N., Yoneyama, H., Mihashi, T., Oka, M., and Ohmori, M. 2001.
A Challenge To Advance LNG Transport for the 21st Century—LNG
Jamal: New Carrier with Reliquefaction Plant. Paper presented at the
International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas,
LNG 13, Seoul, 14–17 May.
Johnsen, R.J. and Christiansen, P. 1998. LNG Production on Floating
Platforms. Paper presented at the GasTech 98 Conference, Dubai, 29
November–2 December.
Kennett, A., Limb, D., and Czarnecki, B. 1981. Offshore Liquefaction of
Associated Gas- A Suitable Process for the North Sea. Paper OTC 3956
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 4–7 May.
Mayer, M. and Sheffield, J. 2001. The Challenges of Floating LNG Fa-
cilities. Paper presented at the GPA Europe Spring Meeting, Norwich,
UK, May.
Naklie, M. 1998. Mobil’s Floating LNG Plant. Paper presented at the
International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas,
LNG 12, Perth, Australia, 4–7 May.
Naklie, M. et al. 1999. Evaluation Supports Floating LNG Safety. World
Oil 220 (11).
Natural Gas Technology. 2001. DNV Report 2000-3526. Rev. 1.
OGJ’s Review Article. 1999. Reducing Scale, Increasing Flexibility Are
Targets of New LNG Designs. Oil & Gas Journal 97 (49).
Price, B. 1998. Development of Mid-Scale and Floating LNG Facilities.
Paper presented at the GPA Annual Convention, Dallas, March.
Price, B.C. and Mortko, R.A. 1998. Development of Mid-Scale and Float-
ing LNG Facilities. Paper presented at the GasTech 98 Conference,
Dubai, 29 November–2 December.
Raine, B. and Kaplan, A. 2003. Concrete-Based Offshore LNG Production
in Nigeria. LNG Journal 5: 28–30.
Raine, B., Kaplan, A., and Jackson, G. 2003. Making the Concrete Case.
Offshore Engineer 12: 35–40.
Sheffield, J.A. 2005. Offshore LNG Production—How to Make It Happen.
Business Briefing. LNG Review 2005 21–23.
Sheffield, J.A. and Mayer, M. 2001. The Challenges of Floating LNG
Facilities. Paper presented at the GPA Europe Spring Meeting, Nor-
wich, UK, 16–18 May.
December 2007 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
Shell. 2001. Shell Pushes World’s First LNG Floater in Timor Sea. Inter-
national Gas Report.
Shukri, T. 2004. Liquefaction technology selection. Hydrocarbon Engi-
neering 9 (2): 71–74.
Vink, K.J. and Nagelvoort, R.K. 1998. Comparison of Baseload Liquefac-
tion Processes. Paper presented at the International Conference and
Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG-12, Perth, Australia, 4–7
May.
Waldie, B. 2002. Effects of Tilt and Motion on LNG and GTL Process
Equipment for Floating Production. Paper presented at the GPA Europe
Annual Conference, Rome, 25–27 September.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft × 3.048* E–01 ⳱ m
tonne × 1.0* E+00 ⳱ Mg
*Conversion factors are exact.
Saeid Mokhatab is an international associate of David Wood &
Associates, Lincoln, UK. His interests include natural gas engi-
neering, with a particular emphasis on natural gas transporta-
tion, LNG, and processing. He has participated as a senior
consultant in several international gas-engineering projects,
and has published several academic and industry oriented
papers and books. Mokhatab served on the Board of SPE Lon-
don Section during 2003–5, and was a recipient of the 2006 SPE
Editorial Review Committee’s Technical Editor Awards.
Michael J. Economides is a Professor at the Cullen College of
Engineering, University of Houston, and the managing partner
of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting
firm. He has authored or co-authored 14 professional textbooks
and books, including The Color Of Oil and more than 200 jour-
nal papers and articles. Economides does a wide range of
industrial consulting, including major retainers by national oil
companies at the national level and by Fortune 500 compa-
nies. He has had professional activities in over 70 countries. He
holds BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering from the
University of Kansas, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from Stanford University.
7