LNG Conference P1

7/29/2019 LNG Conference P1

1/21

The Atlantic LNG Train 2/3Expansion ProjectTurning the Challenges

Into

Successes with Technology

Prepared for

Gastech 2005 in Bilbao, Spain

15 March 2005


2/21

Slide 2of 21

Authors

Dave Messersmith, PE

Bechtel Corporation

LNG Technology Manager

LNG Group Deputy Mgr.

Process Engineer

Carlos Yengle

Bechtel Corporation

Advanced Simulat ions

Process Engineer

Peter Rutherford

BP America

Controls and Instrument

Engineer for Atlantic LNG

Trent Yackimec

BP America

Process Engineer for

At lant ic LNG


3/21

Slide 3of 21

Facility InformationFacility InformationLocated in Point FortinLocated in Point Fortin

Trinidad and Tobago, WITrinidad and Tobago, WI


4/21

Slide 4of 21

Facility Informationacility InformationProject History

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Start EPC

May 96

First LNG

Mar 99

Turnover

Jun 99

Start EPC

Feb 01

CompleteJul 02

Start EPC

Nov 99

First LNG

Aug 02

Turnover

Oct 02

First LNG

Apr 03

Turnover

Jun 03

Start EPC

Jan 02

First LNG

4th qtr 05

Turnover

Early 06

Train 1

Train 2 Train 3

Train 1

Upgrade

Train 4


5/21

Slide 5of 21

Train 2/3 Expansion Challengesrain 2/3 Expansion Challenges Scope Near Duplicate of Train 1 w/ Key Modifications Capacity Train 1 +10%

Key Enhancements Turbine Drivers Frame 5D Propane System hydraulics Improvements

Heat exchanger pressure drop optimization

Heavies Removal Column mechanical design Improvements Anti-surge valve Upgrades

Inlet Gas Filtration enhancements

Molecular Sieve Bed piping optimization

Challenges Schedule, Cost, Lessons Learned fromTrain 1, Feed Gas Pressure, Inlet Compression


6/21

Slide 6of 21

Inlet Compressionnlet Compression Expansion included new 24 North Gas Field supply Demand on existing 36 exceeded initial capacity

Inlet pressure designed for reduction of 15 bar Compression located immediately upstream of LNG

Facility

Commercial Requirements

Contractual Limitations

Operational Complexities

No buffer volume for LNG Facility

Engineering committed late in design Provides gas to all 3 Trains


7/21

Slide 7of 21

Inlet Compressionnlet Compression


8/21

Slide 8of 21

Inlet Compressionnlet Compression


9/21

Slide 9of 21

Inlet Compressionnlet CompressionProcess Requirements 1280 MMSCFD feed flow (normal) 250 MMSCFD (min)

37.5 barg Inlet Pressure (min) 52 barg Outlet Pressure (min)

GE Frame 5C Driver

Follow facility f low transitions as required Prevent cascading trips

These Process and Operational requirements led to a

study utilizing a rigorous dynamic computer

simulation model.


10/21

Slide 10 of 21

Dynamic Modelynamic Model Hysys.plant ver 2.4.1 Scope of Train 1 Model

Inlet Pipelines

Inlet Gas treatment

Refrigeration Systems

Methane Compression

NGL Recovery Equipment & Instruments modeled with unit operations

System volumes and hydraulics based on isos

Equipment information based on vendor data Control parameters based on actual Train 1 information


11/21

Slide 11 of 21

Dynamic Modelynamic ModelScenarios1. Feed Gas Compression (FGC) Start up w/ Train 1 &

2 running normally

2. Train 1 process shutdown impact on FGC and

Train 2 and 3.

3. FGC Trip impact on Train 1, 2 & 3New Feed gas

BP - 36" Pipeline

Train 1 gasprocessing and

liquefactionMetering

Slug catcherPig receiver

compressor


liquefaction


liquefaction

BG - 24" Pipeline

Metering

Slug catcherPig receiver

100%

50%

50%

75%

25%

Percentage figures represent proportions o fTrain feed gas sourced from different pipelines


12/21

Slide 12 of 21

Dynamic Modelynamic ModelFGC TripFGC Trip

B P F e e d - P r e s su r e [ b a r ]

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T i m e ( m i n u t e s )

Train 1 LNG Prod uct - Mass Flow

[kg/h]

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


BG Feed- Pressure [bar]

61.46

61.48

61.50

61.52

61.54

61.56

61.58

61.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T i me (mi n u t e s )

BP Feed - Pressure [bar]

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T i me (mi n u t e s )

B G F e e d - P r e s su r e [ b a r ]

61.46

61.48

61.50

61.52

61.54

61.56

61.58

61.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Train 1 LNG Product - Mass Flow

[kg/h]

0

50000

100000150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time (mi nut es)


13/21

Slide 13 of 21

Dynamic Modelynamic ModelFGC TripFGC Trip

Inlet Feed Gas Compre ssor

Inlet/Outlet Pre ssure

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Inlet Feed Gas Compressor Bypass -

Molar F low [kgmole/h]

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Train 1 Feed - Molar Flow [kgmole/h]

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T im e (m inutes )

Train 1 Feed - Pressure [bar]

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T im e (m inutes )Inlet Feed Gas Compressor

Inlet/Outlet Pressure

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ti me (minut es)

Inlet Feed Gas Compressor Bypass -

Molar Flow [kgmole/h]

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time ( minut es)

Train 1 Feed - Molar Flow [kgmole/h]

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time (mi nut es)

Train 1 Feed - Pressure [bar]

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time ( minut es)


14/21

Slide 14 of 21

Dynamic Modelynamic ModelInitial Results Low BP Pressure no flow for about a minute

Satisfactory BG Pressure Refrigerant system disturbances

Surge events anticipated for methane system

Line pack allowed temporary increase in BG flow

Modified Simulation

Conserve BP flow for Train 1

Attempt to satisfy at least feed rate for each train

Modify controls to isolate BP feed to Train 2/3

Increase BG flow to Train 2/3 temporarily


15/21

Slide 15 of 21

Fig. 3 - Train 1 Inlet Feed Gas Molar Flo

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

3000035000

0 2 4 6 8Time (min)

MolarFlow

k

mole/h

Modified

Solution

Fig. 4 - Train 1 Inlet Feed Gas Pressur

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

0 2 4 6 8Time (min)

Pressure

bar

Modified

Solution

Dynamic Modelynamic Model


16/21

Slide 16 of 21

Field Testingield TestingPlan FGC Commissioned May 03

Full processing rates in all three trains

Validate results of simulation

Trip FGC

Train 3 reduce BP feed to zero, increase BG feed to 50%

Train 2 reduce BP feed to zero, maintain BG feed at 50%

Train 1 Hold BP feed rate to 50%


17/21

Slide 17 of 21

Field Testingield TestingFig. 7 - Train 1 Inlet Feed Gas Molar Flow- Field Dat

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

3000035000

0 2 4 6 8Time (min)

MolarFlow

k

mole/h

Field Data

Fig. 8 - Train 1 Inlet Feed Gas Pressure - Field Data

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

0 2 4 6 8Time (min)

Pressure

bar

Field Data


18/21

Slide 18 of 21

Response

3.5 minutes until f low resumes from BP, low pressure

6.5 minutes until inlet pressure returns to 51 barg

Train 1 flow decreased to 22% of capacity slowly

Many operational deviations, but no equipment trips

Recovery to 50% rates in about 4 minutes

No loss of condensing

Train 2 & 3 rode through the upset smoothly

Machines not driven to surge

After the trip, facility was restricted to 50% rate

The simulation was not limited to rate

Field Testingield Testing


19/21

Slide 19 of 21

Closing Remarkslosing Remarks Dynamic model closely predicted actual field results Development of safe operating instruction in advance

Illustrated operational concerns prior to start-up

Used to predict other upsets with confidence

Combined team of specialists reduced risks for system


20/21

Slide 20 of 21

Schedule 65 days early

Production & Efficiency exceeded requirements

Ease of start up 68 days first LNG to turnover

Schedule 80 days early

Production & Efficiency exceeded requirements

Ease of start up 46 days first LNG to turnover

Over 18 mill ion hours worked at facil ity since last LTA

Train 2/3 Expansion Successesrain 2/3 Expansion SuccessesTrain 2Train 2

Train 3Train 3

SafetySafety


21/21

Slide 21 of 21

Question or CommentsQuestion or Comments

??

LNG Conference P1

Documents

Transcript of LNG Conference P1