Presentation on theme: "Transportation of Natural Gas Using Liquid Carriers at Ambient Temperature Ben Thompson."— Presentation transcript:
Transportation of Natural Gas Using Liquid Carriers at Ambient Temperature Ben Thompson
Purpose of this Work In this work we evaluate the use of an existing storage method in transportation of natural gas using ships across the ocean. We consider the method to store natural gas in liquid hydrocarbon mixtures at moderate pressures and ambient temperature (OU/CBME patent). For this we will consider well-known storage architectures (Tube bundles & Coselle units) We will compare with the Liquefied method (LNG) and the High Pressure compressed gas method (CNG)
Overview Existing technology Previous work Present analysis Conclusions and recommendations
Existing Technology Existing Patent: “High-Energy Density Storage of Natural Gas at Moderate Temperatures” (Supergas™) Natural gas dissolved in pure liquid propane. ▫Initial evaluation was at low temperatures and moderate to high pressures. ▫Maximum loading : 70 mol % methane at lower temperatures.
Existing Technology Coselle units Composite piping
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Natural gas is highly compressed to pressures around 3000 psia. Ambient temperature. Cost effective when shipping distance is between 200 and 2500 miles.
Compressed Natural Gas Carrier Coselle unitsTube bundles
Liquefied Natural Gas Ambient pressure. Temperature: -161 ºC Cost effective with shipping distances greater than 2500 miles.
Density comparison Densities: -CNG – 128 kg/m 3 -LNG – 410 kg/m 3 -Supergas ™ – 329 kg/m 3 -This mixture has less methane (about 1/3 of the total mass) than CNG or LNG contributing to the density. Moles of Methane per cubic meter - Supergas ™ : 4800 at 80 degrees Fahrenheit and 1500 psi - LNG: CNG: 6400 at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 3000 psi LNG has the highest energy content and Supergas ™ at this temperature has the lowest.
Capacities 145,000 ton capacity tanker traveling at 18 knots. Every ship has same capacity so costs increase almost linearly to reach new distances. 14, 275 tons of natural gas could be stored on this tanker. Propane and equipment account for rest of weight.
Initial Conclusions Use of carbon fiber reinforced piping to ship natural gas in hydrocarbon carrier. 70 mol % methane mixture. 30 °F and 1500 psia.
Issues we investigated Variations in Density predictions and the possible error in profitability. ASME codes. Use of other solvents. Loading and unloading costs.
Density Prediction Methods Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) Peng-Robinson (PR) BWRS 50/50 molar mixture of propane and methane. The above methods were modified using their respective liquid density calculation methods. API method was the default, but it was not used.
Comparison of prediction methods 2.0 % variation between SRK and PR equations of state. SRK PR
Loading Station Specifics Equipment shown to the right. Mixer consists of 10 foot long, 24 inch ID stainless steel pipe. Upwards of 80,000 hp compressor power requirement. Compression Heat Exchanger (Cooling) Mixer
Methane Dissolution issues Additives to the mixture could increase the amount of methane dissolved within the propane. Both propane and methane are nonpolar, so any substance increasing nonpolar attractions will help this. Introduction of a fraction of some polar substance might cause this, but an agitator would be required for a continuous phase.
Unloading Station Specifics Equipment: - Heat exchanger - Flash drum - Expander - Distillation column (no condenser due to large energy requirements to condense methane) Specifics: - 15 theoretical trays. - Pre-cooling to 45 ◦F - Pressure drop in flash drum to 1000 psi - Column operating pressure of 500 psi - Column operating temperature of 20 ◦F - Only 98.9% of propane is recovered and it should be higher.
SRKPR BWRS Economic Comparison Thermodynamic Method effect: 1.8% variation for Coselle units, 2.0% variation for composite pipes., 0.6% variation in stainless steel pipes.
SRK PR BWRS Economic Comparison Coselle units and composite piping are on the scale of billions of net profit per year.
Economic Comparison Operating costs of LNG decrease with increased production. This assumes constant operation. Supergas method assumes only operation on days of loading/unloading.
Economic Comparison Shipping costs are the deterrent in the profitability of this method. Higher capacity tankers or lower cost tankers could limit this cost and make method profitable. Only high prices could make this method profitable.
Economic Analysis LNG requires fewer ships to complete the specified capacity. Shipping costs rely on charter rate of $65,000.
ASME Codes Carbon fiber composite piping Required for low weight to be competitive No codes exist Legal and safety issues were not analyzed
Other Solvents Other solvents explored: ▫Heavier hydrocarbons in pure form and in mixtures. ▫Acetone: 3000 psia for equivalent molar mixture ▫Cyclohexane and other hydrocarbons. These solvents do not have any higher capacity for carrying methane at moderate pressures.
Conclusions Transportation using Supergas™ and carbon reinforced pipes is not more profitable than LNG at any distance. Required shipping costs to meet the capacity supplied by LNG keep this method from being economical. Possible errors in the thermodynamic prediction methods for density only affect the profitability by 2.0% maximum Research on additives to enhance methane diffusion into solvent might be advisable. At high gas costs, around $100/ton, it may be profitable for short distances. But, LNG would gain the same benefits.