1 5 june 2015 paris, france - international gas unionmembers.igu.org/old/igu...
TRANSCRIPT
TS WOC 1-4 MONETISING STRANDED GAS RESOURCES ONSHORE
AND OFFSHORE
- The Palette Of Enabling Technologies, Their Comparative
Merits And Challenges In Commercial Application
Joe T. Verghese WorleyParsons Europe Ltd
London, United Kingdom
1 – 5 June 2015 – Paris, France
26th World Gas Conference
Monetising Stranded Gas Resources Onshore and Offshore
Stranded Gas- Origins
and Opportunities
Candidate Monetisation
Technologies
Drivers for Technology
Selection
Technology Maturity and
Technology Risk
Technical and
Commercial Merits
Case Study and
Pathfinding Economics
2
Presentation Overview
Economics
Technology
Markets
Gas Monetisation
Stranded Gas
Remote from markets and
pipeline infrastructure Stranded Gas
Flared from existing crude
oil production operations Flared Gas
Captive gas solutions for
new oil field development
projects
Associated Gas
Drivers for Monetisation
Oil company focus on environmental
management and conservation of
hydrocarbons
Government/State oil company
pressure for gas solutions as integral
to development plans for petroleum
extraction
Adverse impact on reservoir recovery
from long term gas injection strategies
The remoteness of the associated gas
source from conventional gas markets
Emerging Markets for ‘Clean’ fuels
(Legislation Driven)
5
Stranded Gas Reserves – Barriers to Monetisation
6
Stranded Gas
Resource
Lack of Pipeline
Infra-structure
Substantial
Contaminants
CO2/H2S
Political Risks
to
Development
Geographic
Constraints
Candidate technologies and Maturity Status
7
R a
nd
D
Pil
ot/
Dem
on
str
ati
on
Sc
ale
Pla
nts
Co
mm
erc
ial
Sc
ale
Un
its
Commercial Viability
Te
ch
no
log
y M
atu
rity
Do
main
s
Di-methyl Ether (DME)
Ionic Transport (Ceramic) Membranes - Air Products
Hydrates Transport
LNG
Methanol
Shell ‘MDS’
Sasol ‘Synthol’
Rentech
ConocoPhillips
Velocys
Compact GTL
Fis
ch
er
Tro
ps
ch
Electro-Ceramic Membranes
Floating CNG Floating LNG
Pathways to Monetisation
8
CNG Pipelines
Liquefaction
&
Solidification
Methanol
DME GTL
Chemical
Conversion
Hydrates
Compressed
Gas
Transport
Gas Value Chain
9
Dewpointing/Conditioning of Gas
Removal of Acid Gas/Contaminants
Stabilization of Condensates
NGL Extraction/ Fractionation
Base-load LNG
Mid-Scale LNG
DME
GTL
CNG
Hydrates
MEOH
NH3
Ethylene
Treating
&
Processing
Production
&
Gathering
Alternative
Transportation
Modes
Power
Chemicals
National Grid
Regional Grid
International Grid
Gas Monetisation – Distance to Markets
10
GTL
LNG
Onshore
Pipeline
Offshore
Pipeline
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Distance to eventual markets, kms
CNG
0
International Markets Regional (mid-markets)
Technology Application Bands
11
3.3
4.6
6.6
0.3
Field
Reserves (TCF)
Production
Rate (MMscfd)
Stranded Gas
Baseload
LNG
Midscale
LNG
GTL
DME
Methanol
CNG
1000
700
500
50
The LNG Value Chain
12
LNG
Receiving
& Storage
LNG
Transportation LNG Liquefaction Gas Fields
Gas
Fields LNG
Liquefaction
Terminal
LNGC LNG
Storage
Regional
Markets
LNG Liquefaction Gas Fields
LNG Liquefaction Technologies
Single Expander Cycle
NicheLNG (dual expanders, nitrogen + methane)
Mustang Smart LNG (open and closed loops)
Dual Nitrogen Expanders - BHP, Kanfa Aragon
Single Mixed Refrigerant (SMR) - Linde, APCI
Optimised Cascade - ConocoPhillips
Dual Mixed Refrigerant (DMR) - Shell, APCI
C3/MR - APCI
Mixed Fluid Cascade - Linde, Liquefin - Axens
13
Options Relative to Capacity
Train Capacity
0.5 to 2.0 mty
2.0 mty +
Monetisation of Offshore Gas via LNG – West Africa
14
Offshore
Shallow &
Deepwater
Blocks
Current status of monetisation of gas from
shallow and deep water block developments
Nigeria:
NLNG has been the principal vehicle for
monetisation of offshore gas.
Fields served include Bonga, Ofon, Usan,
and Egina
Angola:
Angola LNG implemented to similarly
monetise gas from deep water offshore
blocks
Current start-up issues with this project has
deferred monetisation.
Sonagas actively pursuing parallel options
for monetisation of offshore gas
Offshore Gas Monetisation via FLNG
15
Product Offtake
Non-Associated Gas Field
Subsea Wells
at Gas Field
LNG FPSO
LPG and
Condensate
Tankers
LNG Trade Carrier
Gas
Fe
ed
Sto
ck
Offshore Gas Monetisation via CNG
16
Subsea Wells
FCNG CNG
Trade
Carrier
Gas F
eed
Sto
ck
Gas Field
Onshore
Compression Floating CNG Unit
CNG Shipment
Marine Transport of CNG – The Sweet Spot
17
Onshore
Reception
Facilities
CNG
Unloading
CNG
Loading
Gas Field
Modest infrastructure at gas field
location and onshore delivery
location
Target Market Opportunities:
Gas Volume Rates of 200 – 500
MMScfd
Distances of 500 – 2000 kms
CNG Fleet Size & Vessel
Capacity function of
• Gas Rate
• Distance to Market
Offshore CNG Transport – Technology options
18
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.1
0
Z f
acto
r,
co
mp
ressib
ilit
y
Hi-Pressure,
Ambient Storage
Rich Gas -20ºF
Lean Gas
Pressure, psia
CNG Technology
Proprietor
Type
Coselle SeaNG,
Calgary
Pressurized,
Ambient
Votrans Enersea
Transport,
Houston
Pressurized,
Chilled
GTM Transcanada,
Calgary
Composite
Pressurized
Storage
LNG proponents have opted for three alternative technology approaches to
maximise CNG stored for given weight of containment unit.
CNG Containment Pressure Range:
1500 – 4000 psi
Elevate containment pressure to store
more gas
Chill gas to take advantage of favourable
compressibility factor
Choice of lighter materials (e.g. use of
composites)
FLNG and FCNG / Opportunities
Design maturation now attained for
FLNG concepts for mid-scale production
Flexible commercial models on offer for
FLNG and FCNG (Capex and lease
basis)
FCNG is more economic for
monetisation of a lower threshold of gas
reserve
FCNG scalability renders it suitable for
gas fields where progressive production
build-up envisaged
Hybrid architecture feasible whereby
initial field production commences with
FCNG, followed by FLNG deployment
19
Source: Flex LNG
Source: Sea NG
GTL Core Process
20
GTL CORE PROCESS
As
so
cia
ted
G
as
Oil
Production
Conditioning
Stranded
Gas
Storage/
Export
or
Reforming FT
Conversion Hydrocracking
Syncrude
Fractionation
CH4 + H20 = CO+3H2
2CH4 + O2 = 2CO + 4H2
CH4 + 202 = CO2 + 2H20
CH4 + CO2 = 2CO + 2H2
n CO + 2nH2 = [-CH2-] n +H2O
n CO + (2n+1) H2 = CnH2n+2+nH20
Typical Synthesis Gas Generation and Fischer Tropsch
21
Catalyst
Effluent Gas
Burner
Oxygen or Enriched Air
Refractory
Lined
Vessel
Hydrocarbon
Feed
and Steam
Typical Autothermal Reforming
Source: PSE/Total
Source: Velocys
Burner
Oxygen
Refractory
Lined
Vessel
Effluent Gas
Hydrocarbon
Feed
Typical Partial Oxidation
Barriers to GTL Application -Context of Stranded Gas
22
Technical Complexity
Petrochemical type operations
Multiple integrated operations
Project Cost
Wide variation and less
predictable
Currently perceived spread
$120,000 to $180,000 per bpsd
Investment levels challenge
economics
Project Risk
Significant over-runs in reference
plants
Technical Complexity feeds
schedule risk
Complexity
Investment
Risk
Offshore GTL – Export Options for FT Products
Exported untreated as
syncrude or blended with
crude export
Processed for pour point
and exported separately
from crude
Processed for pour point
and blended with crude
export
Processed and exported as
distillate products (Naphtha,
Kerosene, Diesel)
Offshore GTL Development
Floating
GTL facility
Oil or Gas FPSO
Offshore buoy
and
Shuttle Tanker
Vessel Motion and Impact on Process
System Performance
Mechanical Stresses on Process
Equipment Mounted on Deck due to:
Flexing of Vessel Deck and
Stresses on Piping Systems
Large Number and Complexity of
Equipment in Intensified Layout
Maintainability
Separation of Sensitive Air
Intake/Vent Sources
High Equipment Weight, Weight
Distribution and Point Loads
Offshore Design Considerations
Floater Based GTL Process Schemes
Capacity Implications for FT, Methanol and LNG Routes
25
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
50 100 150 200 250 300
Syn
cru
de
Pro
du
cti
on
(B
pd
)
FT Process Methanol mtd
MossGas Plant
Bintulu
Plant
LNG 106mta
7,500
6,000
4,500
3,000
1,500
1.0
2.0
3.0
350 400 450
Worldscale Methanol
Capacity
W.Africa
Offshore
Associated Gas
Range
Pearl GTL
Capacity:
140,000 bpd
LNG
FT
Gas Feed, MMscfd
Methanol
Gas (Energy) Transportation by HVDC
26
DC
DC
DC AC
AC
AC Market 3
Market 2
Market 1
Gas Field Power Station
•
• 0 500 1000 1500
SCALE
Converter Station
•
(kilometres)
Gas to Power – Long distance transmission to regional or international markets
Criteria Based Assessment of Technology Options
27
Criteria Technology
Maturity
Capital
intensity
(▲▲▲= low)
Technology Risk
(▲▲▲= low)
Market
Opportunity
(demand)
Product Price
Volatility
(▲▲▲= low)
Operability Intrinsic
Safety
NGLs/Stab.
Condensate ▲▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲
Mid-scale LNG ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲▲
Baseload LNG ▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲
CNG ▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲
▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲
DME ▲
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲▲
Methanol ▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲
▲▲
▲▲
GTL ▲▲
▲
▲
▲▲▲
▲▲
▲
▲▲
Ammonia/
Urea ▲▲▲
▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
Ethylene ▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲▲
Gas to Power ▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲▲
Onshore Monetisation- Applications
Criteria Based Assessment of Technology Options
28
Criteria Technology
Maturity
Capital
intensity
(▲▲▲=low)
Technology Risk
(▲▲▲=low)
Market
Opportunity
(demand)
Product Price
Volatility
(▲▲▲=low)
Operability Intrinsic
Safety
NGLs/Stab.
Condensate ▲▲▲ ▲▲▲
▲▲▲ ▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲
▲▲
Mid-scale FLNG ▲▲ ▲
▲▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲
Baseload FLNG ▲
▲
▲ ▲▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲
FCNG ▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲ ▲▲
▲▲
▲▲
Hydrates
Transportation ▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲
Offshore Monetisation – Applications
Case Study- Monetisation of Offshore Stranded Gas
29
Component Mol %
Methane 86.8
Ethane 6.91
Propane 3.87
i-Butane 0.40
n-Butane 0.67
Pentanes+ 0.55
CO2 0.71
N2 0.08
H2O 0.01
Total 100
Gas Field
FLNG or FCNG
Terminal
LNG FPSO located at field centre
Feed Gas
Price
Distance to
Market,
3000 km
Distance to
Market,
5000 km
USD/Mscf Delivered
LNG Price,
$/MMBTU
Delivered
LNG Price,
$/MMBTU
2 7.29 7.61
3 8.39 8.72
5 10.60 10.94
Feed Gas from subsea wells: Rate : 350 MMscfd
Feed Gas Prices (cases): Nominally priced at $2,
3 and 5/Mscf at FLNG riser flange.
LNG FPSO Production Life: 20 years
Corporation Tax: 38%
LNG price as delivered to Regasification terminal
Required IRR: 12%
Distance to market (cases): 3000 and 5000 km
No credit taken for revenues generated by NGLs
FLNG development costs exclude Subsea Capex.
Nominal LNG production: 2.3 mtpa
Cost of Service
Concluding Observations
30
Technology developments
herald unprecedented
opportunities for exploitation of
stranded gas.
Geography, size of gas reserves,
distance to markets etc will
determine the optimum mode of
energy delivery
Base load LNG remains a prime
contender for large stranded gas
reserves.
Mid-scale LNG technologies are
emerging as interesting options
for mid-tier gas reserves.
Ship transport of CNG has
commercial potential for energy
delivery to mid-markets &
regional markets.
Conventional Fischer Tropsch GTL offers key opportunities
for gas monetisation but scale of investment and project
risk are key co-determinants of application.
Horizon technology such as hydrates transport will further
expand an already impressive solutions portfolio.
Source : Alaska LNG