CN4118R B. Eng.

Dissertation
Interim Report
LNG Regasification

Optimization of Process Configuration for LNG Regasification

Muhammad Rias, B.S.H
Depa rtmen t of Chemical & Biomolecula r Engineering, Faculty of Engin eering, National Univers ity of S ingap ore

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Article History:
1st Draft 26 August 2016
Revised 14 October 2016
Final Draft 21 October 2016
Interim Submission 31 October 2016

LNG regasification terminals control the higher heating value (HHV)

of natural gas pumped into the pipelines by separating heavier
components (C2+) from the LNG. The C2+ recovery allows the
natural gas separated to meet the pipeline specifications.
Moreover, additional revenue could be gained from the sales of the
heavier natural gas liquids (NGL) to the petrochemical industries.
This paper is a techno-economic analysis of various LNG
regasification configurations. Simulations with Aspen HYSYS is used
to study effects of parameters and operating conditions on
configuration performance. Economic analysis is used as a
selection criteria for the best configuration for the various
scenarios studied.

Keywords:
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
LNG Regasification
Natural Gas Liquids (NGL)
NGL Recovery
Expander-based Technology
Turbo-expander processes
C2+ Recovery

Contents
1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1

Research Motivation ............................................................................................................... 3

1.2

Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 3

Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................... 3

Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 3

3.1

Reflux-Demethanizer Technologies for NGL recovery from LNG ........................................... 3

3.2

Expander-based Technology for High Pressure Feed ............................................................. 4

Methodology................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1

Effects of Parameters on Configuration Performance ............................................................ 6

4.2

Configurations for LNG Regasification .................................................................................... 6

4.3

LNG Regasification Preliminary Configurations ...................................................................... 7

Preliminary Results & Discussion .................................................................................................... 8

5.1

Preliminary Simulation Results ............................................................................................... 8

5.2

Progress, Challenges and Problem Solving ........................................................................... 13

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 14

References .................................................................................................................................... 15

1 Introduction
When LNG reaches the receiving terminal, it must be vaporized and pressurized to be distributed in
the pipelines. The heating value could be controlled by dilution with nitrogen. However, when the
import LNG is rich, this method becomes inapplicable as the amount of nitrogen necessary to bring
the HHV down will far exceed the percentage limit of nitrogen allowed.

Figure 1-1: LNG Conditioning by Dilution with Nitrogen [1]

Another method of HHV control would be the C2+ recovery. This means removing heavier
hydrocarbons in a demethanizer. Not only would an optimized C2+ recovery unit provide flexibility for
different LNG import compositions (Table 1-1), it could increase economic gains from the sales of the
heavier hydrocarbons as petrochemical feedstock.
Table 1-1: LNG Import Compositions [2]

Component

Abu

Bay,

Bintulu

Arun,

Lumut,

Botang,

Laffan,

wt %
Methane
(C1)
Ethane
(C2)
Propane
(C3)
Butane
(C4)
Pentane
(C5)

Dhabi
87.1

Australia
87.8

Malaysia
91.2

Indonesia
89.2

Brunei
89.4

Indonesia
90.6

Qatar
89.6

11.4

8.3

4.28

8.58

6.3

6.25

1.27

2.98

2.87

1.67

2.8

2.48

2.19

0.141

0.875

1.36

0.511

1.3

0.82

1.07

0.001

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.04

1.1 Research Motivation

Recovery of C2+ is necessary to meet pipeline gas specification where a recovery of less than 50%
would suffice. However, should there be high marketability for the C2+, a higher level of recovery
could contribute to additional gains from the regasification process.
LNG regasification with NGL recovery has few studies done for optimal configuration
There is scope additional gains from NGL recovery during LNG regasification based on the
marketability of C2+
Higher recovery level would be desirable, given that HHV specifications for natural gas is met
NGL recovery facilities retrofitted to LNG regasification facilities would provide flexibility for
import of LNG from various sources there would be flexibility on variations in LNG feed
compositions

1.2 Research Objectives

Achieve natural gas flow within HHV range of pipe specifications
Critically analyse seven configurations of Fahmy et al. (2015)
Integrate expander-based & cold reflux technology and proposed alternative configuration for
comparison
Graphical analysis of parameter changes on configuration performance
Select best configurations based on economic analysis Net Present Value (NPV)

2 Problem Statement
This paper critically examines the work presented by Fahmy et al. [3] and proposed alternative
configuration for the several factors not considered in the paper. The seven conceptual designs
presented in the work were simulated using Aspen HYSYS. Although, the configurations compared
were based on the treatment of the residue gas, the paper did not consider LNG feed compositions
lean and rich. Moreover, the feed conditions and fractionation were at high pressure ranges only.
Moreover, both reflux demethanizer and expander based technologies were excluded.
The aim of this paper is to bridge the gaps and to allow a column design which can allow
Imports of lean and rich LNG
High pressures or low pressure operations
Operations optimized for OPEX
Comparison for best configuration based on economic analysis Net Present Value (NPV)

3 Literature Review
3.1 Reflux-Demethanizer Technologies for NGL recovery from LNG
In this section, the current and prior art to the LNG regasification and C2+ recovery will be discussed
and compared to glean some insights for the design of the configurations to be tested. Most of the
configurations and patented technologies used in the industries by companies such as Foster Wheeler
and Ortloff.

It is to be noted that the configurations by Fahmy, Nabih [3] did not incorporate fractionator reflux.
However, patented fractionator technologies [4] do utilize a partial condenser to reflux residue gas
for several reasons. When LPG extraction or chemical composition modification of crude LNG in
involved, it is desirable for additional cooling of the fractionator and reflux. This process is known to
allow propane and ethane recoveries of at least 99% and 70% respectively [5].

Figure 3-1: Fractionator Column with Cold Reflux [4]

In one such configuration by Mak, Nielsen [4] shown in Figure 3-1, the reflux ratio is varied according
to the desired quality and quantity of the bottom product. This configuration is similar to the NGL
recovery configuration from methane rich gaseous feed, which is done prior to liquefaction of LNG
[6]. There is, however, the concern of performance such a configuration based on energy
consumption. An increase in column reboiler duty is expected when there is reflux although the
recovery of C2+ is higher. A configuration by Yokohata, Yamaguchi [7] suggested splitting part of the
reboiler duty with air-heating but such heater would require large heat transfer area. An economic
analysis would elucidate if such a trade-off is worthwhile.

3.2 Expander-based Technology for High Pressure Feed

NGL recovery can be categorized into reflux demethanizer (section 3.1) and expander-based
technology. The expander-based process is extensively used in NGL recovery from natural gas (Figure
3-2). Using LNG feed instead would represent an extreme case where there is an abundance of
refrigeration to be utilized. Studying this case would expound applicable configuration designs for an
LNG regasification terminal. In a NG plant, turbo expander provides the refrigeration required for the
separation process while in the LNG regasification plant, this is not necessary. The expansion process
in regasification is mainly power recovery rather than additional refrigeration.

Figure 3-2: Turbo-Expander Process in a Natural Gas Plant[8]

4 Methodology
The eight new configurations proposed contain both reflux de-methanizer and expander-based
technologies. Simulations will be carried out for each proposed configuration using Aspen HYSYS. The
LNG feed conditions and pipeline specifications for the main report were chosen to resemble the
condition for Singapore. However, the preliminary simulations were done according to the parameters
and condition used in Fahmy, Nabih [3]. The Peng-Robinson-Stryjek (PRSV) fluid package was used and
care was taken not to operate any of the columns above the critical pressure of methane (46 bars).
Table 4-1: Feed Conditions

Plant Capacity
Inlet Temperature
Inlet Pressure
Heating Value

MMscfd
C
bar
kJ/m3

500
-160
Varied accordingly
40,314.20

Table 4-2: Pipeline Specification

Higher Heating Value (HHV)

Pressure
Temperature

kJ/m3
bar
C

38,000
40
15

The target is to get a specific HHV, instead of a range as used in Fahmy, Nabih [3], for a fairer
comparison of the configurations. The configurations of Fahmy, Nabih [3] will be re-simulated for the
newly specified feed conditions and targets together with the 8 new configurations proposed in this
paper. The best configuration will be selected based on economic analysis.

4.1 Effects of Parameters on Configuration Performance

Before optimization, the common operating conditions and parameters to be studied are:
1. Feed temperature
2. Column Pressure
3. Number of Trays
Some configurations, such as Configuration A, where there is compressor used, the effects of the
discharge pressure will be studied additionally. The effects of the parameters will then be graphically
represented for validation of theoretical hypotheses. All conflicting results will be analysed further in
the discussion section.

4.2 Configurations for LNG Regasification

Figure 4-1: Gas Conditioning Process for Rich LNG Feed [9]

Integrating NGL recovery to existing regasification plant would meaning retrofitting an LNG
regasification unit with a NGL recovery unit, which should include the option of being bypassed for
direct regasification or put online for NGL recovery.
The process synthesis of the preliminary configurations was done to encompass both reflux and
expander technologies. The currently patented regasification technologies were thoroughly studied
and to generate the current 8 configurations. As mentioned previously, most the configurations
include reflux, either as cold reflux of a portion of the LNG feed or a portion of the condense residue
refluxed back into the de-methanizer.
Configurations A and D consist of residue treatment, compression and condensation respectively.
Both configurations comprise of a refluxed de-methanizer. Configuration H, without reflux, is studied
as a comparison. H is a simple process suggested for floating regasification with multiple flash and a
demethanizer, where the residue condensed and mixed with the top product of preceding flash units.
Configuration G and F consist of all three processes condensing, compressing and reflux of the
residue. The former use feed as reflux while the latter uses condensed residue reflux.
The turbo expander technology is studied in configurations B and C. Configuration B is adapted from
the Ortloff process [10], consisting of a single turbo-expander. Configuration C adapted from Fluor
Tech Corp. [1], is another configuration suggested for floating regasification. C comprises of LNG feed
pumped to supercritical pressure of 83 bars and subsequently expanded twice. Heat exchange is done
with the residue to fully condense it for pumping and heating to pipeline specifications.
Finally, configuration E explores the option of side reboiler and cold reflux. Configurations are
presented in the next section.

4.3 LNG Regasification Preliminary Configurations

Configuration A: Compression & Reflux

Configuration E: Side Reboiler & Cold Reflux

Configuration B: Expander & Cold Reflux

Configuration F: Compress, Condense & Reflux

Configuration C: Double Expander & Feed

Configuration G: Compress, Condense & Reflux

Configuration D: Condensation & Reflux

Configuration H: Flash & Condenser

5 Preliminary Results & Discussion

The preliminary simulation was done using the LNG feed conditions and pipe specification from
Fahmy, Nabih [3].
Table 5-1:Pipeline Specification used in Fahmy, Nabih [3]

Higher Heating Value (HHV) Range

Pressure
Temperature

kJ/m3
bar
C

35,768 39,121
100
5

5.1 Preliminary Simulation Results

Table 5-2: Summary of Results for A, B, G & H
Table 5-3: Results
for A, B, G & HType
Sim

Performance

Units

A cmr

G -ccr

B-Turbo

D-cdr

H-MF

Total Heat Duty

kJ/h*10^(-6)

279.2

279.8

281.0

283.6

284.9

Sim

Total Power

kJ/h*10^(-6)

13.04

12.66

13.80

12.72

11.93

Sim

NG flow rate

370.95

368.93

370.73

383.66

379.06

Sim

C2+ recovery

kg/h * 10^(3)
%

88.38

79.48

75.04

51.55

84.89

Sim

HHV

kJ/Nm3

37792

37911

37994

38532

38197

HHV Reduction

6.06

5.76

5.55

4.22

5.05

Parameters

Description

Units

Sim/Paper

T2

Feed Temp

-92

-86.66

-65

-65

-79.55

Sim/Paper

Column P

bar

30

40

40

43

34

Sim/Paper

Trays

trays

14

14

14

10

Sim/Paper

S6

B C1 mol%

Sim/Paper

P7

Com Discharge P

bar

40

42.5

-65

Sim/Paper

S4

Split Fraction,
Cf5

1:0
no
reflux

29:71

32:68

43

Figure 2: Configuration A: Compression & Reflux

Table 5-4: Unoptimized Performance of Configuration A

Total Heat Duty

Total Power
NG flow rate
C2+ recovery
HHV
HHV Reduction
Parameters
T2
P
N
S6
P7
S4

Description
Feed Temp
Column P
Trays
B C1 mol%
Compressor discharge P
Split Fraction, Cf5

kJ/h*10^(-6)
kJ/h*10^(-6)
kg/h * 10^(-3)
%
kJ/Nm3
%
Units
C
bar
trays
%
bar
-

Figure 3: Configuration B: Turbo-Expander & Reflux

279.22
13.04
370.95
88.38
37792
6.06
-92
30
14
1
40
1:0

Table 5-5: Unoptimized Performance of Configuration B

Total Heat Duty

Total Power
NG flow rate
C2+ recovery
HHV
HHV Reduction
Parameters
T2
P
N
S6
P7
S4

Description
Feed Temp
Column P
Trays
B C1 mol%
Compressor discharge P
Split Fraction, Cf5

kJ/h*10^(-6)
kJ/h*10^(-6)
kg/h * 10^(-3)
%
kJ/Nm3
%
Units
C
bar
trays
%
bar
-

Figure 4: Configuration D: Condense & Reflux

280.96
13.80
370.73
75.04
37994
5.55
-65
40
14
1
-

Table 5-6: Unoptimized Performance of Configuration D

Total Heat Duty

Total Power
NG flow rate
C2+ recovery
HHV
HHV Reduction
Parameters
T2
P
N
S6
P7
S4

Description
Feed Temp
Column P
Trays
B C1 mol%
Compressor discharge P
Split Fraction, Cf5

kJ/h*10^(-6)
kJ/h*10^(-6)
kg/h * 10^(-3)
%
kJ/Nm3
%
Units
C
bar
trays
%
bar
-

Figure 5: Configuration G: Compress, Condense & Reflux

283.56
12.72
383.66
51.55
38532
4.22
-65
43
10
1
283.56
12.72

Table 5-7: Unoptimized Performance of Configuration D

Total Heat Duty

Total Power
NG flow rate
C2+ recovery
HHV
HHV Reduction
Parameters
T2
P
N
S6
P7
S4

Description
Feed Temp
Column P
Trays
B C1 mol%
Compressor discharge P
Split Fraction, Cf5

kJ/h*10^(-6)
kJ/h*10^(-6)
kg/h * 10^(-3)
%
kJ/Nm3
%
Units
C
bar
trays
%
bar
-

Figure 6: Configuration H: Multiple Flash & Condense

279.76
12.66
368.93
79.48
37911
5.76
-86.66
40
14
1
42.5
29:71

Table 5-8: Unoptimized Performance of Configuration H

Total Heat Duty

Total Power
NG flow rate
C2+ recovery
HHV
HHV Reduction
Parameters
T2
P
N
S6
P7
S4

Description
Feed Temp
Column P
Trays
B C1 mol%
Compressor discharge P
Split Fraction, Cf5

kJ/h*10^(-6)
kJ/h*10^(-6)
kg/h * 10^(-3)
%
kJ/Nm3
%
Units
C
bar
trays
%
bar
-

284.9
11.93
379.06
84.89
38197
5.05
-79.55
34
7
1
-

5.2 Progress, Challenges and Problem Solving

From Cuellar, Hudson [10], total condensation of residue is possible through a turbo-expander. The
work recovered from expanding high pressure vapour to the demethanizer inlet is used to compress
the residue before heat exchanging it with the LNG feed. This can be further explained by the Mollier
diagram (Figure 5-7). The enthalpy required for complete condensation after compression, H-I, is
much smaller than the case without compression, G-I. However, for those configurations without the
turbo-expander, the complete condensation of residue through heat exchange with the LNG feed
might not be possible with the current parameters. The parameters must be carefully tuned for
column convergence and effective heat exchange. This would be the main objective of the next phase
of the simulation.

Figure 5-7: Mollier Diagram for Methane [10]

An alternative solution currently being simulated is the splitting the LNG feed and directly mixing one
of the parts with the residue. However, the flow rate of LNG required to completely absorb all the
residue should be calculated. Moreover, splitting the feed affects the residue being produced in the
first place. Since one is dependent on the other, it is not simple to optimize the split ratio which could
achieve the complete condensation objective. The process of optimization is still ongoing.
The final challenge was to decide on a fair basis of comparison. Fahmy, Nabih [3] had chosen the
acceptance/rejection criteria to be the net gain from economic analysis. However, the optimization
seems to be biased towards the configuration which achieves maximum gains from sale of C2+
recovery. This is the case because the price of the NGL recovered is higher than the sales price of NG
[11]. Hence, optimization would naturally result in the configuration with higher NGL recovery.
However, the prices used may not be applicable to countries where NG would fetch a higher gain. In
that case, the decision for the best configuration might be entirely different.

5.3 Refining the Methodology

Figure 8: Scenarios for lean and rich LNG feed

Further refinement to the methodology was recently done. Since the optimization and
acceptance/rejection criteria was heavily influenced by the fluctuating spot market prices of LNG, C2+
and NG, incorporating them would result in a bias selection of the best configuration. Hence, the
problem was circumvented by first calculating the additional cost of recovering C2+ for HHV control
of rich LNG (minus any savings from a better deal of LNG imported). Next, refer to figure 11, the sales
price of C2+ stream ($x/kg) necessary to break even for the additional cost of recovery should be
determined. This price can now be easily compared with the fluctuating spot price of C2+ at a certain
point in time. If the spot prices of C2+ is higher than the breakeven price, it would make business sense
to put the C2+ recovery unit online and purchase rich LNG sold at better deals from various sources.
The amount addition rich LNG needed to maintain the same production of NG at a specific HHV would
depend on the composition of the LNG purchased. Hence, the analysis and discussion would be
considering various feed compositions and its impact on performance of the separating unit.

6 Conclusion
Cost estimates, CAPEX and OPEX might sway selection of the best configuration and is dependent on
the relative prices of NG and NGL. Based on the recent refinement to the methodology, the

configurations to be simulated are being reconsidered as percentage recovery of C2+ is no longer the
target. The new target would be to minimize the additional cost of C2+ production per kg.

7 References
1.
Mak, J., Configurations and methods for offshore LNG regasification and heating value
conditioning. 2014, Google Patents.
2.
Yang, C.C., A. Kaplan, and Z. Huang, Method and apparatus for reducing C2 and C3 at LNG
receiving terminals. 2007, Google Patents.
3.
Fahmy, M.F.M., H.I. Nabih, and T.A. El-Rasoul, Optimization and comparative analysis of LNG
regasification processes. Energy, 2015. 91: p. 371-385.
4.
Mak, J., R.B. Nielsen, and C. Graham, Liquid natural gas fractionation and regasification plant.
2013, Google Patents.
5.

Mak, J., et al., Lng regasification configurations and methods. 2006, Google Patents.

6.
Lee, R.J., et al., Enhanced NGL recovery utilizing refrigeration and reflux from LNG plants. 2002,
Google Patents.
7.
Yokohata, H., S. Yamaguchi, and A. Tamakoshi, Process and apparatus for separation of
hydrocarbons from liquefied natural gas. 2014, Google Patents.
8.

Huebal, R.R., New NGL-recovery process provides viable alternative. 2012.

9.
Shah, K., Gas conditioning process for the recovery of LPG/NGL (C2+) from LNG. 2016, Google
Patents.
10.
Cuellar, K.T., H. Hudson, and J. Wilkinson. Economical options for recovering NGL/LPG at LNG
receiving terminals. in 86th Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association, San Antonio. 2007.
11.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural Gas Prices. 2015; Available from:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_PRI_FUT_S1_A.htm.

Final Year Project

National University of Singapore

30 Oct, 2016
http://

Project manager
Project dates

14 Aug, 2016 - 1 Jan, 2017

Completion
Tasks
Resources

56%
36
0

Final Year Project Scheduling

Final Year Project

Tasks

30 Oct, 2016
2

Name
Phase I
Literature Review
How-To
Database
Draft Writing
HYSYS Base Case

Begin date
14/8/16
14/8/16
14/8/16
15/8/16
16/8/16
26/8/16

End date
26/8/16
26/8/16
14/8/16
15/8/16
20/8/16
26/8/16

Completion
100
100
100
100
100
100

Phase II
Research Focus
Meeting with Mentor
Literature Case Simulations

15/8/16
26/8/16
15/8/16
26/8/16

16/9/16
28/8/16
15/8/16
16/9/16

100
100
100
100

Phase III - Interim

Research Proposal
Research Literature Refining
Mentor Feedback
Base Case Analysis
Mentor Feedback
Interim Report Writing
Process Sythesis & Simulation
Finalization of Configurations
Mentor Feedback
Mentor Feedback
Interim Submission

19/9/16
19/9/16
19/9/16
23/9/16
21/9/16
30/9/16
7/10/16
7/10/16
14/10/16
21/10/16
28/10/16
31/10/16

31/10/16
14/10/16
14/10/16
23/9/16
30/9/16
30/9/16
31/10/16
7/10/16
14/10/16
21/10/16
28/10/16
31/10/16

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Phase IV
Simulations and Results
Troubleshooting & Optimization

31/10/16
31/10/16
4/11/16

11/11/16
4/11/16
11/11/16

0
0
0

Final Year Project

Tasks

30 Oct, 2016
3

Name
Reading Week
Examinaiton Period

Begin date
12/11/16
19/11/16

End date
18/11/16
3/12/16

Completion
0
0

Phase V
Results & Discussion
Mentor Feedback
Refining Thesis and Literature Review
Mentor Feedback

3/12/16
3/12/16
9/12/16
9/12/16
16/12/16

16/12/16
9/12/16
9/12/16
16/12/16
16/12/16

0
0
0
0
0

Phase VI
Mentor Feedback
Finalizing Thesis & Conclusion
Thesis Submission

11/12/16
23/12/16
11/12/16
31/12/16

31/12/16
23/12/16
11/12/16
31/12/16

0
0
0
0

Final Year Project

Gantt Chart

30 Oct, 2016
4

August 2016

Name

Begin date

End date

Week 32

Completion
31/7/16

Phase I

14/8/16

26/8/16

100

Phase II

15/8/16

16/9/16

100

Phase III - Interim

19/9/16

31/10/16

100

Phase IV

31/10/16

11/11/16

Reading Week

12/11/16

18/11/16

Examinaiton Period

19/11/16

3/12/16

Phase V

3/12/16

16/12/16

3/12/16

9/12/16

Results & Discussion

Mentor Feedback

9/12/16

Refining Thesis and Literatu...9/12/16

16/12/16

Mentor Feedback

16/12/16

16/12/16

11/12/16

31/12/16

Phase VI

9/12/16

September 2016
Week 33

Week 34

Week 35

7/8/16

14/8/16

21/8/16

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

Week 36

Week 37

Week 38

Week 39

Week 40

Week 41

Week 42

Week 43

Week 44

Week 45

Week 46

Week 47

Week 48

Week 49

Week 50

Week 51

Week 52

Week 53

Week 1

28/8/16

4/9/16

11/9/16

18/9/16

25/9/16

2/10/16

9/10/16

16/10/16

23/10/16

30/10/16

6/11/16

13/11/16

20/11/16

27/11/16

4/12/16

11/12/16

18/12/16

25/12/16

1/1/17

Phase I
Phase II
Phase III - Interim
Phase IV
Reading Week
Examinaiton Period
Phase V
Results & Discussion
Mentor Feedback
Refining Thesis and Literature Review
Mentor Feedback
Phase VI