Optimized Vaporization

Conditions

Process

with

Unfavorable

Design

In-Soo Chun
Senior Executive Vice President
Seungchul Lee
General Manager
Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd.
AIChE Spring Meeting, April 2008
8th Topical Conference on Natural Gas Utilization
New Orleans, LA, April 6-10, 2008
ABSTRACT
There are several types of vaporization schemes which have been
commercially developed, such as Open Rack Vaporizer (ORV), Fired heater with
Shell and Tube Vaporizer, Submerged Combustion Vaporizer (SCV),
Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer, Ambient Air Vaporizer, etc. Selection of the right
vaporizer system is the most important process in LNG Terminal design as the
regasifying costs contribute major portion of an LNG terminal operation.
High reliability with low operating costs of the regasifying system is a key
parameter for a successful operation of an LNG receiving terminal. Incheon LNG
terminal, one of the biggest LNG terminals in the World, has successfully
optimized vaporization facility for the most unfavorable weather conditions. The
terminals vaporization involves ORV, SCV and seawater heater (SW HTR).
Seawater temperature conditions at Incheon terminal during winter is often
below the ORVs design temperature. However, during the same time the gas
demand reaches at its peak. The operation flexibilities and production capacity
reduces extremely under this unfavorable conditions.
Optimized vaporization has been achieved by combination of SCV and
ORV with SW HTR. SW HTR enables seawater to be used as a heating medium,
even though its temperature is below the design temperature. Without seawater
heating by SW HTR, ORV may not be operated. Even it can be operated with
lower seawater temperature, vaporization capacity is quite limited.
This paper reviews ORV performance and optimum heat recovery
temperature under harsh seawater temperature. This paper discusses practical
optimization of vaporization with the unfavorable seawater conditions in winter.
Economic comparison between conventional vaporization and optimized
vaporization, which are under operation, is also discussed.

61

INTRODUCTION
Inchoen terminal, which is the second LNG terminal after Pyeong-taek
terminal, was planned to provide base load of natural gas for the Seoul
metropolitan area. Gas demand in the metropolitan area is higher than any other
areas in the country. The main advantage of this terminal is to shorten the gas
transportation distance resulting in lower transportation cost. However, there are
several constraints in the terminal design. These include site preparation and
temperature conditions of seawater, which is used as vaporization heat source.
The terminal was built on a reclaimed site, where the tide level difference is quite
high (about 10 meter from high-high tide and low-low tide).
In the winter season, seawater temperature may go down well below the
design temperature of ORV. The warmer cooling water at a higher temperature
coming out from the steam condenser of a thermal power plant can be used for
the vaporization of LNG. Hence, the advantage is using the seawater for regasification in winter. However, the terminal is not integrated with any other
thermal power plant and thus the advantage of thermal integration can not be
used in designing the vaporization system.
The west coast of Korean peninsula, facing Yellow Sea, has low seawater
temperature because of cold ocean current in winter. This cold seawater
temperature is one of significant design constraints in optimizing the vaporization
facility.
Low temperature does not allow to operate the ORV, which have the
lowest operating cost. It results in the lowest life cycle cost compared with any
other conventional vaporization scheme. The design conditions forces to use
other vaporization options, such as Submerged Combustion Vaporizer (SCV),
which uses a small portion of vaporized LNG as fuel gas. Since it burns the
vaporized LNG, the operation cost is normally high.
This paper discusses the detail design constraints in designing the
vaporization system and methodology of optimization of LNG vaporization with
the unfavorable seawater conditions. The paper also presents operation results
of this vaporization configuration with economic analysis.
DESIGN CODITIONS
Gas Demand Projection
Gas demand projection used for the basic design and actual gas supply
are tabulated in Table 1 [1,2]. The gas demand projection established at the
beginning of this project is compared with the actual gas supply records [2,3].
The design basis for the phase I of the terminal was 5 Million Tonnes per Annum
(MTPA) of LNG. It was considered that the balance will be provided by the first
terminal (Pyeong-taek) and third LNG terminal (Tong-Young).

62

Table 1 Projected Gas Demand and Actual Gas Supply Data

(Unit: 1000 t/y)
Year

Planned Demand (1)

Acutal Supply (2)

Difference (% )

1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

3,390
3,580
4,720
6,020
7,400
8,110
8,280
8,930
9,570
9,830
10,610
11,390
12,640
13,350
14,050

3,524
4,402
5,860
7,087
9,241
11,325
10,645
12,961
14,557
15,990
17,768
18,610
21,809
23,350
24,090

3.8
18.7
19.5
15.1
19.9
28.4
22.2
31.1
34.3
38.5
40.3
38.8
42.0
42.8
41.7

Notes
1. These are planned data, which have been used for basic design of Incheon terminal,
based on gas demand projection in 1992 [1]
2. This is actual gas supply volume data provided by KEEI [2].

Since the terminal was designed for base load terminal, the monthly basis
send-out gas load distribution was established during the basic design. This
pattern also has been changed during actual operation. Figure 1 illustrates
comparison of the monthly gas send-out distribution.
14.0

Send-out Load Distribution, [%]

Projected in 1992
Demand in 2006

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
1

10

11

12

Month

Fig. 1 Monthly Send-out Gas Load Distribution in 2006 [1,2]

63

The send-out gas loads in winter season (January to March) are higher
than the 2006s load projected in 1992. The projected load distribution estimates
that the load distribution in summer season (July and August) would be higher by
1 - 2% than June or September. However, the actual monthly send-out gas load
distribution is almost same in June and July. The main differences of send-out
gas load are in February and March.
For winter season gas send-out load, it is generally affected by winter
ambient temperature. If it is cold winter, the send-out load increases and it will be
vice versa.
The vaporizers economic analysis and optimization was performed based
on the planned data at the beginning of the terminal Front End Engineering
Design (FEED). The results have been applied to design configuration of
vaporization.
Seawater Temperature Conditions
In winter season seawater temperatures from the intake facility are shown
in Fig. 2. This water temperature is measured 2m below the seawater surface
measured at 6:00 in the morning each day.

Seawater Temperature, [deg C]

14.0
2005
2006
2007

12.0

10.0

8.0

General Design Temeprature of ORV

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
1

10

Dec

19

28

37

46

55

64

Jan

73

82

Feb

91 100 109 118 127 136 145

Mar

Apr

Fig. 2 Seawater Temperature Profile in Winter Season [4]

Seawater temperature in winter drops below the possible ORV seawater
design temperature ranges (5 7 deg C). In some cases, seawater temperature
drops below the freezing point. When the seawater temperature is low, the gas
demand is high. Actual supply records show that this has a quite firm relationship.

64

Generally, the design seawater temperature ranges between 7 to 9 deg C

with 5 to 7 deg C temperature drop. In some cases, the design temperature drop
will be higher than 7 deg C if the seawater temperature is above 9 deg C in
winter. Since the seawater temperature is unfavorable at the site, the design
temperature was evaluated based on operation economics.
Seawater Intake Facility
Seawater is lifted by the seawater pumps before it is supplied to the
seawater vaporizer, ORV. Five pumps were installed during Phase I and
subsequently four pumps were added during expansion Phases. The capacity of
the seawater pumps are 10,000 m3/h and 12,000 m3/h for Phase I and expansion,
respectively.
Arrangement of the seawater pump station is shown on Fig. 3. The
seawater outfall is located opposite side of the terminal in order to avoid any cold
seawater recirculation.

Fig. 3 Seawater Intake Facility Layout

65

OUTLINE OF INCHEON TERMINAL PROCESS

Figure 4 illustrates the simplified process scheme of Incheon LNG terminal.
LNG is transported by LNG tankers from various import sources. LNG is
unloaded to the Terminals storage tanks through unloading arms and unloading
lines. The design unloading rate is 11,000 m3/hr with three 16-in. full bore liquid
unloading arms. At the initial facility design, return gas blowers were relocated
from other terminal. Later it was found that the return gas to the LNG ship was
sent back by a pressure difference between the tank and ship without using
blowers.

Fig. 4 Incheon Terminal Process Scheme

The terminal has two berths allowing dual unloading or single unloading
from either berth. This configuration also allows one ship unloading while another
berth is on stand-by. The stand-by ship can perform vapor breathing operations
to prevent over pressuring by extruding high pressure of vapor to onshore BOG
header. It minimizes methane emission during unloading operation. Two berth
systems can provide storage area zoning operation: LNG unloaded from one
jetty can be stored in the above-ground tanks (8 tanks 100,000 m3 each), and
LNG unloaded from the other jetty can also be stored in 2 Above-ground tanks
and 8 In-ground tanks (total 1.7 million m3 including the 4th expansion).
Intentionally, all stored LNG can be blended to minimize density difference
between tanks and achieve even calorific values of send-out gas.
It is generally considered that one large unloading line will be cheaper
than two equal-sized smaller lines. However, there is a very real advantage in
dual unloading lines as in case one line to have any operational problems, then
the other line is still available for unloading the ships at half capacity or higher.
Also, most terminals require the recirculation of LNG in the unloading line during

66

the period a ship is not unloading. This is normally required so that the
recirculated LNG picks up the heat out of the terminal via the send-out. Since the
terminal has two unloading lines (2 x 32-in.) from each berth, this configuration
allows recirculation to be accomplished without the addition of a smaller second
line.
At the initial stage, the terminal planned to build above-ground full
containment tanks. As the terminal expanded, it needed more storage capacity to
cover the demand gap between summer and winter as shown in Fig. 1. As
tankage area extends, the required hydraulics increases at the ship manifold.
Significant factors in determining hydraulics are tank static head and frictional
losses across the unloading arms. Underground storage tank could alleviate the
hydraulic limitations. A large in-ground storage tank makes use of high cost
reclaimed island more efficiently than conventional smaller above-ground tanks.
In-ground tanks allow adherent positioning of tanks compared to above ground
tanks. This also saves plot space because of elimination of the dike area.
Boil-off gas (BOG) from storage tanks is gathered in a BOG header and
pressurized by BOG compressors. The pressurized BOG is then routed to the
recondenser where it is recondensed with sub-cooled LNG discharged from intank pumps. The recondensed liquid is further pressurized by the send-out
pumps and re-gasified by vaporizers.
The BOG rates are 0.075%/day and 0.1%/day for above-ground tank and
in-ground tank, respectively. The large storage volume makes considerably
higher BOG rates than other terminals. Ten (10) BOG compressors are installed
to handle the BOG during unloading operation.
Open Rack Vaporizers (ORVs) are the base-load vaporizers, and
Submerged Combustion Vaporizers (SCVs) are used to back up ORVs during
peak shaving operation. However, the available seawater temperature drops
below the design points during winter. The ORV performance then decreases
considerably as seawater temperature decreases. In order to compensate the
seawater temperature drops, twelve (12) Seawater Heaters (SW HTRs) are
operated.
OPTIMIZED VAPORIZATION AND TECHNICAL CHALLENGES
In order to achieve low cost vaporization and minimize impact on the
environment, ORVs and SCVs are combined as a back up and peak shaving
was chosen from various vaporization technologies. A seawater facility requires a
long seawater intake pipe (about 1,500m) since the tide difference is high (about
5m M.S.L.). The seawater discharge temperature drops to 0oC after it is used
for LNG vaporization, which is generally not recommended for ORV operation
specially during the winter. Figure 5 illustrates the vaporization scheme of the
terminal. LNG from the recondensers from each train is fed to the send-out
pumps and the pressurized LNG is routed to the vaporizers. Seawater is supplied

67

to ORVs. When the temperature of seawater supplied to ORVs is lower than the
design point, it is mixed with the heated seawater from the SW HTRs.
As shown in the seasonal gas demand pattern in Fig. 1, gas demand in
the winter is higher than in the summer. However, the seawater temperature as a
heat source is lower in the winter. Since LNG regasification is the most important
parameter for lowering terminal operating costs, optimization of LNG vaporization
has been performed against these unfavorable conditions.
The following
optimization:
y
y
y
y
y

parameters

were

investigated

for

the

vaporization

Performance of ORV with the lower seawater temperature;

Optimum seawater operating temperature;
Economic combination of ORV and SCV;
Economic justification of seawater heating;
Overall economic assessment of vaporization facility.

In the ORV, the relationship between the number of heat exchange panel
blocks and seawater requirement has been investigated for optimization and
found that ORV manufacturers recommended a seawater temperature difference
based on the manufacturers equipment optimization, which resulted in a less
number of heat exchange panels. By analyzing the ORV performance curves
with the various operating conditions, the relationship was extracted as shown in
Fig. 6. The recommended seawater temperature differences are based on a
42MW heat duty (equivalent to 180t/h 200t/h of LNG vaporization).
Manufacturers confirmed that the minimum outlet temperature from the ORV was
1.5oC, which is obtained when seawater inlet temperature is 3oC.

68

Seawater
Pumps

ORV
Intake
Seawater
Fuel Gas

Fuel Gas

SCV
Seawater
Heater

Natural
Gas
Send-out

ORV

LNG
From Train # 1
Recondenser

Send-out
Pump

Fuel Gas

LNG
From Train # 2
Recondenser

Send-out
Pump

SCV

Fig. 5 Vaporization Scheme

Seawater Flow Rate, [m 3/h]

14,000

Recommended Seawater
Termperature Difference

10

12,000
8

Increase Heat
Exchanger Panels

10,000

Estimation Bases:
Heat duty: 42 MW
No. of Panels: 12

8,000

6,000
4
4,000
2

Minimum Seawater
Requirement: 3,000 m3/h
for 12 panels

2,000
0

0
2

10

12

14

16

18

20

Inlet Seawater Temperature, [ C]

Fig. 6 - ORV Performance with Seawater Temperature

69

Seawater Temp. Difference, [ oC]

12

16,000

In general, seawater requirement abruptly increases as inlet seawater

temperature decreases, while seawater requirement is constant after a certain
point even though its temperature increases. This is because seawater should be
provided to maintain the minimum water film on the surface of the heat exchange
tubes. The seawater requirement varies depending on the number of the heat
exchanger panels and tubes.

120

120

100

100
Fuel Gas Consumption

80

80
Expense NPV

60

60

40

40

No. of Tube
Panel (no scale)

Optimized Design
Temperature

20

20

10

Relative Fuel Costs, [%]

Relative Expense NPV, [%]

The higher inlet seawater design temperature requires a smaller ORV and
seawater lift structure, resulting in less capital and operation costs. However,
these are only valid when the seawater temperature is high enough through out
the year. As seawater temperature decreases below design temperature, the
SCV operation and seawater heating process need to be operated, resulting in
an increase in operating costs. During the winter, the fuel gas requirements for
the operation of SCVs and SW HTRs increase linearly as the recovered heat
from seawater decreases (seawater temperature drops). The economic analysis
results are shown in Fig.7.

12

Design Seawater Temperature, [oC]

Fig. 7 Economic Analysis of Different Seawater Temperature

In order to optimize the design seawater temperature, expense-based Net
Present Value (NPV) was calculated. From the economic analysis results, design
seawater temperature was set at 5oC. The number of tube panels required was
also determined based on design seawater temperature and expected delta
temperature. The parameters used in economic analysis are summarized in
Table 2. It was assumed that fuel cost was $7/MMBtu. Considering current fuel
cost, the optimum design temperature may be shifted slightly to the lower point.

70

Table 2 Economic Parameters

Description
Facility life time
Discount rate
Electricity cost
Fuel cost
Inflation rate
Tax rate

Parameters
25 years
12%
7/kWh
7 $/MMBtu
3%
Not considered

ECONOMIC JUSTIFICAITON OF SEAWATER HEATING

Based on Life cycle costs, economic evaluation on vaporization costs for
gas send-out has been performed during the year 2006 on the following Options:

Base case: ORV+SCV+SW Heater (5 deg C design temp + SW heater)

Option 1: ORV + SCV (7 deg C Seawater design temp. + no SW heater)

Option 2: ORV + SCV (5 deg C Seawater design temp. + no SW heater)

Option 3: All SCV (current the US terminal operation basis)

The terminal operation cost estimates are based on Rich LNG with 1% of
maintenance costs for main equipment. Other details specified in Table 2 have
been applied to the economic evaluation. Unloading, storage, vapor handling,
and other costs are not considered because the same conditions are applied to
all options. Gas sale revenues are also not considered. Instead, only incremental
costs of vaporization are applied for evaluation purpose.
The economic analysis results are shown in Fig. 8 for relative total
installed costs and operation costs to Base case. Option 1 requires slightly lower
capital expenditure (Capex) than the Base case, while Option 2 shows almost the
same Capex as the Base case. Option 3 with all SCV requires the lowest Capex.
Figure 9 presents the relative Incremental expense-based Net Present
Value (NPV) of three Options to the Base case. The vaporization costs of the
Base case are the lowest compared to any other Options. Main benefits in the
NPV are heat recovery from low temperature seawater, which can not be used
for LNG vaporization with the conventional ORV's without the SW HTR's.
For Option 1, the capital expenditure is slightly lower than the Base case
because of its high delta temperature in ORV design. Operating cost is higher by
about two fold of the Base case, mainly due to lower heat recovery from cold
seawater. The NPV difference to the Base case is about 5% due to extra heat
requirements for LNG vaporization during winter season.

71

Capital cost requirement of the Option 2 is almost the same as the Base
case as it does not require installation of the SW HTR's. However, operating
costs are higher by a 50% than the Base case. NPV is slightly lower than the
Base case, mainly due to lower heat recovery from cold seawater.
Since the Option 3 uses the SCV's for LNG vaporization, the required
capital expenditure is the lowest than any other Options. However, its operating
cost is by 8 times higher than the Base case because main heat for LNG
vaporization is provided by fuel combustion. The main economic driver of the
Option 3 is the lowest Capex, quick construction and US government approval
process compared to seawater options.
Because the Expense-based NPVs of Option 1 and 2 are not significantly
different from the Base case, the overall economic evaluation is primarily affected
by heat recovery from cold seawater and fuel gas burning for supplementary heat
supply. The detail configuration and economic justification should be performed
based on the project design conditions.
900

Relative Caapex and Opex, [%]

800
700

Capex
Opex

600
500
400
300
200
Base Case

100
0
Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Fig. 8 Comparison of Relative Capex and Opex

72

NPV Relative to Base Case, [%]

Option 1

96.0

Option 2
Option 3

94.0
92.0
90.0
88.0
86.0
84.0
82.0

Fig. 9 Relative NPV of Vaporization Options

CONCLUSIONS
The design temperature of the Open Rack Vaporizer may be different from
the manufacturers recommended design temperature and optimum operation
point, which will be justified by the individual project conditions. Optimized design
temperature of the seawater vaporizer can be determined by overall economics
based on the site operation and design conditions.
In optimum vaporization selection, design constraints with unfavorable
seawater temperature have been successfully solved with heating up seawater
with the seawater heater before it is provided to the ORV. This results in an
increase in heat recovery from cold seawater. Unless otherwise, the seawater
can not be used when it is lower than the design temperature.
Seawater heater increases total installation cost of the vaporization
system. However, the warming up seawater temperature decreases by 50% of
fuel gas consumption compared to the use of SCV vaporization configuration
with the same design temperature, but without seawater heating up.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Korea Gas Corporation (Kogas) for permission to
prepare and present this paper. Special thanks are also extended particularly to
Dr. J. H. Cho, CB&I, for his kind assistance and valuable discussions.

73

REFERENCE CITED
1. Technical and Economical Summary of Basic Design Report for Incheon
LNG Terminal, Kogas/Hyundai Engineering Co/MWKL, Unpublished
document, February 1993.
2. A Prospect of Gas Demand in Korea (2006-2011), Korea Energy
Economics Institute, ISSn 1599-9009, Vol. 8, December 2006.
3. 8th Long Term Natural Gas Supply and Demand Plan, Ministry of
Commerce Industry and Energy, Korea, December 2006.
4. Incheon Seawater Temperature, Korean Meteorological Administration,
Korea.

74

BIOGRAPHY of SPEAKER
In-Soo Cheon is a Chemical Engineer with a B.S.ChE degree from Seoul
National University, Korea. He is currently senior executive vice president of
Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd.
He has worked as project manager for LNG distribution system in Seoul
Metropolitan Area from 1983 to 1989. He has also worked as Project Director for
Inchon LNG Receiving Terminal Project in Korea from 1991 to present. His
career in LNG and gas processing spans over 39 years and has been involved in
various gas monetization projects, ranging from conceptual design to
commissioning. Through his vast hand-on experience in LNG projects, he has
gained extensive knowledge in efficient and practical design towards safe
operation of the LNG terminal.
E-mail: ischun@hec.co.kr

75