Talk:Liquefied natural gas

message: Great if someone could add how much of the gas is lost in energy consumption in the liqudfaction process for a typical LNG train. (Appearently somewhere between 10-15%..but  I have no figure on this)
---
For a smallish 1 million tonnes per annum plant, you're going to be looking at ~65MW of compressor power, so using a gas turbine (say 30% efficiency) gives  210MW of heat required. I think this is covered by the stream leaving the Reboiled De-ethanizer (5%ish of the total feed), so i guess to answer your question i'd say 5% of the feed is consumed in the liquefaction process. [Edit : Looking at it again today, 9% is probably closer to the mark]
----
In response to the above.  A modern liquefaction train only requires 6-8% of the clean NG to fuel the gas turbine driven compressors.  The specific power for the APCI C3MR (Propane percooled mixed refrigerant) and DMR (dual mixed refrigerant) processes are about 0.32-0.35 kwhr/kg of LNG.  Chart, Linde and B&V Single mixed refrigerant process requires about 0.35-0.38 kwh/kg.  The Conoco Phillips Cascade process and dual expander Nitrogen process requires about 0.40-0.50 kwh/kg. (David Franklin 22 July 2010)66.249.124.2 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Loss

message: I recently saw an article about a Japanese compressor that can turn the domestic gas to LNG (for converted cars) at home! What kind of pressure is used for LNG cars? Is it economical to liquefy gas at home?  
Kiumars
No, as you can't liquefy natural gas just by compressing it.  Cold temperatures are required, even at elevated pressure.
I don't agree with the fact that "pipeline" natural gas is mentioned in the LNG section. It is misleading to mention Sulphur and other substances in that section. Would it not be wiser to create a "pipeline gas" paragraph or simply to refer the user to the natural gas section of wikipedia ?
Mark
Is the CNG-LPG bit relavent - this is the LNG article?
:Probably not. Propose to remove and add into relevant articles.Beagel (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CNG v LNG v LPG

message: This is a bit pants, really. No references, and I think the pricing formula is wrong - 0.7 to 0.8 USD for how much LNG?  It is common to quote LNG in tonnes, bcf, bcm, and MBtu.  They use MBtu in Japan.  It is very unusual to quote oil volumes in anything other that barrels (bbl), though I think they do in Japan.  When working with prices, $/bbl or Yen/MBtu for oil is the way to go, then LNG is priced in $/unit-of-your-choice or Yen/MBtu. 
81.187.181.66 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade in LNG 

message: The article states that the largest LNG train is the SEGAS Plant in Egypt with a capacity of 5 million ton per annum (mtpa). Actually the Train 4 of Atlantic LNG has capacity of 5.2 mtpa, which is claimed to be the largest train in operation (please see the references given in the Atlantic LNG article). Beagel (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The largest LNG train

message: Anonymous editor 71.32.102.6 is repeatedly making edits asserting that LNG is toxic and explosive;
"The references cited in support of this claim do not constitute valid references, since the authors of those works did not perform experiments with unconfined methane vapor clouds. The claim that any methane-air mixture cannot result in an explosion in an unconfined environment is not supported by either logic (a negative cannot be proven) or the laws of physics. If anyone has a specific reference to a theoretical explanation why an unconfined methane-air cloud cannot explode, it should be posted here. Otherwise, the claim must not be permitted. Please note the failure of one or more experimentalists to achieve an unconfined explosion is not proof that one cannot occur: it merely indicates the experiments did not sustain the necessary conditions for an explosion. (A failure of experimental technique or subject matter expertise does not establish a physical law.) Unconfined methane gas explosions are documented in the mining industry."
LNG vapour is mostly methane, which is a molecule naturally produced by many animals and processes. It is not toxic, although the vapour is an asphyxiant and LNG is a cryogen (which means there is a freezing hazard).
LNG vapour, methane, does not explode in an unconfined space, according to many scientific and industry sources.  The capability to cause an explosion relates to the speed of the flame front, and a methane flame front does not support sufficient velocity.Shelly, Craig. (2007). Liquefied Natural Gas: A New Urban Legend? Fire engineering. Vol 160 Issue 11. pg 109 Hightower, Mike et al (2004) Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over Water, Sandia National Laboratories CH-IV LNG Information 
Pakaraki (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LNG vapour hazards: toxicity and explosive 

message: I'm not convinced "boil-off gas acts to keep the LNG cold" is the right perspective on latent heat of vaporization, which is what determines how much gas boils off when adding a given amount of heat.  What the editor has in mind by this is presumably that as the temperature of LNG rises it hits a plateau at boiling point, like any liquid, with the latent heat of vaporization providing a buffer against further temperature increase.  However temperature is much less relevant to boil-off than latent heat, which should be taken as the determinant of boil-off volume as a function of heat input.  The perceived buffer here is an irrelevant temperature-dependent concept; at boiling point temperature becomes known exactly and therefore ceases to be relevant, all you care about is how much heat is continuing to enter the system.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the boil off of vapour doesn't cool the LNG, it just acts to prevent temperature increasing (at a given pressure), which is much the same as saying it keeps it cold.  Do you have some suggested alternative wording on this? Pakaraki (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boil-off gas acts to keep the LNG cold?

message: What is the energy density of LNG in MJ/kg ?
:~43.56MJ/kg 72.235.10.209 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  energy density 

message: "Liquefied natural gas or LNG is natural gas (primarily methane, CH4) that has been converted to liquid form for ease of storage or transport. Liquefied natural gas takes up about 1/trillionth the volume of natural gas at a stove burner tip. It is odorless, colorless, non-toxic and non-corrosive. Hazards include flammability, freezing and asphyxia."
As a rule of thumb, the expansion of liquid to gas at atmospheric pressure increases volume about a thousand fold.  Where does 1/trillionth come from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.87.94 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Volume ratio between LNG and natural gas at standard temperature and pressure is about 600.  --Pakaraki (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of LNG into gas phase 

message: A spill of a fuel is a different type of thing than the fuel itself. 
The pages on oil and oil spill clearly distinguish between the two. As a result I do not think it is a good idea to merge the LNG page with LNG spill
Lngdetails (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, no merge.  Also, the LNG page is already too long, and needs to be split.  Perhaps the commercial (price, markets, etc) and safety topics would make good separate articles.  --Pakaraki (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[LNG spill]] page into LNG page 

message: " One of the very rare risks of (propose semantics change 'of' to 'with') LNG is Rapid phase Transition (RPT) which arises from cold LNG being in contact with water[2]."
This sounds similar to Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion (BLEVE).  Although I realise that LNG is stored at atmospheric pressure and that RPT occurs as a result of rapid heat transfer as opposed to release of pressure in BLEVE, there is a need for clarification of RPT and possible comparison of RPT and BLEVE.
ShearBlue (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Rapid phase Transition (RPT)  

message: "In 2005, Japan imported 58.6 million tons of LNG, representing some 30% of the LNG trade around the world that year. Also in 2005, South Korea imported 22.1 million tons and in 2004 Taiwan imported 6.8 million tons from camillo corp which is located in the chaotic state of Zimbabwe. These three major buyers purchase approximately two-thirds of the world's LNG demand. In addition, Spain imported some 8.2 mmtpa in 2006, making it the third largest importer. France also imported similar quantities as Spain."
(58.6 X 3) + (58.6 /3)
= 175.8 + 19.5
=  195.3 mmtpa which represents, according to quoted figures for Japan's 2005 imports, 100% of Global LNG trade.
therefore (22.1 + 6.8) / 195.3 = 1/3 , according to "three major buyers purchase 2/3 of World LNG demand" -> this is FALSE.
Why mention zimbabwe when discussing Importers, this is a distraction.
Also, why mention Taiwan ahead of Spain or France, when T imports less than Spain, and HOW MUCH does F actually import, anyway???
This section is confusing. Propose it be revised.
ShearBlue (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the unsourced reference to "camillo corp in the state Zimbabwe". It had been inserted at 12:25, 24 September 2008 from 139.230.245.21 at an Australian university, perhaps as an act of vandalism. I could not find any mention of that company in connection with LNG trade except in cloned  Wikipedia text. Besides, Zimbabwe has no proven reserves of natural gas and as it is landlocked, there are certainly no LNG terminals there. Joewein (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LNG Importers globally 

message: Reference 11 and 12 are identical. Same for 10 and 17. Several others point to different pages of the same site. Reference 16 just points to a search page on the same site. That is no reference at all. Activist sites can hardly be used as verifiable content. They have kind of a reputation for being biased.
80.101.105.19 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US west coast anti LNG activism 

message: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
"The construction of an LNG plant costs at least USD 1.5 billion per 1 mmtpa capacity, a receiving terminal costs USD 1 billion per 1 bcf/day throughput capacity, and LNG vessels cost USD 0.2–0.3 billion."
Autochthony writes - might this be better in simple dollars - so readers appriate just how expensive these bits of kit - that ensure their lights stay on - really are?
Re-writing, for this page alone: -
"The construction of an LNG plant costs at least US$ 1,500,000,000  per 1 mmtpa capacity, a receiving terminal costs US $ 1,000,000,000  per 1 bcf/day throughput capacity, and LNG vessels cost US $ 200,000,000 to 300,000,000 per ship."
Autochthony wrote - 2055z 27 February 2011.   81.132.188.132 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs 

message: Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOCE 

message: LNG gets distributed at 250bar, which equals 25MPa, not 25kPa as stated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.23.229 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPa, not kPa 

message: The unit LNG is measured in is typically "tonnes," "metric tons," or "metric tonnes" to be explicit. "Ton" is never used. Most common is "tonnes" or "million tonnes." 1 tonne = 1 metric ton = 1.1 tons, so they are not equivalent. That's why "mtpa" is more often used rather than "mmtpa" though both are technically correct. Many people in the industry even make this mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.232.138 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Where was it taken that "One million BTU is 32.76kg"? Kg of what? If of LNG, the conversion factor is 20.59 kg of LNG per million BTU.
Pontahero (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Density 

message: Can I debate the validity of this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liquefied_natural_gas&diff=562509659&oldid=562353400
The changes aren't necessarily of value to the article's content...
Changing
: Vandalism. Reverted. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Chinese Man? 

message: The details of LNG regassification plant / technology are not given in this article. request experts to create a new article or add details in this article. 183.83.1.26 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LNG regassification plant 

message: Could someone help with referencing the start of this section, the original link was dead and Wiki prevents me from referencing it with this google stuff tagged on even though the report can be accessed. Type PacEnvCollisionCourse into google and use the first link
we probably need a more reliable source as well. The original statement declared the opposite of what the source said!--Andromedean (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  environmental concerns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liquefied natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523215823/http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liquefied natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029174829/http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng.asp to http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Liquefied natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828015033/http://www.iomosaic.com/docs/training/Understand_LNG_RPT.pdf to http://www.iomosaic.com/docs/training/Understand_LNG_RPT.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524130411/http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/pdf/app_f.pdf to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/pdf/app_f.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103173733/http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/exporters.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/exporters.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161008030558/https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Divisions/Western%20Australia%20Division/Groups/Oil_Gas/lng_technical_presentation_ieaustralia_oil_and_gas_division_perth_october_2012.pdf to https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Divisions/Western%20Australia%20Division/Groups/Oil_Gas/lng_technical_presentation_ieaustralia_oil_and_gas_division_perth_october_2012.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914003755/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-09/shell-sees-china-lng-for-transport-market-outpacing-u-dot-s-dot-canada to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-09/shell-sees-china-lng-for-transport-market-outpacing-u-dot-s-dot-canada
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203171047/http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Global_LNG_New_pricing_ahead/%24FILE/Global_LNG_New_pricing_ahead_DW0240.pdf to http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Global_LNG_New_pricing_ahead/%24FILE/Global_LNG_New_pricing_ahead_DW0240.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120924202203/http://www-static.shell.com/static/media/downloads/speeches/lcook_speech_oilandmoneyconf.pdf to http://www-static.shell.com/static/media/downloads/speeches/lcook_speech_oilandmoneyconf.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423095554/http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/2013-in-review/-statistical-review-infographic.html to http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/2013-in-review/-statistical-review-infographic.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226200759/http://www.walterenergy.info/mainframe.php?page=gas&level=9 to http://www.walterenergy.info/mainframe.php?page=gas&level=9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226224343/http://www.lng14.com.qa/lng14.nsf/attach/%24file/PS3-1.ppt to http://www.lng14.com.qa/lng14.nsf/attach/%24file/PS3-1.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301012618/http://www.orkneyharbours.com/ship_to_ship_transfers.asp to http://www.orkneyharbours.com/ship_to_ship_transfers.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608103027/http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 to http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
*Added  tag to http://www.lngwatch.com/race/truth.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810032338/http://crs.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Jan/RL32205.pdf to http://crs.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Jan/RL32205.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009110032/http://www.inl.gov/research/liquefied-natural-gas-plant-technology/ to http://www.inl.gov/research/liquefied-natural-gas-plant-technology/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320180057/http://www.our-energy.com/liquefied-natural-gas-lng_en.html to http://www.our-energy.com/liquefied-natural-gas-lng_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150813113139/http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/energy-outlook.html to http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/energy-outlook.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050929123937/http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/index.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601233913/http://www.giignl.org/fileadmin/user_upload/flipbook2008/pdf/lng_industry.pdf to http://www.giignl.org/fileadmin/user_upload/flipbook2008/pdf/lng_industry.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Liquefied natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017071030/http://www.lngindustry.com/news/lng-shipping/articles/First_LNG_carrier_entered_service_50_years_ago_802.aspx to http://www.lngindustry.com/news/lng-shipping/articles/First_LNG_carrier_entered_service_50_years_ago_802.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113055904/http://www.lngindustry.com/news/liquefaction/articles/Qatargas_reaches_safety_milestone_LNG_450.aspx to http://www.lngindustry.com/news/liquefaction/articles/Qatargas_reaches_safety_milestone_LNG_450.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725125340/http://www.lngindustry.com/news/lng-shipping/articles/Atlantic_LNG_celebrates_LNG_exporting_milestone.aspx to http://www.lngindustry.com/news/lng-shipping/articles/Atlantic_LNG_celebrates_LNG_exporting_milestone.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728192114/http://www.lngindustry.com/news/liquid-natural-gas/articles/Dominion_welcomes_FERC_assessment_601.aspx to http://www.lngindustry.com/news/liquid-natural-gas/articles/Dominion_welcomes_FERC_assessment_601.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728191651/http://www.lngindustry.com/news/liquid-natural-gas/articles/Global_LNG_demand_will_keep_prices_high_825.aspx to http://www.lngindustry.com/news/liquid-natural-gas/articles/Global_LNG_demand_will_keep_prices_high_825.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liquefied natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.americanpress.com/20151120-air-products-partnership
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926033722/http://www.lngglobal.com/latest/prometheus-agreement-with-wpx-energy-to-supply-lng-and-equipment-for-drilling-operations.html to http://www.lngglobal.com/latest/prometheus-agreement-with-wpx-energy-to-supply-lng-and-equipment-for-drilling-operations.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511061232/https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/document/43128/liquefied_natural_gas_plant_4_pdf_%282%29 to https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/document/43128/liquefied_natural_gas_plant_4_pdf_(2)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think some detailed treatment of the technical aspects (with emphasis on cost and safety) of storing and transporting LNG would be very helpful to anyone who wants to know about the practicality of LNG.  I came here to find out whether the storage and transportation has to be under pressure and insulation or even under refrigeration.  Answers do not leap out at the reader.  If I knew anything about them, I would create a section for each of them, to go alongside the section on production.  If you have or can find any good references regarding those two topics, please post them here so that after some time we accumulate enough material to start those sections.  Or maybe some material on those is scattered about the article.  Any such material should also be listed here.  Thanks if you agree and you can help.CountMacula (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs explicit coverage of storage and transportation 

message: Hello,
The lead section for this article following the kind additions of FRANCISBONNICI is now much too long and also entirely uncited.
@FrancisBonnici - would you be able to please cite the extra paragraphs you added to the lead section and also move them down into the appropriate section of the article? For example to History or to Production? If they remain uncited they will need to be removed. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section is now too long and mostly uncited 

message: Why are greenhouse gas emissions give with units of density (kg/m³)? Surely it's more relevant to compare kg of CO2/megajoule, or otherwise mass/energy? IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units ... what?