HAL Id: hal-01519935https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01519935Submitted on 9 May 2017HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of scientifc research documents, whether they are published…

HAL Id: hal-01519935https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01519935Submitted on 9 May 2017HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of scientifc research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.CO2 maritime transportationSandrine Decarre, Julien Berthiaud, Nicolas Butin, Jean-LouisGuillaume-CombecaveTo cite this version:Sandrine Decarre, Julien Berthiaud, Nicolas Butin, Jean-Louis Guillaume-Combecave. CO2 maritimetransportation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Elsevier, 2010, 4 (5), pp.857-864.ff10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.05.005ff. ffhal-01519935ff1ABSTRACTThe objective of this study is to describe the complete transport chain of CO2 betweencapture and storage including a ship transport. This last one is composed by the followingsteps:Shore terminal including the liquefaction, temporary storage and CO2 loading,Ship with a capacity of 30,000 m3,On or off shore terminal including an unloading system, temporary storage and exporttowards the final storage.Between all the possible thermodynamic states, the liquid one is most relevant twooptions are compared in the study (-50°C, 7 bar) and (-30°C, 15 bar). The ship has anautonomy of 6 days, is able to cover 1,000 km with a cargo of 2.5 Mt/year. Severalscenarios are studied varying the geographical position of the CO2 source, the number ofharbours and the way the CO2 is finally stored.Depending on the option, the transport cost varies from 24 to 32 €/tCO2. This studyconfirms the conclusion of a previous study supported by ADEME, the cost transport isnot negligible regarding the capture one when ships are considered. Transport by shipbecomes a more economical option compared with an off shore pipeline when thedistance exceeds 350 km and with an onshore pipeline when it exceeds 1,100 km .KEYWORDSCO2; carbon dioxide; transport; ship; costs; energyCO2 MARITIME TRANSPORTATIONSandrine DECARREa , Julien BERTHIAUDb , Nicolas BUTINc, Jean-LouisGUILLAUME-COMBECAVEda Institut Français du Pétrole, IFP, 1 ave Bois Préau, 92500 Rueil Malmaison, FRANCE.Email: [email protected] GDF SUEZ, 361, ave du Président Wilson, BP 33, 93211 Saint Denis La Plaine cedex,FRANCE. Email: [email protected] SAIPEM, 1-7 avenue San Fernando 78884 Saint Quentin en Yvelines Cedex FRANCE,. Email: [email protected] STX France SA, ave Bourdelle, BP 90180, 44613 Saint-Nazaire Cedex France. Email:[email protected] Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4(5):857-864 · September 2010Doi : 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.05.00521. INTRODUCTIONAn answer to climate change is CO2 capture/transport and storage (CCS). This answerconsists in the capture of CO2 from large point sources emissions and the find of safe place tostore it. But source and sink are generally far one from the over. To transport large amount ofCO2 , pipeline seems to be the best solution. And a previous study, Bonnissel et al. [2007]designed a supercritical pipeline and gave cost estimation. But transporting CO2 by ship willbe far more flexible and less expensive for long distances. Gas carriers can also be used tocollect CO2 from a number of plants for transport to a central staging post connected to anaquifer by an off shore pipeline. Four existing ships, transporting carbon dioxide for use inindustry and alimentary processes have small capacities: between 800 and 1,200 m3.Few economical studies have been realised including a ship transport, Svensson et al. [2007],Aspelund et al. [2006]. In this last one the complete chain is described including theintermediate storage, loading and unloading systems and the ship. A combined LPG/CO2 semirefrigerated ship is chosen with a capacity of 20,000m3 under (-52°C, 6.5 bar). A completeenergy and cost estimate analysis is performed concluding that the total cost is 20-30USD/tCO2for volumes larger than 2 Mt/year and distances limited to North Sea.This paper presents a complete transportation chain study including CO2 conditioning,pipeline transport, liquefaction, loading/unloading systems, temporary storages and a new 30000 m3 ship design. A cost analysis based on three scenarios is also described.2. TRANSPORTATION CHAIN DESCRIPTIONCapture plants and conditioningThree flowrates are studied: 1, 2 and 3 Mt/year (this last one corresponding to a coal steampower plant of 600 MWth). For the study, CO2 is considered free of impurities and water.Two CO2 sources locations are considered (Fig. 1):• a source at 100 km fare from the harbour. CO2 is transported in a supercritical phaseby a 15” internal diameter pipeline. It is delivered at the terminal at 100 bar and atambient temperature. The gas is available at 1.7 bar with a content of 28% of waterafter capture, CO2 conditioning is presented on figure 2 and described in Bonnissel etal. [2007]); The evaluation performed in this study leads to a total cost of € 83 million3for the compression & dehydration process, and between € 78 million and € 90 millionfor the pipeline.• a source in the harbour area. CO2 is delivered at 1.7 bar; 25°C, at the liquefactionstage.Liquefaction, storage and loadingBetween all the possible options of transport we selected two thermodynamic conditions ofliquid CO2: a low temperature to limit tank cost thanks to lower pressure (-50°C, 7 bar) and ahigh temperature to limit Energy penalty in the liquefaction plant (-30°C, 15 bar). We avoidsolid CO2 transport because of the impact on the loading/unloading operations, solid handlingbeing much more difficult than liquid, especially in case of off shore unloading operation.The liquefactionFor both sources the liquefaction chain has been simulated using the software HYSYS.From a bibliographic study and taking into account the new regulations, two coolers arecompared in the study: propane and propylene. Two scenarios of cooling are taken intoaccount (Fig. 3):• CO2 is first compressed or expanded to reach 7 bar (1 or 2 compressor stagesdepending on the refrigerant nature) or 15 bar (2 or 3 compressors stages dependingon the refrigerant nature) then cooled down to -50°C or -30°C and expanded again tobe liquefied.• 2 cooling loops in serial. The first compressor stage provides a CO2 at -7°C, which isthen expanded down to 30 bar. The second loop cooled down the CO2 to -30°C andthe last expansion is realised to reach 15 bar.Table 1 summarises the energy required for all these options for a source located 100 km farefrom the harbour. It is clear that the options propane, double cooling loops lead to the bestscenario. This conclusion is confirmed in case of CO2 capture in the harbour area.The temporary storageTo simplify the design and reduce costs, we considered that terminals and ships storage arecomposed of the same tanks. Storage on terminal is twice the storage on ship. Two designsare possible: cylinder or bilobate (Fig. 4).4The design satisfy the BS5500 PD code. It is realised with the sailing conditions and takesinto account the fact that the boil off shall be neither released to the atmosphere, norreliquefied. Then a possible pressure increase from 7 to 10.4 for the option (-50°C, 7 bar) andfrom 15 to 19.5 for (-30°C, 15 bar) and two days of margin in case of bad weather conditionare integrated in the design conditions. The design temperature corresponds to the oneobtained during a sudden depressurisation and is taken equal to -80°C. This criticaltemperature governs the choice of the quality of the steel: 3.5%, 5% and 9% Ni; stainless steel304L and 316L; aluminium 1050. The use of stainless steels and aluminium leads to highthickness and possible construction difficulties. 5 and 9% Ni are the best candidates, 5% Nibeing the cost optimum solution and 9% Ni being the weight optimum solution. We chose the9% Ni which leads to smaller supplying delays and is well known by the manufacturers. Theoptimal solution is a cylindrical tank in steel 9% Ni, with a casing of 10 mm thick, full ofperlite (Fig. 5).The loading processIn order to transfer the liquefied CO2 from the temporary storage to the ship, a system ofpumps and flexible or rigid arm (piping) is designed. These lines have a diameter of 16″ and alength of 120 m. Pressures need to be equilibrated between both storages as the boil off (CO2evaporation) generated during the loading operation increases the ship tank pressure. The gasgenerated is sent back to the liquefaction unit by a second line (Fig. 6).Ship descriptionGas is usually transported under its liquid phase, than means under low temperature. As theship is specified without any re-liquefaction plant onboard, tanks are designed to resist to thepressure increase.Specifications for the ship are:• A capacity of 30,000 m3,• Process for a loading and unloading with an onshore terminal,• Pumps with a total power of 5.2 MW, for an offshore unloading,• Dynamic position for offshore unloading,• The most economical propulsion in order to reach a speed of 16.5 knots.5• Following the existing regulations: SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea), IGC (ShipCarrying Liquefied Gas in Bulk) and MARPOL (MARitime POLution).Based on these specifications a ship is designed (Fig. 7). 7 tanks, as the one presentedpreviously, are integrated. Cofferdams (600 mm) are placed between the tanks and the frontand back parts of the ship in order to limit thermal exchanges and allow inspections. Possibledilatation of the tanks was considered in the design of a new fixing system including woodparts.Different solutions for the propulsion are considered:

Architecture advantages disadvantagesElectric-dieselBetter consumption,architecture optimisation,low power installedCAPEX high, complexity(higher breakage risk), sitecoverage consumingDiesel (type CODAD,COmbinaison DieselAlternateur Diesel)CAPEX, well knowntechnology, less breakagerisk than electric-dieselOPEX (higherconsumption than electricdiesel)2T motorsCAPEX, well knowntechnology, OPEXPollution, no dynamicposition, heavy.

CookMyProjectThe best option is the electric-diesel but could be considered as too much expensive by thefuture clients for sequestration operations. Then a more classical architecture like the CODADtype (diesel) is our final choice. Two motors, fed by heavy fuel oil, will be connected to anadjustable blade propeller (Diameter 7 m). The energy necessary on board will be provided byfour diesel alternators.Installation of the different utilities on board is realised in parallel with the stability analysisof the ship. The stability analysis is realised using the software ARGOS with a working loadfrom 10% to 100% (tank full at 95%, keeping a volume for the boil off). It takes into accountthe new regulations on biologic prevention pollution (ballast are full of water, their loadingprocedures are described) and the IGC code relative to possible damages. As the ship as anaxial symmetry, all the damages are simulated at port on a watertight bulkhead. ARGOSsimulations show that IGC criteria are completely respected.6On or Off- shore unloading• Onshore terminalThis terminal is similar to the loading one. Temporary storage will be twice the onepresent on the ship in order to have a safety margin, this hypothesis could be optimisedintegrating the management of a complete fleet of CO2 ships. Possible reuse of the liquidCO2 frigories will have to be integrated in a more detailed study.• Offshore unloadingBetween all the possibilities a direct unloading is considered. In order to fit with theconstraints: maximum time on place 24 hours in the North Sea, injection power of 5.2MW for 30,000 m3 of CO2 at -30°C, 15 bar (Fig. 8). To be able to respected them, 4 wellsare necessary to achieve a flowrate of 350 t/h, maximum value tolerated by the aquifer.Conditions imposed at the well head are 0°C and 110bars. Pumps on the ship will furnishthe energy to reach 95 bara, the static pressure over the 200 m water depth, will completeit. During this phase, CO2 temperature increases a bit. To avoid more energy consumptionand CO2 release, CO2 is naturally heated by thermal exchange between a Bare pipe andsea water, before reaching the well head. To increase thermal exchanges the pipe (X60) isnot buried and is only coated against the corrosion. Due to the very low temperature at theinlet of the pipe, some ice will form on external pipe wall over few kilometres. Table 2summarises different possibilities depending on currents and internal pipe diameter. Theoptimum between steel mass and pressure drop leads to the choice of a 10″ NPS (internaldiameter of 10″) for a designing pressure of 180 bar. Assuming the minimal externaltemperature of 6°C (winter North sea), less than ten kilometres are necessary to reach 0°C.Weaknesses of this solution are the embrittlement of the pipe due to freeze/thaw cycles,the sensibility to currents, regulations obliging the burrial of the pipes. Simulations,adding a temporary storage (on plateforme or subsea) have been realised. Such solutionsare possible, but with weak points such as the necessity of an high floor space, ballastsand subsea structure appear. Other kind of solutions could be used depending on theexisting installations: use of a jacket for mooring, CALM systems (Catenary Anchor-LegMooring),etc. CALM buoys are frequently used in offshore industry for the oil offloadingof floating production facilities. In TransCO2 case, CO2 carrier is moored to the CALMbuoy the liquid CO2 is transferred from the carrier to the injection network with floatinghose. For this solution there is a need for development concerning low temperature and7high pressure flexible. A solution without mooring structure can be envisaged but requireda dynamic positioned (DP) vessel. This kind of vessel is equipped with thrusters ensuringthe perfect positioning of the vessel over the injection location. DP vessels are commonlyused for the installation of subsea pipelines and drilling rig, but they are fuel consumingdegrading the carbon balance of the CO2 transport. These solutions are compared in thefollowing table:

Mooring type advantage weaknessNo mooring structure Vessel with dynamic positioningfuel consumingCO2 emissionWeather dependantCALM systemcontrol of ship positionweather independentWell known technologyMooring assistanceSpace consumingDisconnectable mooring plugcontrol of ship positionweather independentself governing mooringJacketcontrol of ship positionweather independentRe use of existing structureCostly if newMooring assistance

3. SCENARIOSThe basic harbour is composed of• liquefaction part: centrifugal compressors, plate heat exchanger, vertical centrifugalpump (high flow rate, axial flux), cooler boxes and additional pumps.• storage: 14 tanks, lines between storage (on terminal or on ship) and liquefaction unit(boil off treatment), flexible or rigid arm, transfer pump.Depending on the scenario, functionalities on the harbour will be adjusted.Three scenarios are compared (Fig. 9):1. 2 harbours A and B, B having a direct connection by pipe (200 km) to an off shoreaquifer. A liquefaction unit is present on B.82. 2 harbours A and B, there is no liquefaction unit on B. Then ambient temperatureof the CO2 coming from the on shore pipe and directly connected to the off shorepipe is used to heat the CO2 coming from the ship.3. 3 harbours A, B and C. A and B correspond to the basic case, C is connected to anoff shore aquifer by a pipe and doesn’t have a liquefaction unit. These last casecould be representative of a French, English and Dutch case.4. COST ESTIMATEAn economical study is performed on the scenarios previously described. For this estimationthe complete transport chain is considered: conditioning of the CO2 at the outlet of the captureunit (only dehydratation and compression), 100 km on-shore pipe in supercritical conditions(180 bar), liquefaction unit, temporary storage, ship transport covering 1,000 km, unloading inan offshore pipe for final storage. Economic depreciation is supposed to be 5% over 30 years.Costs for the conditioning and the on shore transport are based on a previous study supportedby ADEME (Bonnissel et al., 2007). and based on Chauvel cotations (Chauvel, 2003).For both solution (-50°C, 7 bar) and (-30°C, 15 bar), the total cost (CAPEX and OPEX) of theinstallations from the outlet of the capture plant to the inlet of the temporary storage(conditioning, transport and liquefaction ) showed that the (-30°C, 15 bar) case was thecheapest one. Then scenarios were estimated only for this option.For the liquefaction the case (-30°C, 15 bar) and 2 cooling loops is considered.

Transport chain descriptionCost M€/year(Economic depreciation5% over 30 years)Source(Year price)CO2 conditioning Dehydratation, compression 18 2005On shore transport On-shore pipe 9 2005Liquefaction unit Compressors, heat exchangers, pumps… 4 2005Storage 14 tanks 7.1 2007Loading/unloading Pump, loading arm, transfer lines negligibleShip Ship with 7 tanks 39.3 2008Injection Heating, heat exchangers, pump Subsea flow line 13 2008

9Figure 10 present costs obtained for the three scenarios. Ship transport represents the mostexpensive part in the chain. However all the expenses linked with a normal ship exploitationare taken into account within this cost i.e. the one of the ship, the expenses for hermaintenance, the crew, tax, insurance, harbours … The conditioning part is under estimated asit is composed in our examples of only the dehydratation and the compression units. In reality,impurities will have to be treated too, increasing the final cost of the conditioning part.Respectively for the scenarios 1, 2 and 3, 24 €/tCO2, 22 €/tCO2, and 32 €/tCO2 are obtained. Thisconfirms that transport cost is not negligible when it integrates a ship part.A comparison between ship transport and on or off shore pipe is performed. Depending on theCO2 quantity, more than one ship can be considered. CO2 source is considered to be in theharbour area and then only the CO2 conditioning, liquefaction and storage are considered.Cost for the pipe onshore are those considered in the previous study (Bonnissel, 2007). Figure11 presents the results of this comparison. 4 quantities of CO2 are simulated (0.8; 1.6; 2.8; 5.6Mt/year). Discontinuities of the lines are due to the fact that only a whole number of ships canbe added. Clearly our 30,000 m3 ship is over estimated for the 0.8 Mt/year and at least twoships are necessary to transport 5.6 Mt/year. Then compared to a pipeline ship is a moreeconomical solution when distance between two harbours exceed about 1,100 km (onshorepipe comparison), and exceed 350 km compared to an offshore pipeline (export towards anoffshore aquifer).5. CONCLUSIONShip transport is a flexible alternative to pipeline for an offshore storage option, even for aharbour to harbour transport. It can be cost attractive for long distances (350 km for anoffshore storage, 1,100 km for a coast to coast case). Compared with the pipe option. Thistechnical-economics study shows the feasibility to build and use a 30,000 m3 ship to transportCO2 under (-30°C, 15 bar). Cost estimation leads to a transport cost from 24 to 32 €/tCO2covering the chain from the capture outlet to the injection in an offshore aquifer.10ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis study is a co-operation project between IFP (Institut Français du Pétrole), GDF SUEZ,SAIPEM and STX France SA with the financial support of ANR (Agence Nationale de laRecherche).REFERENCESAspelund A, Mølnvik M. J. And De Koeijer G., “Ship Transport Of Co2 Technical Solutionsand Analysis of Costs, Energy Utilization, Exergy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions”. ChemicalEngineering Research and Design, 84(A9), 2007, pp 847–855.Bonnissel M., Broutin P., Fradet A., Odru P., Ruer J., Saysset S., “Technical and economicassessment of CO2 transportation for CCS purposes”. The Journal of Pipeline Engineering,Vol. 6, No 3, 2007, pp. 173-179.Chauvel A., Fournier G., Raimbault C., “Manual of process economic evaluation” (new,revised and expanded edition). Éditions Technip, Paris, 2003.Svensson, R., Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., Strömberg, L., “Transportation Infrastructure forCCS – Experiences and Expected Development”. Chalmers University of Technology andVattenfall, Sweden, 2007.11FIGURES CAPTIONFigure 1: Basic cases

3 ensembles[séparation gaz/liquide +compression +refroidissement]+ 1 séparation gaz/liquide3 groups[gas/liquid separation +compression + cooling]+ 1 gas/liquid separation45,4

1 déshydratation par absorptionau TEG avec stripping CO21 dehydration by TEGabsorption with CO2 stripping

Compression +refroidissementcompression+ cooling

Pompagepumping

1 canalisation de 100 km(diamètre 380 mm)Régénérateur(sortie capture)1,7 38eaueau4044,942 4079,540129,5114,4 –InjectionPression (bar abs.)Température (°C)CO2 gazeuxEau : 1372 ppm mass.

CO2 gazeuxEau : 46 ppm mass.CO2 – gaseous phaseWater : 46 ppm

CO2 denseEau : 46 ppm mass.

CO2 supercritiqueEau : 46 ppm mass.CO2 – dense phaseWater : 46 ppm

CO2 denseEau : 46 ppm mass.

Stockagestorage

purgeCapture outletPressure (bara)Temperature (°C)waterwaterCO2 – gaseous phaseWater : 1372 ppmCO2 – dense phaseWater : 46 ppma 100 km pipeCO2 – dense phaseWater : 46 ppmFigure 2: Process flow diagram for the dense phase caseCO2production 100 km On-shore pipe

Liquefaction

Storage LoadingCO2 (gas)7 bar-50°C15 bar-30°C

Ship tanksHarbour installationsCO2 (gas)100-350 t/hP>130barP>100barPrevious study of Bonnissel etal. [2007]12Figure 3: Liquefaction unitFigure 4: Possible tanks for CO2 temporary storage.Figure 5 Intermediary storage characteristics. A 4500 m3 tank composed of a double casingcontaining Perlite vacuum packed (thickness 30 cm), having an external diameter of14.7 m for 32.3 m length.1stcoolingloop2nd coolingloophorizontalcylinder BilobateVolume = 4500 m3Double casing segmentation,thermal bridge possibleRe-liquefaction ofgas generated inthe storage13Figure 6: Boil off management during the loading process.Figure 7: Typical arrangements for a CO2 ship.Figure 8: Offshore unloadingGasOn shore storageLiquidLiquidLiquidGasGasShip tank

-30°C / 15 bar

Ship-24°C / 120 bar

4 pipes on the mud200 m water depth

0°C / 110 bar4 wells

14Harbo ur for CO2 inject ion (un loading , storage & inject ion )Harbo ur for CO2 inject ion (liquef action unit , unloading , storage & inject ion )A BIA BIA BC ICase 12 harbours / 1 shipHarbour for CO2 transport by ship (liquef action unit , storage & loading )Harbo ur for CO2 inject ion (un loading , storage & inject ion )Inject ionOff-shore pipeShipCoastLegend :On-shore pipeCase 22 harbours / 1 shipCase 33 harbours / 2 shipsIFigure 9: Use cases

36,0 36,0 36,018,0 18,0 18,08,0 8,021,328,414,239,31339,313 124,578,613135,6182,0

4,0 020406080100120140160180200Case 1 Case 2 Case 3M€/anoffshore pipeshiploading/unloadingstorageliquefaction unitonshore pipeCO2 conditioningFigure 10: Scenarios costs evaluation15Ship / onshore pipeline comparison0501001502000 500 100015002000250030003500400045005000distance (km)€/ ton CO25.6 Mt/year2.8 Mt/year1.6 Mt/year0.8 Mt/year5.6 Mt/y pipeline2.8 Mt/y pipeline1.6 Mt/y pipeline0.8 Mt/y pipelineequilibriumShip / offshore pipeline comparison for 2.8Mt/year02550751001251500 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500distance (km)€/ ton CO2Figure11: Ship/pipeline comparison16TABLES

CO2 flow rate =350 t/h -50 °C / 7 bar -30 °C/ 15 bar -30 °C/ 15 bar -30 °C/15 barFluid cooling loop Nature (% mass.)20% ethylene –80% propylene20% ethylene –80% propylene100% propane 100% propaneFlow rate (t/h) 193 216 143 147Compressor powerfrom 1.4 to 3.7 bar 4.4 from 3.7 to 9.5 bar 4.6 from 9.5 to 24 bar 3.934 from 3.1 to 8 bar 4.6 from 8 to 21 bar 4.7 36 from 1.3 to 3.7 bar 3 from 3.7 to 10 bar 2.936 from 3.25 to 9.75 bar 1.8from 1.3 to 3.6 bar 1.1from 3.6 to 9.8 bar 1.136EnergyEnergy forliquefaction(kWh/tCO2) (kJ/kg) 37 133 27 96 17 61 1242Upstream energy*(kWh/tCO2) (kJ/kg) 94 338 94 338 94 338 94338Total energy(kWh/tCO2) (kJ/kg) 131 471 121 434 111 399 106380

Stage 1 (MW) Stage 2 (MW) Stage 3 (MW) Stage 1 (MW) Stage 2 (MW) CO2 Pomp power (kW) Table 1: For a source at 100km from the harbour, energy required from the different options.(* Energy for dehydratation and compression before entering the 100 km pipeline)

Solution with 4 injection linesflow rate per well (bpd) 49528 49528 49528 49528 49528 49528 49528 49528External current velocity (m/s) 0.005 0.5 0.005 0.5 0.005 0.5 0.005 0.5Pump outlet temperature (°C) -22 -23 -23.7 -24.2 -24.2 -24.4 -24.4 -24.5Internal diameter (“) 8 8 10 10 12 12 14 14Pressure drop (bar) 21.0 9.0 6.2 2.4 2.2 0.7 0.9 0.3Subsea pipe length (km) 7 3 6.5 2.5 6 2 5.5 2Ice deposition length (km) 3 3 3 2.5Injection temperature (°C) 0.1 -0.4 0.0 -0.6 0.0 -1.6 -0.1 -0.3CO2 velocity (m/s) 2.8 2.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9Steel mass (t) 671 288 974 375 1295 432 1616 587Pipe volume (m3) 908.0 389.2 1317.4 506.7 1751.2 583.7 2184.9 794.5Topside pump power (MW) 5.43 5.55 5.18 4.76 4.73 4.58 4.59 4.53

Table 2: Pipe length necessary to reach the injection conditions.CL1CL2

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!

 



error: Content is protected !!