WORLD’S FIRST APPLICATION OF

AERODERIVATIVE GAS TURBINE DRIVERS

FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS OPTIMIZED
CASCADE® LNG PROCESS
Originally Issued: April 2007
Updated: December 2008

Abstract—Market pressures for new thermally efficient and environmentally friendly liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plants, coupled with the need for high plant availability, have resulted in the world’s first application
of high-performance PGT25+ aeroderivative gas turbines for the 3.7 MTPA Darwin LNG plant in Australia’s
Northern Territory. The plant was operational several months ahead of contract schedule and exceeded its
production target for 2006. This paper describes the philosophy leading to this first-of-a-kind aeroderivative
gas turbine plant and future potential for the application of larger aeroderivative drivers, which are an
excellent fit for the ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade® Process.
Keywords—aeroderivative, gas turbine, greenhouse gas, LNG, LNG liquefaction, thermal efficiency

INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF THE DARWIN LNG PROJECT

Cyrus B.
Meher-Homji
cmeherho@bechtel.com
Tim Hattenbach
thattenb@bechtel.com
Dave Messersmith
dmessers@bechtel.com
Hans P. Weyermann
hans.weyermann@
conocophillips.com
Karl Masani
karl.masani@
conocophillips.com
Satish Gandhi, PhD
satish.l.gandhi@
conocophillips.com
A eroderivative engines fit the ConocoPhillips
Optimized Cascade® Process1 because of the
two-trains-in-one design concept that facilitates
the use of such engines. Further, the application
of a range of larger aeroderivative engines that
are now available allows for a flexible design
fit for this process. Benefits of aeroderivative
engines over large heavy-duty single- and two-
shaft engines include significantly higher thermal
efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions,
the ability to start up without the use of large
helper motors, and improved production
efficiency due to modular engine change-outs.
For instance, the Darwin liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plant is able to operate at reduced rates
of 50% to 70% in the event that one refrigeration
compressor is down.
Several practical aspects of the application of
aeroderivative gas turbines as refrigeration
drivers along with design and implementation
considerations are discussed below. The
selection of aeroderivative engines and their
configurations for various train sizes, and
evaluation of emission considerations are
also covered.
1 ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade Process
services are provided by ConocoPhillips Company
and Bechtel Corporation via a collaborative
relationship with ConocoPhillips Company.
O n February 14, 2006, the Darwin LNG
plant was successfully commissioned
and the first LNG cargo was supplied to the
buyers, Tokyo Electric and Tokyo Gas. The plant
represents an innovative benchmark in the LNG
industry as the world’s first facility to use high-
efficiency aeroderivative gas turbine drivers. This
benchmark follows another landmark innovation
by ConocoPhillips: the first application of gas
turbine drivers at the Kenai LNG plant in Alaska
built in 1969.
The Darwin plant is a nominal 3.7 million tonnes
per annum (MTPA) capacity LNG plant at
Wickham Point, located in Darwin Harbour,
Northern Territory, Australia. The plant is
connected via a 500 km, 26-inch-diameter subsea
pipeline to the Bayu-Undan offshore facilities.
The Bayu-Undan field was discovered in 1995
approximately 500 km northwest of Darwin
in the Timor Sea (see Figure 1). Delineation
drilling over the next 2 years determined the
field to be of world-class quality with 3.4 trillion
cubic feet (tcf) of gas and 400 million barrels
(MMbbl) of recoverable condensate and liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG). The Bayu-Undan offshore
facility began operating in February 2004;
current production averages 70,000 bbl of
condensate and 40,000 bbl of LPG per day.
The Darwin project was developed through a
lump-sum, turnkey (LSTK) contract with Bechtel

© 2008 Bechtel Corporation. All rights reserved. 1

 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND TERMS
ASME American Society of LNG liquefied natural gas
Mechanical Engineers
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
bbl barrel
LSTK lump-sum, turnkey
CC combined cycle
MDEA methyldiethanolamine
CIT compressor inlet temperature
MMbbl million barrels
CNG compressed natural gas
MMBtu million British thermal units
CO2 carbon dioxide
MTPA million tonnes per annum
DBT dry bulb temperature
NGL natural gas liquid
DLE dry low emissions
NOx nitrogen oxide
FEED front-end engineering design
NPV net present value
FOB free on board
PGT25+ GENP designation of the
GENP General Electric Nuovo Pignone LM2500 engine with HSPT
GT gas turbine ppm parts per million
HHV higher heating value RH relative humidity
HPT high-pressure turbine rpm revolutions per minute
HSPT high-speed power turbine SAC single annular combustor
ISO International Organization SC simple cycle
for Standardization
SHP shaft horsepower
kg/sec kilograms per second
tcf trillion cubic feet
LM2500+G4 gas generator manufactured
by GE Industrial TMY2 typical meteorological year 2
Aeroderivative group VFD variable-frequency drive

DILL

TIMOR LESTE
ABADI

SUNRISE AUSTRALIA
SUAI

JPDA EVANS SHOAL

EKKN

SIA
ONE
IND
BAYU-UNDAN
IA
T RAL TIMOR SEA
AUS

CRUX PUTREL
DARWIN
TERN
SCOTT REEF NORTHERN TERRITORY
BREWSTER

BLACKTIP
N
0 50 100
BRECKNOCK
km

Figure 1. Bayu-Undan Field Location and the Darwin LNG Plant

2 Bechtel Technology Journal


Figure 2. Aerial View of 3.7 MTPA Darwin LNG Plant — 188,000 m3 Storage Tank, 1,350 m Jetty, and Loading Dock
Corporation that was signed in April 2003 with
notice to proceed for construction issued in
June 2003. An aerial photo of the completed
plant is shown in Figure 2. Details regarding the
development of the Darwin LNG project have
been provided by Yates. [1, 2]
Not only has the Darwin plant established a
new benchmark in the LNG industry by being
the first LNG plant to use aeroderivative gas
turbines as refrigerant compressor drivers, it also
is the first to use evaporative coolers. The GE
PGT25+2 is comparable in power output to the
GE Frame 5D gas turbine but has an ISO thermal
efficiency of 41% compared to 29% for the Frame
5D. This improvement in thermal efficiency results
in a reduction of required fuel, which reduces
greenhouse gas in two ways. First, CO2 emissions
are reduced due to a lower quantum of fuel
burned, and second, the total feed gas required for
the same LNG production also is reduced. The feed
gas coming to the Darwin LNG facility contains
carbon dioxide, which is removed in an amine
system before LNG liquefaction and is released
to the atmosphere. The reduction in the feed gas
(due to the lower fuel gas requirements) results in
2 This engine uses a LM2500+ gas generator, coupled
with a two-stage high-speed power turbine developed
by GE Oil & Gas.
December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1
The Darwin plant
established a
new benchmark in
the LNG industry
by being the first
LNG plant to use
aeroderivative
gas turbines
as refrigerant
compressor drivers.
a reduction of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas
emissions from the unit.
The Darwin plant incorporates several other design
features to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They
include the use of waste heat recovery on the
PGT25+ turbine exhaust that is used for a variety
of heating requirements within the plant.
The facility also contains ship vapor recovery
equipment. Both of these features not only reduce
emissions that would have been produced from
fired equipment and flares, but they also lead to
reduced plant fuel requirements, which reduce
the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere.
Gas turbine nitrogen oxide (NOx) control is
derived by water injection, which allows the plant
to control NOx emissions while maintaining the
flexibility to accommodate fuel gas compositions
needed for various plant operating conditions.
At the same time, there is no need for costly fuel
treatment facilities for dry low NOx combustors.
The Darwin plant uses a single LNG storage tank
with a working capacity of 188,000 m3, one of the
largest aboveground LNG tanks. A ground flare is
used instead of a conventional stack to minimize
visual effects from the facility and any intrusion on
aviation traffic in the Darwin area. The plant also
uses vacuum jacketed piping in the storage and
loading system to improve thermal efficiency and
reduce insulation costs. Methyldiethanolamine
3
 RAW GAS
FEED
PRETREATMENT
METHANE

AIR FIN HEAT

ETHYLENE EXCHANGER PLANT FUEL
AIR FIN HEAT
COMPRESSORS EXCHANGER COMPRESSORS COMPRESSORS
TURBINES

TURBINES TURBINES

AIR FIN HEAT

EXCHANGER ETHYLENE
THYL METHANE
METHANE METHANE
Sizes of COLD BOX COLD BOX
PROPANE
available
aeroderivative PROPANE
HEAT EXCHANGE ETHYLENE
engines ideally
HEAVIES
REMOVAL
fit the
two-trains-in-one NGL
SHIP VAPOR TANK VAPOR
concept of the BLOWER BLOWER
VAPOR FROM SHIP
WHEN LOADING
ConocoPhillips
TO SHIP LOADING
LNG process. FACILITIES LNG
STORAGE TANKS
AND
LOADING PUMPS

Figure 3. Simplified Process Flow Diagram of the Optimized Cascade Process

(MDEA) with a proprietary activator is used • Aeroderivative engines are variable-speed

for acid gas removal. This amine selection lowers drivers, which facilitate the flexibility of the
the required regeneration heat load, and for an process and allow startup without the use of
inlet gas stream containing more than 6% carbon large variable-frequency drive (VFD) starter
dioxide, this lower heat load leads to reduced motors commonly used on single-shaft gas
equipment size and a corresponding reduction turbines. Aeroderivative engines also allow
in equipment cost. startup under settle-out pressure conditions,
with no need to depressurize the compressor
Plant Design as is common for single-shaft drivers.
The Darwin LNG Plant uses the ConocoPhillips • High efficiency results in a greener train
Optimized Cascade Process, which was first used with a significant reduction in greenhouse
in the Kenai LNG plant in Alaska and more gas emissions.
recently in Trinidad (four trains), Egypt (two • Several LNG projects are gas constrained
trains), and a train in Equatorial Guinea. A due to a lack of available supplies. This
simplified process flow diagram of the Optimized situation occurs both on potential new
Cascade Process is shown in Figure 3. projects and at existing LNG facilities. Under
such constraints, any fuel reduction resulting
Thermal Efficiency Considerations from higher gas-turbine thermal efficiency
Several fundamental conditions in today’s means it can be converted to LNG.
marketplace make aeroderivative engines an • Gas supplies are also constrained due to
excellent solution: greater national oil company control of
the sources. Gas supplies are no longer
• Sizes of available aeroderivative engines
available at low cost to LNG plants and
ideally fit the two-trains-in-one concept of
the notion that fuel is free is now a thing
the ConocoPhillips LNG Process.
of the past. Several current projects and
front-end engineering design (FEED) studies

4 Bechtel Technology Journal

 Value of Converting Fuel Savings into LNG for a 5.0 MTPA LNG Plant
(Power Cycle Efficiency Increase vs. Power Cycle Efficiency of 30%)
500

(Delta Between Each Efficiency Case and Base Case) 33%

Present Value of Gross Margin, $ Million

400 37%

40%
300 50%

200

Process flexibility
100
and stability
of operation are
0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 of paramount
LNG Price, $/MMBtu importance and
Fixed feed gas flow: gas cost = $0.75/MMBtu Availability is adjusted for aeroderivatives (+1%) and combined cycle (–2%) must be
Present value calculated at discount rate = 12% and 20-year life Capital cost adjusted for incremental capacity (SC: $150/tonne, CC: $300/tonne)
incorporated into
the considerations
Figure 4. Present Value of Gross Margin as a Function of Driver Thermal Efficiency, for a Range of LNG FOB Prices
regarding thermal
efficiency.
have encountered fuel valued much higher a tradeoff between capital and life cycle costs.
than a decade ago. Host governments also Gas turbine selection, the use of waste heat
are requiring more gas for domestic use, recovery and ship vapor recovery, and self-
increasing the shortfalls for LNG plants. generation versus purchased power all have a
significant effect on the overall thermal efficiency
Given this situation and the fact that fuel not
of the process. Process flexibility and stability of
consumed can be converted to LNG, use of
operation are of paramount importance and must
high-efficiency aeroderivative engines delivers
be incorporated into the considerations regarding
significant benefits with a net present value
thermal efficiency because the value of a highly
(NPV) of hundreds of millions of dollars. Because
efficient process is diminished if plant reliability
NPV is a strong function of feed gas costs and
and availability are sacrificed.
LNG sales price, it is highly affected by a plant’s
thermal efficiency, especially when the free Yates [3] has provided a detailed treatment of
on board (FOB) LNG costs are high, as in the the design life cycle and environmental factors
current market. that affect plant thermal efficiency, such as feed
gas characteristics, feed gas conditioning, and
The present value of converting fuel into LNG for
the LNG liquefaction cycle itself. Some of the key
a nominal 5.0 MTPA plant is shown in Figure 4
elements of this discussion are provided below,
for a range of driver efficiencies between 33% and
leading into the discussion of the selection of
50%, as compared to a base case of 30%. Results
high-efficiency aeroderivative engines.
are provided for FOB LNG prices ranging from
$1 to $5 per million British thermal units A common consideration in evaluating competing
(MMBtu). The present value of the gross margin LNG technologies is the difference in thermal
(defined as LNG revenue—feed gas cost) is efficiency. The evaluation of thermal efficiency
calculated over a 20-year life and a discount rate tends to be elusive and subjective in that each
of 12%. The graph shows the strong influence project introduces its own unique characteristics
of driver efficiency. that determine its optimum thermal efficiency
based on the project’s strongest economic and
The thermal efficiency of an LNG facility depends
environmental merits. Different technologies
on numerous factors such as gas composition,
or plant designs cannot be compared on
inlet pressure and temperature, and even more
thermal efficiency without understanding and
obscure factors such as the location of the loading
compensating for such unique differences of
dock relative to the site of the liquefaction
each project.
process. Higher thermal efficiency is typically

December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1 5

 The definition of thermal efficiency also has
proven to be subjective depending on whether
an entire plant, an isolated system, or an item of
equipment is being compared. Thermal efficiency,
or train efficiency, has been expressed as the
ratio of the total higher heating value (HHV) of
the products to the total HHV of the feed. This
definition fails to recognize the other forms of
thermodynamic work or energy consumed by
the process. For example, the definition would
not account for the work of purchased power and
electric motors if they are used for refrigeration
Turndown and flashed gas compression. When evaluating
capabilities the benefits of achieving high thermal efficiency
with a specific LNG plant design, a true accounting
of an LNG process
of all of the energy being consumed in the
also need to be process must be considered.
considered when
Turndown capabilities of an LNG process also
thermal efficiency need to be considered when thermal efficiency
and life-cycle and life-cycle cost comparisons are being made.
cost comparisons Thermal efficiency comparisons are typically
based on the process operating at design
are being made.
conditions. In an actual plant environment, this
design point is elusive, and an operator is always
trying to attain a “sweet spot” where the plant will
operate at its peak performance under prevailing
conditions. As the temperature changes during
the day, affecting the performance of the air
coolers, turbines, or process fluid and equipment,
the operator needs to continually adjust plant
parameters to achieve optimal performance.
Designing a plant to allow an operator to
continually achieve this optimum performance
will affect the plant’s overall thermal efficiency
and life cycle costs.
The efficiency of an LNG process depends
on many features. The two most significant
ones are the efficiency of heat exchange and
the turbomachinery efficiency. The heat
exchange efficiency is a function of the process
configuration and selection of the individual heat
exchangers, which sets temperature approaches.
The turbomachinery efficiency depends on the
compressor and turbine efficiencies.
Cooling Curve Performance
The liquefaction cooling curve3 performance is
another benchmark reviewed in LNG technology
comparisons and is often misunderstood
or incorrectly applied. Recent analyses by
Ransbarger et al. [4] have comprehensively
evaluated the issue of cooling curve performance
with respect to overall thermal efficiency.
3 Also known as a temperature-duty curve.
6 Bechtel Technology Journal
A liquefaction cooling curve plot depicts the
temperature change of the heat sink and the
heat source as a function of the heat transferred.
Frequently, cooling curves are shown with only
the feed gas as a heat source and then used
as a means to compare different liquefaction
processes. Cooling curves should include all
duty that is transferred at a given temperature,
which includes cooling and condensing of the
refrigerants as well as the feed gas. The composite
cooling curve analysis seeks to optimize the
area or temperature difference between the
heat source and the heat sink in a cost-effective
manner. Each of the available liquefaction
processes attempts to optimize this temperature
difference in a different way.
Very often, process efficiencies of LNG
technologies have been compared with the
classical cascade process. It is important to note
that the ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade
Process encompasses two major modifications:
• The addition and optimization of heat
recovery schemes
• Where appropriate, the conversion of the
traditional closed-loop methane refrigeration
system to an open-loop system
The plate fin heat exchangers used in this process
are also recognized for their ability to achieve
an exceptionally close temperature approach.
The use of pure refrigerants allows continually
accurate prediction of refrigerant performance
during plant operation without the need for
on-line refrigerant monitoring. Therefore, for a
given feed gas composition range, the cascade
liquefaction technology provides the plant
designer with flexibility in cooling stage locations,
heat exchanger area, and operating pressure
ranges during each stage, resulting in a process
that can achieve high thermal efficiency under a
wide range of feed conditions.
When using cooling curves, incorrect conclusions
can be drawn if only the feed gas is used as a
heat source. It is imperative that heat transfer
associated with cooling and condensing refrig-
erants also be included4, so that a “complete
cooling curve” can be derived. Complete cooling
curves of the classical and Optimized Cascade
Process are depicted in Figure 5. The average
temperature approach of the classical cascade
is 16 °F (8.89 °C), while the average approach
temperature of the Optimized Cascade is
4 The Optimized Cascade Process would include heat
transfer associated with the propane refrigerant loads
necessary to cool and condense ethylene, as well as
the ethylene refrigeration loads necessary to cool and
condense methane flash vapors.
12 °F (6.67 °C), i.e., a reduction of 25%, which than industrial gas turbines. The figure illustrates
represents a 10% to 15% reduction in power. the engines’ thermal efficiency vs. specific work
(kW per unit air mass flow). The higher efficiency
The maturity of the liquefaction processes has
of an aeroderivative gas turbine can result in a
approached a point at which changes in duty
curve no longer represent the greatest impact.
Two developments that have a significant impact
Classical Cascade Process
on efficiency are the improvement in liquefaction Complete Cooling Curve
compressor efficiency5 and the availability of 150
high-efficiency gas turbine drivers. 100 T sink
50 T source
A comparison of LNG technologies at a single

Temperature, °F
0 T avg
design condition does not address plant –50
performance during variations in operating –100
conditions. A two-shaft gas turbine such as the –150

PGT25+ used at Darwin, with its ability to control –200

Average Approach = 16 °F
–250
compressor performance without the need for
–300
recycle, can deliver significant improvements in 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
thermal efficiency during turndown operations. Enthalpy Change
Due to significant production swings during
the day as a result of changes in ambient
Optimized Cascade Process
temperature, described earlier, the performance Complete Cooling Curve
of the gas turbine and compressor package needs 150

to be considered in any comparison of plant 100 T sink

50
thermal efficiency. T source
Temperature, °F

0 T avg
–50
–100
SELECTION OF AERODERIVATIVE ENGINES
–150

T he earlier discussion demonstrated that the

selection of the gas turbine plays an important
role in efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and
–200
–250
–300
Average Approach = 12 °F

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

flexibility under various operating conditions.
Enthalpy Change
The gas turbine selection for Darwin LNG was
based on the economic merits that the turbine
would deliver for the overall life cycle cost of Figure 5. Comparison of Cooling Curves for Classical Cascade Process and
the project. ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade Process

When high fuel costs are expected, the selection

of a high-efficiency driver becomes a strong
criterion in the life cycle cost evaluation. However,
50
LNG projects are developed to monetize stranded
gas reserves, while low-cost fuel has favored Aeroderivative
industrial gas turbines. This situation is changing 45

and the value of gas is growing. Further, when

Thermal Efficiency, %

the gas is pipeline or otherwise constrained, there 40

is a clear benefit to consuming less fuel for a given
amount of refrigeration power. In such cases,
35
a high-efficiency gas turbine solution through
which the saved fuel can be converted into LNG
production can reap large benefits. 30

Figure 6 6 shows that aeroderivative gas turbines Heavy-Duty Engines

achieve significantly higher thermal efficiencies 25

200 250 300 350 400

5 Compressor polytropic efficiencies now exceed GT-Specific Work, kW/kg/sec

80% and high-efficiency gas turbines are
available with simple-cycle thermal efficiencies
of approximately 40%. Figure 6. Map of ISO Thermal Efficiency vs. Specific Work of
6 Based on Frame 5C, 5D, 7EA, and 9E frame type Commonly Used Frame Drivers and Aeroderivative Engines
(Aeroderivative Engines Exhibit Higher Specific Work and Thermal Efficiency)
drivers and GE PGT25+, LM6000, RR 6761, and
RR Trent aeroderivative units.

December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1 7

 3% or greater increase in overall plant thermal
efficiency. Further, plant availability significantly
improves because a gas turbine generator (or even
a complete turbine) can be completely changed
out within 48 hours compared to the 14 or more
days required for a major overhaul of a heavy-
duty gas turbine.
The GE PGT25+ aeroderivative gas turbine is used
as the refrigerant compressor driver at Darwin.
The PGT25+ is comparable in power output to
the GE Frame 5D but has a significantly higher
thermal efficiency of 41.1%. This improvement in
Aeroderivative
thermal efficiency results directly in a reduction of
gas turbines
specific fuel required per unit of LNG production.
achieve This reduction in fuel consumption in turn
results in decreased CO2 emissions, as depicted
significantly higher
in Figure 7, which shows relative CO2 emissions
thermal efficiencies
for various drivers.
than industrial
A similar beneficial greenhouse gas reduction
gas turbines.
comes from the use of waste heat recovery on
the PGT25+ turbine exhaust used for various
heating requirements within the plant. The use
of this heat recovery eliminates greenhouse
gas emissions that would have been released
had gas-fired equipment been used. The result
is an approximately 9.3% reduction in total
greenhouse gases.
• Ability to rapidly swap engines and modules,
thus improving maintenance flexibility
• High starting torque capacity; excellent
torque-speed characteristics, allowing large
trains to start up under settle-out pressure
conditions
• Essentially zero-timed after 6 years;
maintenance can also be done “on condition,”
allowing additional flexibility
• Dry-low-emissions (DLE) technology, avail-
able and proven on several engines
• Relatively easy installation due to low engine
weight
Implementation of the PGT25+ in
the Darwin Plant − Gas Turbine and
Compressor Configurations
The Darwin LNG compressor configuration
encompasses the hallmark two-in-one design
of the Optimized Cascade Process, with a total
of six refrigeration compressors configured as
shown below in a 2+2+2 configuration. All of the
turbomachinery was supplied by GE Oil & Gas
(Nuovo Pignone).
Propane: 2 X PGT25+ + GB + 3MCL1405
Ethylene: 2 X PGT25+ + GB + 2MCL1006
Methane: 2 X PGT25+ + MCL806 + MCL 806 + BCL608

Advantages of Aeroderivative Engines over
Heavy Duty Gas Turbines
Several advantages of using aeroderivative
engines, some of which have been discussed,
include:
• Much higher efficiency that leads to reduced
fuel consumption and greenhouse emissions
1.1
1.0
Both the propane and ethylene trains have
speed reduction gearboxes. All compressors are
horizontally split except for the last casing of
the methane string, which is a barrel design. The
gas turbines and compressors are mezzanine
mounted as shown in Figure 8, which facilitates a
down-nozzle configuration for the compressors.
A view of the six strings from the gas turbine
inlet side is shown in Figure 9. The four
once-through steam generators are on the
four turbine exhausts to the left. The LM2500+
gas generator is shown in Figure 10.

0.9 AERODERIVATIVE ENGINE TECHNOLOGY FOR

Relative CO2 Emissions

DARWIN LNG
0.8
T he PGT25+ engine used at the Darwin
plant has a long heritage, starting from the
TF39 GE aeroengine, as shown in Figure 11.
0.7
This highly successful aeroengine resulted
in the industrial LM2500 engine, which was
0.6
then upgraded to the LM2500+. The PGT25+ is
essentially the LM2500+ gas generator coupled to
0.5 a 6,100 revolution-per-minute (rpm) high-speed
GE GE GE GE GE Rolls GE Trent
Frame LM2500+ Frame Frame Frame Royce LM6000PD 60 power turbine (HSPT). The latest variant of this
5C 6B 7EA 5D 6761 DLE
engine is the G4, rated at 34 MW.
The first LM2500+ design was based on the
Figure 7. Relative CO2 Emissions from Different Classes of Gas Turbines successful history of the LM2500 gas turbine

8 Bechtel Technology Journal


Figure 8. Compressor Trains at Darwin LNG Plant
Figure 9. Compressor Block Viewed from Gas Turbine
Filter House End (Note Four Once-Through
Steam Generators on Gas Turbines)
Figure 10. Installation of LM2500+ Gas Generator
C-5
TF39/CF6-6
DC-10
Figure 11. LM2500 Engine Evolution
December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1
that was completed in December 1996. The
LM2500+ was originally rated at 27.6 MW, with
a nominal 37.5% ISO thermal efficiency. Since
that time, its ratings have grown to the current
31.3 MW and 41% thermal efficiency.
The LM2500+ has a revised and upgraded
compressor section with an added zero stage for
a 23% increased airflow and pressure ratio, and
revised materials and design in the high-pressure
and power turbines. Details can be found in
Wadia et al. [5]
Description of the PGT25+ Gas Turbine
The PGT25+ consists of the following
components:
• Axial flow compressor — The compressor is
a 17-stage axial-flow design with variable-
geometry compressor inlet guide vanes
that direct air at the optimum flow angle,
and variable stator vanes to ensure ease of
starting and smooth, efficient operation over
the entire engine operating range. The axial
flow compressor operates at a pressure ratio
of 23:1 and has a transonic blisk as the zero
stage7. As reported by Wadia et al. [5], the
airflow rate is 84.5 kg/sec at a gas generator
speed of 9,586 rpm. The axial compressor has
a polytropic efficiency of 91%.
• Annular combustor — The engine is provided
with a single annular combustor (SAC) with
coated combustor dome and liner similar to
those used in flight applications. The SAC
features a through-flow, venturi swirler to
provide a uniform exit temperature profile
7 The zero stage operates at a stage pressure ratio of
1.43:1 and an inlet tip relative mach number of 1.19.
Power Output
MW/SHP
Thermal Efficiency
23/32,000
38%
LM2500/PGT25
/
31.3/42,000
39%–41%
LM2500+/PGT25+
34.3/46,000
39%–41%
LM2500+G4/PGT25+G4
(Source: GE Energy)
9
 and distribution. This combustor configura-
tion features individually replaceable fuel
nozzles, a full-machined-ring liner for long
life, and an yttrium-stabilized zirconium
thermal barrier coating to improve hot
corrosive resistance. The engine is equipped
with water injection for NOx control.
• High-pressure turbine (HPT) — The PGT25+
HPT is a high-efficiency air-cooled, two-
stage design. The HPT section consists of
the rotor and the first- and second-stage
HPT nozzle assemblies. The HPT nozzles
A critical factor direct the hot gas from the combustor onto
the turbine blades at the optimum angle and
in any LNG
velocity. The high-pressure turbine extracts
operation is the
energy from the gas stream to drive the
life-cycle cost axial flow compressor to which it is
influenced mechanically coupled.
in part by the • High-speed power turbine — The PGT25+
maintenance cycle gas generator is aerodynamically coupled
to a high-efficiency HSPT with a cantilever-
and
supported two-stage rotor design. The power
engine availability. turbine is attached to the gas generator by a
transition duct that also serves to direct the
exhaust gases from the gas generator into
the stage-one turbine nozzles. Output power
is transmitted to the load by means of a
coupling adapter on the aft end of the power
turbine rotor shaft. The HSPT operates at a
speed of 6,100 rpm with an operating speed
range of 3,050 to 6,400 rpm. The high-speed
two-stage power turbine can be operated
over a cubic load curve for mechanical
drive applications.
• Engine-mounted accessory gearbox driven
by a radial drive shaft — The PGT25+ has
an engine-mounted accessory drive gearbox
for starting the unit and supplying power
for critical accessories. Power is extracted
through a radial drive shaft at the forward
end of the compressor. Drive pads are
provided for accessories, including the lube
and scavenge pump, starter, and variable-
geometry control. An overview of the engine,
including the HSPT, is shown in Figure 12.
Maintenance
A critical factor in any LNG operation is the life-
cycle cost influenced in part by the maintenance
cycle and engine availability. Aeroderivative
engines have several features that facilitate “on
condition” maintenance, rather than strict time-
based maintenance. Numerous boroscope ports
allow on-station, internal inspections to determine
the condition of internal components, thereby
increasing the interval between scheduled,
periodic removal of engines. When the condition
10
(Source: GE Energy)
Figure 12. PGT25+ Gas Turbine
of the internal components of the affected module
has deteriorated to such an extent that continued
operation is not practical, the maintenance
program calls for exchange of that module.
The PGT25+ is designed to allow for rapid
on-site exchange of major modules within the gas
turbine. Component removal and replacement
can be accomplished in less than 100 hours,
and the complete gas generator unit can be
replaced and be back online within 48 hours. The
hot-section repair interval for the aeroderivative
is 25,000 hours on natural gas; however, water
injection for NOx control shortens this inter-
val to between 16,000 hours and 20,000 hours,
depending on the NOx target level8.
Performance Deterioration and Recovery
Gas turbine performance deterioration is of
great concern to any LNG operation (see [6, 7,
and 8]). Total performance loss is attributable
to a combination of recoverable (by washing) and
non-recoverable (recoverable only by component
replacement or repair) losses. Recoverable
performance loss is caused by airborne contami-
nant fouling of airfoil surfaces. The magnitude of
recoverable performance loss and the frequency
of washing are determined by site environment
and operational profile. Generally, compressor
fouling is the predominant cause of this type
of loss. Periodic washing of the gas turbine,
using online and crank-soak wash procedures,
will recover 98% to 100% of these losses. The
objective of online washing is to increase the time
interval between crank washes. The best approach
is to couple online and offline washing.
The cooldown time for an aeroderivative
engine is much less than that for a heavy-duty
frame machine due to the lower casing mass.
Crank washes can therefore be done with
less downtime.
8 The level of water injection is a function of the NO
x
target level.
Bechtel Technology Journal
Upgrades of the PGT25+
Another advantage of using aeroderivative
40,000
engines for LNG service is that they can be
uprated to newer variants, generally within the
same space constraints—a useful feature for
future debottlenecking. The Darwin LNG plant
36,000
is implementing this upgrade.

The LM2500+G4 is the newest member of GE’s

LM2500 family of aeroderivative engines. The

Shaft Power Output, kW

engine, shown in Figure 13, retains the basic 32,000

design of the LM2500+ but increases the power

capability by approximately 10% without
sacrificing hot-section life. The modification
28,000
increases the engine’s power capability by
increasing the airflow, improving the materials,
and increasing the internal cooling. The
number of compressor and turbine stages and
24,000
the majority of the airfoils and the combustor
LM2500+G4 SAC Power
designs remain unchanged from the LM2500. LM2500+ SAC Power
Details on the LM2500+G4 can be found in [9]. LM2500 SAC Power
20,000
The increased power of this variant compared to
–30.0 –15.0 0.0 15.0 30.0
the base engine is shown in Figure 14.
Ambient Temperature, °C

(Source: GE Energy)

Figure 14. Comparative Power Output of LM2500+G4 Variant

40,000 95

90
35,000

(Source: GE Energy)

Figure 13. Uprated LM2500+G4 Engine — DLE Variant 85

30,000

Air Mass Flow Rate, kg/sec

80
POWER AUGMENTATION BY
Power, kW

EVAPORATIVE COOLING 25,000

L NG production is highly dependent on the

power capability of the gas turbine drivers of
the propane, ethylene, and methane compressors. 20,000
75

Industrial gas turbines lose approximately 0.7% 70

of their power for every 1 °C rise in ambient
temperature. This effect is more pronounced 15,000
65
in aeroderivative gas turbines due to their
kW
higher specific work for which the sensitivity can Airflow, kg/sec
increase to much greater than 1% per °C. The
10,000 60
impact of ambient temperature on the PGT25+ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
power and air flow is depicted in Figure 15. Ambient Temperature, °C
As aeroderivative machines are more sensitive to
ambient temperature, they benefit significantly Figure 15. Variations in Power Output and Airflow Rate for PGT25+ Gas Turbine
from inlet air cooling. Darwin LNG uses
media-type evaporative coolers—another
first for LNG refrigeration drivers. Details on

December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1 11

 35

33

31

29

27

Temperature, °C 25

Because 23

aeroderivative
21
machines are
more sensitive Jan Apr Jul Oct
19
to ambient Feb May Aug Nov
17 Mar Jun Sep Dec
temperature,
they benefit 15
0:30

2:30

4:30

6:30

8:30

10:30

12:30

14:30

16:30

18:30

20:30

22:30

Mean
significantly from
inlet air cooling.
Time of Day

Figure 16. Darwin Temperature Profile Based on Time of Day over 12-Month Period

media-based evaporative cooling can be found There is considerable evaporative cooling

in Johnson. [10] potential available in Darwin especially during
the periods of high ambient temperatures,
Among the key advantages of power augmen-
because the relative humidity tends to drop
tation are that it leads to:
as the temperature increases. The average daily
• Greater LNG production due to reduced gas temperature profile at Darwin is shown in
turbine compressor inlet air temperature, Figure 16, and the relationship of relative
increasing the air mass flow rate and power humidity and dry bulb temperature for the month
• Improved thermal efficiency of the gas of September is shown in Figure 17 9. Details
turbine, resulting in lower CO2 emissions regarding the climatic analysis of evaporative
cooling potential can be found in [11].

Media-based evaporative coolers use corrugated

media over which water is passed. The media
material is placed in the gas turbine airflow
100
path within the air filter house and is wetted
90
via water distribution headers. The construction
80
of the media allows water to penetrate through
70
it, and any non-evaporated water returns to a
60
catch basin. The material also provides sufficient
RH, %

50
airflow channels for efficient heat transfer and
40
minimal pressure drop. As the gas turbine airflow
30
passes over the media, the airstream absorbs
20
moisture (evaporated water). Heat content in
10 the airstream is given up to the wetted media,
0 resulting in a lower compressor inlet temperature.
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
A typical evaporative cooler effectiveness range
DBT, °C
is 85% to 90%, and is defined as follows:

Figure 17. RH vs. DBT at Darwin Airport for the Month of September 9 Data is for Darwin Airport, from the typical
(Considerable Evaporative Cooling Potential is Available During Hot Daytime Hours) meteorological year (TMY2) database.

12 Bechtel Technology Journal

 DBT, CIT Media Evaporative Efficiency = 90% (TMY2 Database Data for Month of January )

40
DBT DBT, °C
CIT, °C; Efficiency = 90%
35

30
DBT, CIT, °C

25

20

15

10
CIT with Evaporative Cooler Because the
Optimized Cascade
5
Process uses a
1

33

65

97

129

161

193

225

257

289

321

353

385

417

449

481

513

545

577

609

641

673

705
two-train-in-one
Hours per Month
concept, in which
two parallel
Figure 18. Calculated CITs due to Evaporative Cooling During the Summer Month of January
compressor strings
are used for
(T1DB – T2DB) FUTURE POTENTIAL OF
Effectiveness = AERODERIVATIVE ENGINES USING each refrigeration
(T1DB – T2WB) THE OPTIMIZED CASCADE PROCESS service, the
Where:

T1DB = entering-air dry bulb temperature

S everal factors must be considered in choosing
an optimal train size, including:
application
of larger
• Gas availability from the field aeroderivative
T2DB = leaving-air dry bulb temperature • Market demand and LNG growth profile engines is
(which would also dictate the buildup and
T2WB = leaving-air wet bulb temperature an ideal fit.
timing between subsequent trains)
• Overall optimization of production, storage,
Effectiveness is the measure of how capable the
and shipping logistics
evaporative cooler is in lowering the inlet-air
dry bulb temperature to the coincident wet bulb • Operational flexibility, reliability, and
temperature. Drift eliminators are used to protect maintenance of the refrigeration block
the downstream inlet system components from (Flexibility is of extreme importance in
water damage, caused by carryover of large today’s operational market environment,
water droplets. which has seen some departure from long-
term LNG supply contracts.)
The presence of a media-type evaporative cooler
inherently creates a pressure drop, which reduces As the Optimized Cascade Process uses a
turbine output. For most gas turbines, media two-train-in-one concept, in which two parallel
thickness of 12 inches will result in a pressure compressor strings are used for each refrigeration
drop of approximately 0.5 in. to 1 in. of water. service, the application of larger aeroderivative
Increases in inlet duct differential pressure will engines is an ideal fit. Using the Optimized
cause a reduction of compressor mass flow and Cascade Process, the loss of any refrigeration
engine operating pressure. The large inlet temper- string does not shut down the train but only
ature drop derived from evaporative cooling more necessitates a reduction in plant feed, with
than compensates for the small drop in per- overall LNG production remaining between
formance due to the additional pressure drop. 60% and 70% of full capacity10.

Inlet temperature drops of approximately The significant benefits of aeroderivative engines

10 °C have been achieved at Darwin LNG, as opposed to large single-shaft gas turbines
which results in a power boost of approxi- make large aeroderivative units an attractive
mately 8% to 10%. Figure 18 shows calculated proposition for high-efficiency, high-output LNG
compressor inlet temperatures (CITs) with plants. Larger LNG plant sizes can be derived
the evaporative cooler for a typical summer
10 Obtained by shifting refrigerant loads to the other
month of January.
drivers.

December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1 13

 Table 1. Configuration/Size of LNG Plants Using Aeroderivative Engines
Aeroderivative Engine Configuration (Propane/Ethylene/Methane)
6 x LM2500+
8 x LM2500+G4 DLE
6 x LM6000 DLE
9 x LM6000 DLE
by adding gas turbines, as shown in Table 1.
While the output with one driver down in
a 2+2+2 configuration is approximately 60% to
70%, the output would be even higher with
The new generation a larger number of drivers.
of highly efficient
As split-shaft industrial gas turbines are not
and high-power
available in the power class of large aeroderivative
aeroderivative gas turbines, the application of aeroderivative
engines in engines offers the significant advantage of not
requiring costly and complex large starter motors
the 40 MW to
and their associated power generation costs.
50 MW range
For example, the LM6000 depicted in Figure 19
available today
is a 44 MW driver11, with a thermal efficiency
is ideally suited
of 42%, operating at a pressure ratio of 30:1 and
to the Optimized with an exhaust mass flow rate of 124 kg/sec.
Cascade Process This engine is a two-spool gas turbine with the
load driven by the low-speed spool, which is
due to its
mounted inside the high-speed spool, enabling
two-trains-in-one the two spools to turn at different speeds. The
concept. output speed of this machine is 3,400 rpm.
The LM6000 gas turbine makes extensive use of
variable geometry to achieve a large operating
envelope. The variable geometry includes the
variable inlet guide vanes, variable bypass
valves, and the variable stator vanes in the engine
(Source: GE Energy)
Figure 19. LM6000 Gas Turbine
11 To compare the power/wt ratio, the LM6000 core
engine weighs 7.2 tons compared to 67 tons for a
32 MW Frame 5D engine (core engine only).
14
Approximate Train Size, MTPA
2/2/2 3.5
3/3/2 5
2/2/2 5
3/3/3 7.5
compressor with each system independently
controlled. The gas turbine consists of five major
components: a 5-stage low-pressure compressor,
a 14-stage high-pressure compressor, an annular
combustor, a 2-stage high-pressure turbine, and
a 5-stage low-pressure turbine. The low-pressure
turbine drives the low-pressure compressor and
the load. The engine is available in both a water-
injected and DLE configuration, with a DLE
capability of 15 parts per million (ppm) NOx.
The importance of high thermal efficiency and
the details on the implementation and operating
experience of aeroderivatives at Darwin LNG
have been presented by Meher-Homji et al. [12]
CONCLUSIONS
I
n 1969, the ConocoPhillips-designed Kenai
LNG plant in Alaska was the first LNG plant
to use gas turbines as refrigeration drivers. This
plant has operated without a single missed
shipment. Another groundbreaking step was
made 38 years later with the world’s first
successful application of high-efficiency
aeroderivative gas turbines at the Darwin
LNG plant. This efficient plant has shown how
technology can be integrated into a reliable
LNG process to minimize greenhouse gases and
provide the high flexibility, availability, and
efficiency of the Optimized Cascade
Process. The plant, engineered and constructed
by Bechtel, was started several months ahead
of schedule and has exceeded its production
targets. It has been successfully operated for
close to 3 years and will shortly be upgraded
by implementing PGT25+G4 engines as part
of a debottlenecking effort.
The new generation of highly efficient and
high-power aeroderivative engines in the 40 MW
to 50 MW range available today is ideally suited
to the Optimized Cascade Process due to its
two-trains-in-one concept. The ConocoPhillips-
Bechtel LNG collaboration will offer the engine
for future LNG projects. In the meantime,
the ConocoPhillips-Bechtel LNG Product
Development Center continues to design and
develop new and highly efficient plant designs
that can be used for 5.0–8.0 MTPA train sizes. „
Bechtel Technology Journal
TRADEMARKS
ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade is
registered trademark of ConocoPhillips.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Yates and C. Schuppert, “The Darwin LNG
Project,” 14th International Conference and
Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG 14),
Doha, Qatar, March 21–24, 2004
<http://www.lng14.com.qa/lng14.nsf/
attach/$file/PS6-1.ppt>.
[2] D. Yates and D. Lundeen, “The Darwin LNG
Project,” LNG Journal, 2005.
[3] D. Yates, “Thermal Efficiency – Design, Lifecycle,
and Environmental Considerations in LNG Plant
Design,” GASTECH, 2002 <http://lnglicensing.
conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/8467A499-
F292-48F8-9745-1F7AC1C57CAB/0/thermal.pdf>.
[4] W. Ransbarger et al., “The Impact of Process and
Equipment Selection on LNG Plant Efficiency,”
LNG Journal, April 2007.
[5] A.R. Wadia, D.P. Wolf, and F.G. Haaser,
“Aerodynamic Design and Testing of an
Axial Flow Compressor with Pressure Ratio
of 23.3:1 for the LM2500+ Engine,” ASME
Transactions, Journal of Turbomachinery,
Vol. 124, Issue 3, July 2002, pp. 331−340,
access via <http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/
servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=
JOTUEI000124000003000331000001&idtype=
cvips&gifs=yes>.
[6] C.B. Meher-Homji, M. Chaker, and H. Motiwalla,
“Gas Turbine Performance Deterioration,”
Proceedings of the 30th Turbomachinery Symposium,
Houston, Texas, September 17−20, 2001.
[7] C.B. Meher-Homji and A. Bromley, “Gas Turbine
Axial Compressor Fouling and Washing,”
Proceedings of the 33rd Turbomachinery Symposium,
Houston, Texas, September 20−23, 2004,
pp. 163-192 <http://turbolab.tamu.edu/pubs/
Turbo33/T33pg163.pdf>.
[8] G.H. Badeer, “GE Aeroderivative Gas
Turbines − Design and Operating Features,”
GE Power Systems Reference Document
GER-3695E, October 2000
<http://gepower.com/prod_serv/products/
tech_docs/en/downloads/ger3695e.pdf>.
[9] G.H. Badeer, “GE’s LM2500+G4 Aeroderivative
Gas Turbine for Marine and Industrial
Applications,” GE Energy Reference Document
GER-4250, September 2005 <http://gepower.
com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/
downloads/ger4250.pdf>.
[10] R.S. Johnson, “The Theory and Operation of
Evaporative Coolers for Industrial Gas Turbine
Installations,” ASME International Gas Turbine
and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, June 5−9, 1988,
Paper No. 88-GT-41
<http://www.muellerenvironmental.com/
documents/100-020-88-GT-41.pdf>.
[11] M. Chaker and C.B. Meher-Homji, “Inlet Fogging
of Gas Turbine Engines: Climatic Analysis of
Gas Turbine Evaporative Cooling Potential of
International Locations,” Journal of Engineering
December 2008 • Volume 1, Number 1
for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 128, No. 4,
October 2006, pp. 815–825, see <http://scitation.
a aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=norm
al&id=JETPEZ000128000004000815000001&idtype
=cvips&gifs=yes> (see also Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo 2002, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
June 3–6, 2002, Paper 2002-GT-30559
<http://www.meefog.com/downloads/
30559_International_Cooling.pdf>).
[12] C.B. Meher-Homji, D. Messersmith, T. Hattenbach,
J. Rockwell, H. Weyermann,and K. Masani,
“Aeroderivative Gas Turbines for LNG
Liquefaction Plants − Part 1: The Importance
of Thermal Efficiency” and “Part 2: World’s
First Application and Operating Experience,”
Proceedings of ASME International Gas Turbine
and Aeroengine Conference, Turbo Expo 2008,
Paper Nos. GT2008-50839 and GT2008-50840,
Berlin, Germany, June 9−13, 2008
(see http://www.asmeconferences.org/
TE08//pdfs/TE08_FinalProgram.pdf, p. 86).
A modification of the original version of this paper
was presented at LNG 15, held April 24–27, 2007,
in Barcelona, Spain.
BIOGRAPHIES
Cyrus B. Meher-Homji is
a Bechtel Fellow and senior
principal engineer assigned
to the Houston, Texas-based
Bechtel-ConocoPhillips LNG
Product Development Center
as a turbomachinery specialist.
His 29 years of industry
experience covers gas turbine
and compressor design, engine
development, and troubleshooting. Cyrus works on
the selection, testing, and application of gas turbines
and compressors for LNG plants. His areas of interest
are turbine and compressor aerothermal analysis,
gas turbine deterioration, and condition monitoring.
Cyrus is a Fellow of ASME and past chair of the
Industrial & Cogeneration Committee of ASME’s
International Gas Turbine Institute. He also is a life
member of the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics (AIAA) and is on the Advisory
Committee of the Turbomachinery Symposium.
Cyrus has more than 80 publications in the area of
turbomachinery engineering.
Cyrus has an MBA from the University of Houston,
Texas, an ME from Texas A&M University, College
Station, and a BS in Mechanical Engineering from
Shivaji University, Maharashtra, India. He is a
registered professional engineer in the state of Texas.
Tim Hattenbach has worked
in the oil and gas industry
for 36 years, 30 of which have
been with Bechtel. He is the
team leader of the Compressor
group in Bechtel’s Houston
office and has worked on many
LNG projects and proposals as
well as a variety of gas plant
and refinery projects.
15
 Tim is Bechtel’s voting representative on the
American Petroleum Institute (API) Subcommittee
on Mechanical Equipment and is a member of its
Steering Committee. He is Taskforce Chairman of
two API standards (API 616 – Gas Turbines and
API 670 – Machinery Protection Systems).
Tim has an MS and a BS in Mechanical Engineering
from the University of Houston, Texas.
Dave Messersmith is deputy
manager of the LNG and Gas
Center of Excellence, respon-
sible for LNG Technology
Group and Services, for
Bechtel’s Oil, Gas & Chemicals
Global Business Unit, located
in Houston, Texas. He has
served in various lead roles on
LNG projects for 14 of the past
17 years, including work on the Atlantic LNG project
conceptual design through startup as well as many
other LNG studies, FEED studies, and projects.
Dave’s experience includes various LNG and
ethylene assignments over 17 years with Bechtel
and, previously, 10 years with M.W. Kellogg, Inc.
Dave holds a BS degree in Chemical Engineering
from Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, and is a registered professional
engineer in the state of Texas.
Hans P. Weyermann is a
principal rotating equipment
engineer in the Drilling and
Production Department of
the ConocoPhillips Upstream
Technology Group. He
supports all aspects of turbo-
machinery for business units
and grassroots capital projects
and is also responsible for
overseeing corporate rotating machinery technology
development initiatives within the ConocoPhillips
Upstream Technology Group.
Before joining ConocoPhillips, Hans was the
supervisor of rotating equipment at Stone &
Webster, Inc., in Houston, Texas. Earlier, he was
an application/design engineer in the Turbo
Compressor Department at Sulzer Escher Wyss
Turbomachinery in Zurich, Switzerland.
Hans is a member of ASME, the Texas A&M
University Turbomachinery Advisory Committee,
and the API SOME, and, in addition, serves on
several API task forces.
Hans has a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering
from the College of Engineering in Brugg-Windisch,
Switzerland.
16
Karl Masani is a director for LNG Licensing
& Technology in the Global Gas division of
ConocoPhillips, where he is responsible for LNG
project business development and project supervision.
Previously, he held various managerial positions at
General Electric Company, Duke Energy Corporation,
and Enron Corporation.
Karl holds an MBA in Finance from Rice University,
Houston, Texas, and a BS degree in Aerospace
Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
Satish Gandhi is LNG Product
Development Center (PDC)
director and manages the
center for the ConocoPhillips-
Bechtel Corporation LNG
Collaboration. He is responsible
for establishing the work
direction for the PDC to
implement strategies and
priorities set by the LNG
Collaboration Advisory Group.
Dr. Gandhi has more than 34 years of experience
in technical computing and process design, as well
as troubleshooting of process plants in general and
LNG plants in particular. He was previously process
director in the Process Technology & Engineering
Department at Fluor Daniel with responsibilities for
using state-of-the-art simulation software for the
process design of gas processing, CNG, LNG, and
refinery facilities. He also was manager of the
dynamic simulation group at M.W. Kellogg, Ltd.,
responsible for technology development and
management and implementation of dynamic
simulation projects in support of LNG and other
process engineering disciplines.
Dr. Gandhi received a PhD from the University
of Houston, Texas; an MS from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India; and a
BS from Laxminarayan Institute of Technology,
Nagpur, India, all in Chemical Engineering.
Bechtel Technology Journal