SPE Production & Operations
Volume 21, Number 2, May 2006, pp. 318-324

SPE-92047-PA

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): An Alternative to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

View full textPDF ( 903 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/92047-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/92047-PA

Citation

  • Economides, M.J., Sun, K., and Subero, G. 2006. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): An Alternative to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). SPE Prod & Oper21 (2): 318-324. SPE-92047-PA.

     

Discipline Categories

  • 4.2.1 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
  • 4.2.2 Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)

Summary

Natural gas is rapidly becoming an even more important resource of energy, with its share in the world consumption expected to increase dramatically over the next two decades. Currently, natural gas is transported to the markets by pipelines and as LNG. Transporting the natural gas by pipelines is convenient and economically attractive onshore. For the offshore transport of natural gas, pipelines become challenging as the water depth and transporting distance increase. LNG, an effective means of transporting gas for long distances across the seas, constitutes 25% of the world gas movement. But LNG projects require large investments, along with substantial natural-gas reserves, and are economically viable for distances of 2,500 miles and beyond.

CNG provides an effective way for shorter-distance transport. The technology is aimed at monetizing offshore reserves that cannot be produced because of the unavailability of a pipeline or because the LNG option is very costly. Technically, CNG is easy to deploy, with lower requirements for facilities and infrastructure. “Coselle” and “Votrans” are two would-be commercial, high-pressure gas-storage and -transport technologies for CNG. Technical and economic analyses of these two technologies were done in this study, and a comparison is provided. The results show that for distances up to 2,500 miles, natural gas can be transported as CNG at prices ranging from U.S. $0.93 to $2.23 per MMBtu compared to LNG, which can cost anywhere from $1.5 to $2.5 per MMBTU depending on the actual distance. At distances beyond 2,500 miles, the cost of delivering gas as CNG becomes higher than the cost for LNG because of the disparity in the volumes of gas transported with the two technologies.

Introduction

Consumption of natural gas internationally has been increasing rapidly, making it one of the most important energy resources in the world. At the time of this writing, world consumption of natural gas has touched 100 Tcf, an increase of approximately 25% in a decade (compared with a 16% increase for oil and a 5% increase for coal) (Energy Information Administration 2004). Over the next 20 years, natural gas is predicted to increase its world energy share substantially from the present 23% (Economides et al. 2000). Much of the increased consumption is seen to be in electric-power generation, but transportation will likely be the deciding factor on the actual and potential dramatic increase.

The lower carbon emissions compared to oil and coal and other reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates make gas environmentally attractive. More important is that the cost of power generation using natural gas is as much as 50% less than using coal (Oligney and Economides 2002). In the U.S. alone, there are projections of annual natural-gas consumption in power generation from 5.25 Tcf in 2004 to 9.5 Tcf in 2024, an increase of 80% (Energy Information Administration 2006). Similar trends are seen in rapidly developing parts of the world such as China and Southeast Asia.

This increased consumption of natural gas, along with the anticipated reduction of the market share of coal and oil, has raised the specter of shortages in supply in the United States and other nations. With the emerging demand and with new market opportunities expected to arise, the methods of transporting the gas from offshore reserves and overseas sources have generated considerable and renewed interest. 

View full textPDF ( 903 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 1 November 2004
  • Revised manuscript received: 13 September 2005
  • Manuscript approved: 18 September 2005
  • Version of record: 20 May 2006