I track US LNG export terminals at this post.
Earlier today I posted this update:
September 9, 2019: behind schedule? In the graphic above [at the linked article], EIA shows Cameron to have "T3" by 3Q19. A couple of weeks ago, SRE announced that the first train of the Cameron LNG liquefaction-export project had initiated service, located in Hackberry, LA. The article does confirm that the Cameron facility will have three trains. It's hard to say from the story, but it sounds like the capacity of all three trains combined is 12 million tonnes per annum of LNG, or nearly 1.7 billion cubic feet per day. Conversion at this site.What drives me nuts about LNG? All the different ways they measure LNG and and all the different ways they report it.
In the example above, they reported it two different ways:
- tonnes (not tons)
- cubic feet
- millions of tonnes (not tons), and
- billions of feet
- over one year; and
- over one day
LOL. Now it's boepd.
But it does look like a typical LNG train has a nameplate capacity of about 4 million tonnes per annum, or a hundred-thousand boepd.
By the way, at the "conversion site" linked above, to add more confusion:
- "M" = million (not, thousand)
- "k" = thousand
Crude oil? Barrels of oil per day. BOPD. One number. Method.
Unless it's a spill and then it's measured in gallons.
Yeah, agreed. It's a hassle converting BCF/d to MTPA. Also, you have to be careful about outpit versus input. There's about an extra 20% natgas that an LNG facility consumes, to run the pumps, versus what it liquifies.
ReplyDeleteOil is easier, although even there you have to watch out for the BOE game (including natgas) or the total liquids game (including NGLs).
1. I had forgotten all about LNG consumption at the terminals. Interesting.
Delete2. I've been "burned" a couple of times with regard to crude oil, confusing "crude oil" with "total liquids."
I can get my head around "a barrel of oil." I can visualize a 42-gallon bbl. But a BTU? I cannot for the life of me visualize a "BTU."
ReplyDeleteIt's sort of like a calorie. Which chemists know is raising one gram of water, one degree C in temperature. Except BTU is with English units.
DeleteSee here:
http://miamicooling.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/btu-defenition.jpg
But just mentally think of it as a sort of monster calorie with politically incorrect English units.
P.s. MCF (thousand cubic feet) is similar to MMBTU (million BTUs). Not for any good reason but it just works out. Of course that also means a cubic foot is a thousand BTUs. But they have to be difficult and compare thousand to million. And using the tricky M means thousand and MM means million. Just to keep the peasants confused.
A "billion" units of thermal energy required to heat a pound of water a full degree? Like I said: I can't get my head around a BTU. And if I recall correctly a British English "billion" is different than an American English "billion." And who measures water in "pounds" except perhaps the Brits? LOL. I still can't visualize a two-thousand BTU spill. I can visualize two thousand bbls floating in the ocean. Sort of.
ReplyDeleteI vaguely recall that most interesting formula: an MCF = MMBTU. But I'm not sure what good it does me. Reminds me of the commentary Karen Olsson writes in her 2019 book, "The Weil Conjectures." A Harvard University mathematician-turned writer says she was also confused by the math.
The B in BTU is British, not billion.
DeleteWow, I'm an idiot. No excuse for that mistake. I certainly knew it was British thermal units. Not sure what I was thinking. Glad you caught that so I didn't continue the error. I guess with million, billion, etc., on my mind I just made a really stupid mistake. Had this been a college test I would have failed. Wow. As I've said before on the blog, I've made some huge mistakes -- this was one of them.
Delete