OG.02.

20521
CONFIDENTIAL

Good practices for Al-brass

sea water coolers
Specialist meeting
Confidential

This document is made available subject to the condition that the recipient will neither use or disclose the contents except as agreed in
writing with the copyright owner.

Copyright is vested in Shell Global Solutions International B.V., The Hague.

Shell Global Solutions International B.V., 2002. All rights reserved
Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.

Shell Global Solutions

Shell Global Solutions is a trading style used by a network of technology companies of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.
 CONFIDENTIAL

OG.02.20521

Good practices for Al-brass sea water coolers

Specialist meeting

by

K. Smit

Keywords: aluminium-brass, sea-water, heat exchanger, LNG

Summary
A meeting was held with external materials engineering specialists to discuss good practices for heat
exchangers with Al-brass tubing in a seawater cooling system. The purpose of the meeting was for the
specialists to advise on good practices and to challenge Shell Global Solutions's views and practices for
an Al-brass seawater cooling system in view of the history of leakage problems that have occurred in the
MLNG gas liquefaction plant, Bintulu Malaysia.

A range of factors are important, when operating Al-brass sea water coolers, the most important ones
discussed being:
Water velocity and flow conditions. A design flow velocity range of 1.0 to 2.1 m/s was considered
appropriate in general, but velocities should normally not exceed 1.9 m/s.
Passivation of the Al-brass surfaces. Proper passivity is important to prevent erosion-corrosion in
cooling systems with high water velocities caused by system hydraulics or partial blockages. A ferrous
sulphate treatment and suitable iron anodes are beneficial to ensure proper passivation.
System cleanliness and water quality. The quality of the seawater requires checking for the presence
of sulphides and ammonia.
Specification of new tubes. A check on harmful films should be included to ensure that the tube
fabrication method is sound with respect to prevention of such films.
Recognising the intricacies of fabrication and operation, Al-brass is still judged to be a justifiable technical
choice. However, careful attention is required to specification, quality assurance and commissioning,
together with respecting the defined operating limits.

Amsterdam, October 2002

OG.02.20521 -i- CONFIDENTIAL

Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Fouling and scaling 2

3. Passivation 2

4. Iron anodes 3

5. New tubes 3

6. Inspection and retubing 4

7. Closure 4

Appendix 1 Description of the cooling water system and the leaks that occurred 5
Appendix 2 Email communication 10
Appendix 3 KME paper: Heat Exchangers and Piping Systems from Copper Alloys.
Commissioning, Operating and Shutdown. 12

References
OG.02.20521 -1- CONFIDENTIAL

1. Introduction
A meeting was held on 18 July 2002 at Shell Research and Technology Centre, Amsterdam with
external materials engineering specialists to discuss good practices for heat exchangers with
Al-brass tubing in a seawater cooling system.

Present were:
Carol Powell Consultant to the Copper Development Association
Bob Smith ABB Eutech
Tomas Sydberger Det Norske Veritas AS
Len Zoetemeijer Shell Global Solutions OGEH
Sytze Huizinga Shell Global Solutions OGEI/2
Andre Blaauw Shell Global Solutions OGEI/1
Simon Marsh Shell Global Solutions OGEI/1
Kees Smit Shell Global Solutions OGEI/1
The purpose of the meeting was for the specialists to advise on good practices and to challenge
Shell Global Solutions's views and practices for an Al-brass seawater cooling system in view of
the history of leakage problems that have occurred in the MLNG gas liquefaction plant, Bintulu
Malaysia. Before the meeting, the participants were sent a description of the cooling system and
of the leaks, as given in Appendix 1.

Points for consideration were listed as follows:

1. Allowable water velocities and flow conditions
(a) Measurement
(b) Control (valves vs orifices)
(c) Vapour lock and leakage
(d) Blockage and skin temperatures
2. Cleanliness and bio-fouling
(a) Chlorination (need, method, alternatives)
(b) Filters (rotary screen, wire screens, rotary filters)
3. Ferrous ion supply
(a) Ferrous sulphate dosing (need, method, frequency)
(b) Iron anodes
4. Galvanic coupling of materials and cathodic protection
(a) Steel vs iron anodes (life, fouling)
(b) Tube sheet material, Al-bronze vs Ni-Al bronze
(c) Gasket choice (graphite/metallic/Compressed non-asbestos fibre)
5. Run length; Inspection, maintenance and repair
(a) Inspection methods and rejection criteria
(b) Tube replacement (like for like, CuNi)
(c) Spare tube specification (internal surface condition, heat treatment
(d) Condition and hardness)
OG.02.20521 -2- CONFIDENTIAL

2. Fouling and scaling

The white-brownish and greenish scales present in some tube samples (Photograph in
Section 2.3.2 of report OP.00.20517 and Photograph 5 in Appendix 1) were discussed.
Chemical and X-ray analysis had shown the presence of Cu- and Al- chloride and sulphate salts.
The report by Shell Global Solutions had concluded that the presence of these salts, which are
well soluble in water, indicated that strong concentration by water evaporation and possibly dry-
out of the tube during operation had occurred. This conclusion was questioned because basic
copper(II)salts such as Cu(+II)(OH)x(Cl)y and Cu(+II)(OH)x(SO4)y are non-soluble in water and
comprise the normal corrosion product of copper alloys, if subject to corrosion in seawater. (Also
aluminium has water insoluble corrosion products of similar composition). Also, some
Cu-sulphide was found. The presence of sulphide is a strong indication for oxygen depletion
resulting from non-flow conditions and copper alloys are susceptible to corrosion under these
conditions. Al-brass has only slightly better resistance under these conditions than CuNi-alloys.
The sulphide and ammonia content of the seawater of a few hundred ppb was not considered
a concern, but the effects of logging activities and the nearby fertiliser plant on seawater quality
should be observed. The quality of the seawater requires checking. The presence of sulphides
from H2S can be a cause of local attack. The current practice that seawater is either always kept
flowing or otherwise drained from the exchangers should be maintained (Ref. 1).

The pitting damage in Photograph 2 of Appendix 1 is typical for erosion-corrosion damage by

turbulence at the tube inlets. The pitting damage in the bottom of the tubes reported recently from
boroscope inspections close to the tube inlets does not seem to be related to inlet turbulence, but
may be indicative of intermittent stagnant conditions.

Chlorination is not common for smaller ship cooling systems, but for a large system in the tropics
it is a necessity. The restriction of the flow velocity in the range 1 to 2.1 m/s, as currently
specified in the DEP to avoid settling at low flow and tube erosion at higher flows, was deemed
appropriate, albeit that a maximum flow velocity of 1.9 m/s for tube diameters around 1 inch
has been recommended (Ref. 2).

3. Passivation
Proper passivity of the Al-brass surfaces is important to prevent erosion-corrosion in cooling
systems with relatively high water velocities or flow disturbances caused by system hydraulics or
partial blockages. An important constituent of the passive layers is iron oxide which deposits
upon in-situ oxidation of ferrous ions present in the water. To establish the passive layer during
initial operation a ferrous concentration of about 1 ppmw in the water is required, whilst
a concentration in the order of 10 ppbw is required to maintain the layer once it has been
established.

Ferrous sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O) injection is beneficial to ensure proper passivation and to

improve the erosion-corrosion resistance, but the method is undecided. Filming of the passive
layer is considered most efficient after a certain retention time of the injected ferrous ions. After
this retention time has been exceeded, the colloidal particles of ferric hydroxide have grown to
a size that is no longer optimal for filming (Refs. 3 and 4). At the same time it has been
recommended that the dwell time of the ferrous ions in the cooling water before entering the tube
inlet should be less than 60 seconds (Refs. 2). Also, there was some discussion about whether low
levels of chlorination treatment may be acceptable simultaneously with ferrous sulphate injection.
Chlorination is counteractive to ferrous sulphate treatment and is usually discontinued during the
injection periods (Refs. 2 and 5). Swedish research (no reference available) indicates that low
levels of chlorination (0.1 - 0.3 ppmw as chlorine) may be acceptable simultaneously with
Fe-sulphate injection. The necessity for stopping the chlorine injection whilst injecting ferrous
OG.02.20521 -3- CONFIDENTIAL

sulphate needs to be established. It would be more convenient if both injections could be carried
out at the same time.

A common passivation procedure is to inject 5 ppmw of Fe-sulphate (equivalent to 1ppmw of

ferrous ions) to the water flow for 24 hrs during initial operation, followed by injection for 1 hr
per day gradually reducing to 1 hr per week. As an alternative to the initial on-line injection of
Fe-sulphate, the exchangers may be commissioned by a soak for 24 hrs with aerated fresh water
containing 5 ppmw of Fe-sulphate immediately before the seawater circulation is started. The
oxygen demand of the water itself should be low to ensure that sufficient oxygen remains present
for the iron oxide deposition. Usually, the consumption of Fe-sulphate in the passivation treatment
is low (order of 10%). The soaking treatment must be completed before anaerobic conditions
develop, either by starting seawater circulation or by draining the water. However, drying-out
should be prevented because it may lead to cracking and spalling of the protective layer,
therefore requiring the ferrous sulphate treatment to be redone (Ref. 2.).

4. Iron anodes
Sacrificial iron anodes are installed in Al-brass exchangers to suppress galvanic corrosion of the
Al-brass tube ends in the Al-bronze tube sheets. At the same time, the anodes are a source of
ferrous ions. Often the consumption rate of the anodes proves sufficient to maintain passivity,
although the resulting ferrous ion content of the water is less than 1 ppbw. However, the
consumption rates are insufficient for immediate initial passivation of the Al-brass. As an
alternative to the sacrificial anodes, driven iron anodes may be installed, e.g. The BERA system
with iron anodes under impressed direct current from a rectifier. At least a few ppbw of ferrous
ions is continuously necessary to maintain passivity. The anodes may be sized to provide not only
the ferrous ion content during normal operation, but also during initial passivation. Anodes
should be replaceable on-line.

Photograph 1 in Appendix 1 shows the typical exfoliation type of rust that is often seen on iron
anodes. This corrosion product is a cause of fouling, but also prevents the ferrous ion to dissolve
in the water. Such anodes are cut from rolled steel plate. It is Shell Global Solutions's
recommendation to use soft iron (Armco iron) anodes to obtain even dissolution of the anodes
without rust build up. It was indicated that the exfoliation type of rust results from the laminar
microstructure of steel plate and that forged steel anodes would dissolve satisfactorily. Cast steel
may also suffer the same problem as steel plate anodes.

5. New tubes
Prior to the meeting information was obtained from Stuart Burton, a retired engineer from
Blackheath Tube Co, that stress relieving of low-finned Al-brass tubes can be cumbersome
because straightness of the tubes is difficult to maintain. The cause is uneven deformations around
the circumference during finning, when the tube wall before finning varies along the
circumference of the tube, if the hole is not fully concentric. Non-stress relieved tubes are sensitive
to stress corrosion cracking. A possible form of stress corrosion cracking is ammonia stress
cracking (season cracking), if the seawater is contaminated with ammonia. Adequate stress relief
should be verified with the mercurous nitrate test. If low-finned tubes are required, it was
suggested that for easier fabrication CuNi 90/10 could be selected instead of Al-brass.

The surface condition of the tubes after fabrication needs careful specification.

First of all harmful (or deleterious) carbonaceous and oxide films may be present on the tube
surface. The main cause is insufficient cleaning of the tube surface prior to heat treatment. Such
films enhance the cathodic reactivity of the tube surface and thereby increase the risk of pitting
corrosion. The Shell DEP 31.21.01.31 Appendix 2 specifies an electrochemical method of
OG.02.20521 -4- CONFIDENTIAL

detection of such films on CuNi tubes only. The expired BS2871 part 3 contained a clause that
tubes shall be free from deleterious films in the bore and which has disappeared in the new BS
EN12451. It was the specialists' opinion that Al-brass tubes may also suffer from these films and
specification of the detection method for Al-brass tubes should be considered.

Recent experiences have indicated that other undesirable surface conditions may occur which
prevent proper passivation of the tubes, as shown by Photograph 6 in Appendix 1. This surface
condition has not been investigated, but it is suspected that tube drawing or tube finning lubricant
may have remained. An additional factor has been that these tubes had not been given a final
stress relief anneal, which could have thermally broken down the remaining lubricants. Although
tubes generally are to be delivered in stress relief heat treated condition, explicit specification of
degreased metal surfaces should be considered.

Some further information on surface conditions is contained in the correspondence in

Appendix 2. Although this appendix indicates that harmful films in the aluminium brass tubes
would not have any part in the corrosion problems observed, it seems prudent after the recent
experiences of improper passivation to specify that checks are made, when new tubes are
ordered.

6. Inspection and retubing

Extensive eddy current inspections of the exchanger tubes are being made during shutdowns. This
will detect wall losses by corrosion to various degrees. It was considered that corroded areas may
be repassivated, but that the flow disturbances caused by the damaged tube surface enhance the
vulnerability to further corrosion. No exact criteria for tube rejection and retubing could be given.

7. Closure
The question was asked, in view of all the points discussed, whether the use of Al-brass remains
viable for seawater cooling systems. Recognising the intricacies of fabrication and operation
which were discussed in the meeting, Al-brass is still judged to be a justifiable technical choice.
However, careful attention is required to specification, quality assurance and commissioning,
together with respecting the defined operating limits.

Amsterdam, October 2002

ib
OG.02.20521 -5- CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix 1
Description of the cooling water system and the leaks that occurred
OG.02.20521 -6- CONFIDENTIAL

1. Description of the sea-water cooling system of an liquified natural

gas (LNG) plant
Originally in the early 80's, the cooling water system was designed to supply cooling
water to the sea-water distillers, coolers and surface condensers in 3 parallel natural
gas liquifaction trains, no's 1, 2 and 3, and in the common facilities. The cooling water
system uses sea-water once-through as the coolant. Each train has four cooling water
pumps (one standby) with a capacity of approx. 18.000 m3/hr at the intake station,
giving a total capacity is 160.000 m3/hr. The water feed lines to the trains, 2.8 m
diameter and about 1 km long, are internally epoxy coated carbon steel lines with
internal cathodic protection by aluminium anodes. Inside the trains, piping is of
concrete lined carbon steel.

The heat exchangers are shell and tube type. Tubes are mostly Al-brass (C68700),
tube sheets and header boxes are Cu-Al (C63000) or Cu-Ni (C70600) clad. Some
exchangers have low finned tubes. Steel anodes (A283-C) are installed inside the
header boxes. The sea water outlet temperatures are below 42 degC and the tube wall
skin temperatures on the water side are below 52 degC. The water velocities in the
tubes are at the low end of the range 1.0 to 2.2 m/s. Wire screens have been retrofitted
in the inlet header boxes to prevent debris collecting on the tube sheets.

At the cooling water intake station rotary screens (mesh 10) are installed to remove
debris, jelly-fish etc. Sulfide and ammonia content of the inlet sea water are both
between 0.1-0.4 ppm generally. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is injected
continuously by 4 parallel electro-chlorination units to prevent marine growth. The
dosage aims to maintain 0.2-0.5 ppm of free residual chlorine in the sea-water return
out-fall channels. Also, facilities for injection of ferrous sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O) are
available. Since the mid '90's the FeSO4 dosing has been applied immediately after a
shut-down of the cooling water system of a train for about 12 hrs at a FeSO4.7H2O
concentration of 5 ppmw, with the NaOCl dosing turned off.

In the early '90's, the plant was extended with trains 4, 5 and 6. These trains are partly
sea water cooled. The sea-water cooling system for the trains 4, 5 and 6 were
connected to the existing sea-water system of train 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Cross-over
piping had been made as well to ensure supply of sea-water to all the new trains in
case an old train would be shut down. No additional pumping capacity was installed,
but some modification to the existing sea-water pumps may have been made. The
normal supply rate (9 pumps in operation) for the sea-water became 170.000 -
180.000 m3/hr. Approximately 70% of the total sea cooling water is supplied to trains
1, 2 and 3, 18% to trains 4, 5 and 6 with the balance to the condenser of the steam
turbine and the Common Facilities. Depending of the LNG production levels, up to
eleven pumps could be required.

Each of the trains 4, 5 and 6 has six sea water coolers:

3 propane condensers, each with 2 passes, 12.5 m long with 2645 low finned
1" tubes.

1 propane subcooler with 2 passes, 7.5 m long with 2636 low finned 3/4" tubes

2 smaller coolers
The tubes are Al-brass (C68700), tube sheets and header boxes are Al-bronze D
(C61400) clad. Steel anodes are installed inside the header boxes. The sea water outlet
OG.02.20521 -7- CONFIDENTIAL

temperatures are below 42 degC and the tube wall skin temperatures on the water side
are below 52 degC. The water velocities in the tubes are in the range 1.0 to 2.2 m/s.
Wire screens have been retrofitted in the inlet header boxes to prevent debris
collecting on the tube sheets. Inside the trains, piping is of concrete lined carbon steel.
The line-up of the 4 large exchangers was compromised for available pressure with
the water flow from the top down rather than from the bottom up. The cooling water
flows are controlled using butterfly valves in the outlets of the heat exchangers. The
combined outlet flow of each train discharges via a common butterfly valve into the
trains outlet channel via a concrete weir. The weir is designed to prevent any point in
the cooling water system from falling below atmospheric pressure under normal flow
conditions.

2. Leaks.
A surge of tube leakages occurred in the early '90's in trains 1, 2 and 3. They were
largely related to water turbulence introduced by improper flow distributions and flow
disturbances caused by fouling. The fouling was overcome by reinstating
chlorination, by installing wire screens in the header boxes and by using soft iron
anodes. Steel anodes were found to collect lumps of rust which fell off now and
caused blockages (photograph 1). In recent years no significant occurrence of
leakages has been reported.

After the start-up of trains 4, 5 and 6 a chain of leakage events has occurred:

Leaks related to water velocity. Generally, the internal surfaces of the tubes were
covered with the protective brown iron oxide layer, but erosion-corrosion damage
ocurred, in particular at tube inlets and at the internal diameter transitions at the
unfinned sections of the tubes under the tube support plates (photographs 2 and 3).
The control of water velocity was improved a.o. by prevention of air ingress
through a vacuum breaker and by increasing back pressure.

Leaks related to severe fouling (photographs 4 and 5). Upon opening the
exchangers of one train, a slimmy deposit with a small fraction of biofouling was
observed. Hydrojetting could not remove the deposit, which by chemical analysis
largely consisted of Cu- and Al- chlorides and sulphates. The presence of these
salts suggests nearly dry operation for some time, but has not been explained.

Recent leaks related to absence of passivation (photograph 6). A year before after
an eddy current inspection tubes with severe wall losses had been retubed. The
tubes which had been used were half products without finning and final heat
treatment. No passivation had occurred in service, presumably because greases
from fabrication had remained and some of these tubes leaked after one year. A
reason for using non finned tubes was that cracking problems occurred during the
finning.
OG.02.20521 -8- CONFIDENTIAL

Photograph 1

Photograph 2

Photograph 3
OG.02.20521 -9- CONFIDENTIAL

Photograph 4

Photograph 5

Photograph 6
OG.02.20521 - 10 - CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix 2
Email communication

From: Stuart Burton [mailto:stupotb@wolvs.freeserve.co.uk]

Sent: 23 July 2002 20:12
To: Carol Powell
Subject: Re: Al Brass Heat Exchangers

Carol,

The points that you raise about drawing lubricant have been raised a number of times in the past,
indeed some customers, who have had experience of copper in soft water areas, specify an
abrasive cleaning process. IMI, one of my suppliers and competitors, checked Blackheath Tube's
Al Brass on a number of occasions, because customers specified the test, and never found any
trace of carbon, although I personally doubt that the mechanism applying to copper is
appropriate in Al Brass, particularly in a sea water situation, I never, in 18 years came across
a failure, which could be attributed to carbon particles.

In terms of manufacturing processes, in the manufacture of heat exchange tube, the final pass on
the draw bench should always be a plug draw, this ensures that the grain structure is correct. As
a result, there is very little lubricant left in the bore, the final heat treatment is normally carried out
in an oxidising atmosphere, producing the characteristic brown colour, which effectively burns off
any deposits.

If memory serves me correctly the old standard referred to "free from deleterious films", if this is in
the new standard, Shell could, if they wished, specify that the tube should be so tested. Some
continental manufactures grit blast the internal surface of their tube as standard, as did IMI,
inspection of the internal surface would confirm this, however, I feel that the heat treatment
process conveys a certain amount of residual passivation, which is of course removed by grit
blasting.

In summary, in my view, it is highly unlikely that "deleterious films" have any part to play in their
problem. I still feel that the major problem is the lack of effective heat treatment, after the final
mechanical operations. I did send Kees Smit a section of a report, from the CDA, dealing with Al
Brass and corrosion resistance. This report mentioned the use of Ferrous sulphate as an aid to
corrosion resistance, but more significantly referred to the effect of sulphides on brasses. I recall
some mention of marine growths, which on decay will produce hydrogen sulphide.

Stuart Burton
Engineer - Retired!

----- Original Message -----

From: "Carol Powell" <carol.powell@btinternet.com>

To: <stupotb@wolvs.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:16 PM
Subject: Al Brass Heat Exchangers

Finally, a meeting was held in Amsterdam with Shell on the above topic. Shell was very keen to
stay with AlBrass if they could providing they could arrive at good operational procedures which
OG.02.20521 - 11 - CONFIDENTIAL

the operators would stick to. They were also keen to review their supply and commissioning
requirements to ensure that the tubes were in the best possible condition before entering service.

They were very grateful for the information which you sent me on the 14th May and it raised
a few issues they had not appreciated before that. Once the particular tubes are removed they
will apply the test you suggested.

Discussions covered manufacturing practices which we could not answer.

Shell were concerned that if drawing lubricant was left on the bores when it went into service then
this might effect initial oxide film formation when in sea water. Is it normal practice in the industry
to remove lubricants before supply and if so what methods are usually employed?

My understanding is that if lubricants are left on and then followed by heat treatment during
processing, bore contamination can occur e.g. carbon which was considered such a big problem
in the 1970's. What practices are normally followed these days to avoid this?

Shell is wondering whether it is necessary to specify an additional treatment to the bore when
purchasing. They do so for copper nickel and seem to have an internal spec for it but not for
AlBrass. Such treatments are not called up in BSEN 12451:1999 which is the follow up for BS
2871 pt 3 (apparently there used to be an abrasive clean which was dropped) and they are
wondering if there are any standards which can additionally apply and if they are indeed
necessary these days.

I would appreciate your experience on these matters or the name of a contact who could put me
straight.

With best wishes,

Carol Powell
OG.02.20521 - 12 - CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix 3
KME paper: Heat Exchangers and Piping Systems from Copper Alloys.
Commissioning, Operating and Shutdown.
by Manfred Jasner, Meinhard Hecht and Wolfgang Beckmann
OG.02.20521 - 13 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 14 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 15 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 16 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 17 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 18 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 19 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 20 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 21 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 22 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 - 23 - CONFIDENTIAL
OG.02.20521 CONFIDENTIAL

References
1. 25 Years Experience with Sea-water-cooled Heat-transfer Equipment in the Shell Fleets, by
E.B. Shone and G.C. Grim, TransIMarE(TM), Vol. 98, Paper 11

2. Heat Exchangers and Piping Systems from Copper Alloys, Commissioning, Operating and
Shutdown, by Manfred Jasner, Meinhard Hecht, Wolfgang Beckmann, KM Europa Metal
Aktiengesellschaft publication, Appendix 3

3. Khlwasserseitiger Schutz von Kondensator- und Khlerberohrungen durch

Eisensulfatdosierung, by Effertz and Fichte, Maschinenschaden (1976) Heft 4.

4. The protection of Cu bu Ferrous Sulphate additions, by R.F. North and M.J. Pryor, Corrosion
Science, 1968, Vol.8

5. Survey of the use of Iron Additions to Sea Water Cooled Systems, by R. Francis and H.
Cambell, INCRA paper from 1979
OG.02.20521 CONFIDENTIAL

Administration & Distribution list

Report number OG.02.20521
CTR/Project no. 63418201
Budget Code 876.30.000
Field Natural Gas
Mascot no. 63418201
Sponsor Malaysia LNG Sdn Bhd, Bintulu
Title Good practices for Al-brass sea water coolers
Specialist meeting
Author(s) K. Smit
Approver/Reviewer K.R. Lewis
Owner/Custodian
Keywords aluminium-brass, sea-water, heat exchanger, LNG
Restrictions on
Distribution
Additional Distribution Additional copies can be requested from the library specified in the primary distribution.
Please note that permission from the owner may be required for these additional copies.
Issue date October 2002
Electronic file 0220521.pdf
Malaysia LNG Sdn Bhd, Bintulu
RIM (F. Oey) 1
TES/3 (L.T. Ngie) 1
TES/4 (Library) 1

Copper Development Association

Carol Powell 1

ABB Eutech
Bob Smith 1

Det Norske Veritas AS

Tomas Sydberger 1

Central Offices, London

SIPC, GCST (E. Kuipers) 1

Shell Oil Company, Houston

WTC 4
Manager, Materials Eng. Technology, R-1320 1

Shell International Chemicals B.V.

SRTC Amsterdam, AFS (Library) 3

Shell Global Solutions International B.V.

The Hague, OGEH L.J.A. Zoetemeijer 1
Amsterdam, OGEI/0 1
OGEI/1 A. Blaauw 1
S.R. Marsh 1
K. Smit 1
OGEI/2 S. Huizinga 1