New Gas Separation Process

Presented by Andrea Tran & Conner Cruson

Outline

Conventional processingMembrane technologyAmine vs. MembraneIntroduction of the new

technologyAdvantages/Disadvantages of

new process

Conventional processing

Overview of Gas plant processing

Field operations/Inlet receivingInlet compressionGas treatingDehydrationHydrocarbon recoveryOutlet compression

Conventional Process

Demethanizer unit

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1

20DEETHANIZER

1

2

3

Stream NameStream Description

Phase

TemperaturePressure

Flowrate

Composition ETHANE PROPANE BUTANE PENTANE METHANE

FPSIG

LB-MOL/HR

1FEED

Mixed

144.653440.000

975.838

0.5290.1390.0200.2990.013

2OVERHEAD

Vapor

47.385425.000

526.904

0.9730.0030.0000.0000.024

3BOTTOMS

Liquid

293.592440.000

448.934

0.0070.2990.0430.6500.000

Stream NameStream Description

Phase

Total Stream

Rate Std. Liq. RateTemperaturePressureMolecular WeightEnthalpy Mole Fraction LiquidReduced TemperatureReduced PressureAcentric FactorUOP K factorStd. Liquid Density Sp. Gravity API Gravity

Vapor

Rate Vapor Std Vol FlowMolecular WeightZ (from K)EnthalpyCPDensityTh. ConductivityViscosity

Liquid

Rate Liquid Std Vol FlowMolecular WeightZ (from K)EnthalpyCPDensitySurface TensionTh. ConductivityViscosity

LB-MOL/HRLB/HRGAL/HRFPSIG

MM BTU/HRBTU/LB

LB/GAL

LB-MOL/HRLB/HRFT3/HRFT3/HR

BTU/LBBTU/LB-FLB/GALBTU/HR-FT-FCP

LB-MOL/HRLB/HRGAL/HRGAL/HR

BTU/LBBTU/LB-FLB/GALDYNE/CMBTU/HR-FT-FCP

1FEED

Mixed

975.83843893.87910953.073

144.653440.00044.9814.203

95.7460.70000.92140.72610.152515.5674.007

0.4807162.879

292.75110198.9973111.202

111094.31334.838

0.74512181.545

0.5970.438

0.015470.00998

683.08733694.8718445.0217927.746

49.3270.1316269.7760.7493.990

5.10090.054210.08071

2OVERHEAD

Vapor

526.90415685.0725285.611

47.385425.00029.7682.041

130.0980.00000.93020.62180.096619.4142.968

0.3559266.043

526.90415685.0724154.898

199951.15629.768

0.63718130.098

0.7460.505

0.012660.00887

n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a

3BOTTOMS

Liquid

448.93428208.8075667.461293.592440.00062.8355.001

177.2791.00000.95840.85600.218113.4284.977

0.5970105.517

n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a

448.93428208.8078253.7785667.462

62.8350.17150177.279

1.0643.418

2.42640.044450.06222

Column NameColumn Description

Condenser DutyReboiler Duty

MM BTU/HRMM BTU/HR

DEETHANIZERDEETHANIZER

-5.92488.7636

De-ethanizer unit

Amine sweetening unit

ACID GAS

RECYCLE AMINESOURGAS

SWEETGAS

High capacity processing unitHigh reactivity of gas and amine efficient

removal of acid gasesHigh recovery of hydrocarbon gases

Amine unit

High energy consumptionLoss of solvent during processing

Advantages

Disadvantages

Other alternatives

Membrane technology

PERMEABILITY OF GASES

Driving force:

• Partial pressure• Gas permeability (determined by membrane material)

To increase the recovery of methane, a multistage membrane unit is desired:

Membrane technology

Limitation of Membrane

Low capital investmentEase of operationNo chemicals needed

Membrane

Advantages

DisadvantagesRequirement of feed gas pretreatmentGas compressionGenerally higher loss of hydrocarbon

gasesLow capacity

Our new technology

Replace the amine treatmentReduce the overall cost of gas

processingReduce green house gas emissions

Objective

Process design

Technical information cannot be disclosed at this time due to IP protection issue.

Only results and economics will be compared.

Design 1_CO2 removal

New technology63,030 lb-mole/hr

89.7% C1

0.7% C2

0.1% C3

0.02% iC4

9.4% CO2

58067 lb-mole/hr

97.2% C1

0.8% C2

0.1% C3

0.01 % iC4

1.9% CO2

4964 lb-mole/hr

2.4% C1

0.1% C2

0.5% C3

0.24% iC4

96.8% CO2

CLEAN GAS:

ACID GAS:

FEED GAS:

Amine treatment unit63,030 lb-mole/hr

89.7% C1

0.7% C2

0.1% C3

0.02% iC4

9.4% CO2

58150 lb-mole/hr

97% C1

0.8% C2

0.1% C3

0.02% iC4

2% CO2

4880 lb-mole/hr

2.6% C1

0.04% C2

0% C3

0.06% iC4

97.2% CO2

FEED GAS:

CLEAN GAS:

ACID GAS:

 

Feed gas

Product gas

Acid gas % loss

C1 0.897 0.972 0.024 0.2%

C2 0.007 0.008 0.001 1.4%

C3 0.001 0.001 0.005 29.8%

i-C4 0.0002 0.0001 0.0024 79.3%

CO2 0.094 0.019 0.968

CO2 removal result

 

Feed gas

Product gas

Acid gas % loss

C1 0.897 0.97 0.026 0.25%

C2 0.007 0.008 0.0004 0.38%

C3 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.12%

i-C4 0.0002 0.0002 0.0006 22%

CO2 0.094 0.02 0.972

Conventional method(Amine unit)

New technology

Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day

FCI Operating cost

Annualized cost

$2,838,000 $31,969,000 $32,158,000

*Operating costs are per year**Annualized costs based on lifetime of 15 years

Cost comparison

FCI Operatingcost

AnnualizedCost

$1,914,000 $13,674,000 $13,802,000

Conventional method(Amine unit)

New technology

Design 2 _CO2/H2S removal

New technology63,030 lb-mole/hr

85% C1

0.8% C2

0.2% C3

5% H2S9% CO2

54500 lb-mole/hr

97.7% C1

0.9% C2

0.2% C3

0.04 % H2S1.1% CO2

8530 lb-mole/hr

3.9% C1

0.1% C2

0.1% C3

36.7% H2S59.3% CO2

CLEAN GAS:

ACID GAS:

FEED GAS:

Amine treatment unit63,030 lb-mole/hr

85% C1

0.8% C2

0.2% C3

5% H2S9% CO2

55263 lb-mole/hr

96.8% C1

0.9% C2

0.2% C3

0.0% H2S2% CO2

7676 lb-mole/hr

0.11% C1

0.0% C2

0.0% C3

39.8% H2S60% CO2

FEED GAS: CLEAN GAS:

ACID GAS:

 

Feed gas

Product gas

Acid gas % loss

C1 0.85 0.977 0.039 0.6%

C2 0.008 0.009 0.001 1.6%

C3 0.002 0.002 0.001 6%

H2S 0.05 0.0004 0.367

CO2 0.09 0.011 0.593

CO2/H2S removal result

 

Feed gas

Product gas

Acid gas % loss

C1 0.85 0.968 0.001 0.06%

C2 0.008 0.009 0.000 0.87%

C3 0.002 0.002 0.000 11.88%

H2S 0.05 0.00 0.398

CO2 0.09 0.02 0.600

Conventional method(Amine unit)

New technology

Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day

FCI Operating cost

Annualized cost

$3,043,000 $39,495,000 $39,698,000

*Operating costs are per year**Annualized costs based on lifetime of 15 years

Cost comparison

FCI Operatingcost

Annualizedcost

$1,987,000 $15,656,000 $15,789,000

Conventional method(Amine unit)

New technology

Low operation cost Energy efficient process Reduction of green house

gas emissions Recyclable solvent No chemicals required

New TechnologyAdvantages

Disadvantages Loss of some

ethane, propane and iso-butane

The new process design significantly reduces the energy consumption.

The new process conditioning efficiency is comparable to the amine process, some loss of propane and butane.

The new process is environmentally friendly.

Conclusion

Q & A