Technology selection for a natural

gas plant
Selecting equipment for a sulphur block requires balancing technical
performance and costs, as well as local conditions and regulations

Jan-Willem Hennipman and Karen Hanlon Kinsberg Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions

T
he configuration of acid
gas treating and sulphur
Sulphur block
recovery units (the sul-
phur block) in a new gas plant SRU TGTU
Stack
is mainly determined by the
treated gas specification and Inlet
AGRU Dehydration Hydrocarbon Gas LNG or
receiving polishing sales gas
SO2 emissions specification.
recovery

The treated gas specification

Liquids
is set by the mode of transport processing
NGL

and application of the natural

gas, for instance sales gas via
pipeline, hydrocarbon recov- Figure 1 Gas plant configuration
ery, liquefaction for overseas
transport, or production of chemicals. SO2 emis- pared to less stringent SREs of 99.5% or even
sions, on the other hand, are enforced by local 99.9%.
authorities. This article demonstrates how to select the
Treated gas specifications are fixed, dictated optimum sulphur block configuration given a
by the downstream application. But SO2 emis- certain feed gas composition, treated gas spec-
sions, on the other hand, may be negotiable. The ification and SO2 emission levels. We will also
trend in SO2 emissions has gradually become discuss how to consider CO2 emissions for each
more stringent through mandates from regula- option in the technology evaluation, as a param-
tory bodies around the world since the 1970s. eter for assessing the added value of ultra high
It is important to acknowledge that restricting recovery efficiencies, and as a parameter in the
SO2 emissions was and is necessary to protect operating costs for CO2, in the context of the
the environment from acid rain and to prevent European Emission Trading System (EU ETS).3
the adverse effects of SO2 on human health. In
some parts of the world, the SO2 emissions spec- Typical gas plant treating steps
ification is heading towards 150 mg/Nm3 SO2 or The treating steps in a gas plant are mainly deter-
~50 ppm SO2 in the stack flue gas on a dry basis mined by the mode of transport to end users, via
with 3% excess oxygen, previously known as the pipeline or overseas transport as liquefied natu-
World Bank Standard (WBS).1 The World Bank is ral gas (LNG). The technologies for the final pol-
stepping back from this standard as it is phasing ishing step depend on the end user application as
out the funding of fossil fuel projects after 2019.2 fuel or to produce chemicals.4
This level of SO2 emissions corresponds approx- Figure 1 provides a general overview of the dif-
imately with a sulphur removal efficiency (SRE) ferent processing units within a gas plant.
of 99.98%. This deep sulphur removal requires The gas plant consists of the following process-
considerably more energy consumption com- ing steps:

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296 Gas 2019 1

 Inlet receiver
Gas from the well passes first through the inlet
receiver, consisting of a slug catcher to separate
condensed water, hydrocarbon liquids and sol-
ids from the gas. Most gas plants also have a filter
coalescer to remove any surfactants from the feed
gas, which can cause issues for downstream units.
Acid gas removal unit (AGRU)
Here H2S and CO2 are removed from the raw gas,
as H2S and CO2 form a weak, corrosive acid in
the presence of water which can damage carbon
steel piping and equipment. H2S is a very toxic
gas while CO2 is non-flammable, therefore both
are undesirable in large quantities in sales gas.
Deep CO2 removal, typically to below 50 ppm, is
required to prevent solid CO2 formation for LNG
production primarily, but also for other refrigera-
tion steps in the gas plant.
Sulphur recovery unit (SRU) and tail gas treating
unit (TGTU)
If H2S is present, the following processing
options are available:
• Incineration and venting to atmosphere or cap-
turing SO2 with a caustic scrubber.
This option is only to be considered if the
quantity of sulphur is below 2 t/d and the con-
centration of H2S in the acid gas from the AGRU
is below 5000 ppm.
• Treatment using H2S scavengers: generally fea-
sible when removing less than 500 kg per day of
sulphur, which equates to ppm levels of H2S in
the raw gas
• Conversion to elemental sulphur through a liq-
uid redox process or with the Thiopaq biological
process, for up to approximately 50 t/d of sul-
phur removal
• Recovery of pure elemental sulphur using the
modified Claus process for sulphur quantities
above 10 t/d
• Acid gas compression and re- injection into a
suitable underground formation as a disposal
method. This option is only economical for spe-
cific cases.
Dehydration and mercaptan removal
The treated gas from the AGRU is water sat-
urated. Glycol units are typically used to
achieve the necessary pipeline specification.
Alternatively, molecular sieves are used in cases
where cryogenic processes recover the C2+ frac-
2 Gas 2019
tion from the inlet gas, if nitrogen rejection is
required, or if the natural gas product is sent to
an LNG plant. Water needs to be removed to less
than 0.1 ppmv to prevent hydrate formation in
the cryogenic sections. Molecular sieves can also
be used for mercaptan removal.
The formation of carbonyl sulphide (COS) is an
important consideration when using molecular
sieves for dehydration in the presence of sulphur
species. COS is formed during the regeneration
of the beds, and the resulting regeneration gas
requires treatment using a solvent with a high
affinity for mercaptans and COS. There can be
different approaches to dealing with regenera-
tion gas because of intermittent flows and vary-
ing compositions. If a treating system is in place,
mercaptans and COS are then routed to the SRU
for sulphur recovery. Otherwise, regeneration
gas very often ends up blended with fuel gas or
routed to the incinerator, depending on allowa-
ble sulphur emission levels.
Hydrocarbon liquids recovery
If the gas contains sufficient C2+ fractions, it may
be economically feasible to extract these liquids,
resulting in a product that may have a higher
sales value than natural gas. Hydrocarbon liquid
recovery might also be required to meet the heat-
ing value specifications of natural gas.
Natural gas polishing
This section covers all other processing steps
necessary to meet the sales gas or LNG product
specifications, for instance nitrogen rejection in
cases where natural gas needs to meet a nitrogen
specification, typically ranging from 3-4 vol%.
Liquid processing
The liquids from the inlet receiver are condi-
tioned to remove any dissolved salts and to col-
lect any hydrate inhibitors present in the raw
gas. Stripping off the light components stabilises
hydrocarbons from the inlet receiver. The liquids
from the hydrocarbon recovery may be further
processed in a natural gas liquids (NGL) fraction-
ation train, resulting in ethane, propane, butane,
and natural gasoline fractions.
Sulphur block configuration and evaluation
criteria
The following are key criteria for the sulphur
block when meeting natural gas specifications:
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296
• CO2 removal from a gas that
Acid gas
contains no H2S Treated gas to to SRU

• H2S removal from a gas that

dehydration

contains no CO2
• Simultaneous removal of both
CO2 and H2S Main

• Selective removal of H2S from

absorber
Regenerator
a gas that contains both CO2 and Flash
gas
H2S. Feed LP steam
Additional factors that affect gas

the process and solvent selection Reboiler

are sulphur containing impuri-

ties such as COS, CS2 and mer-
captans, which can be expected
to be present in the natural gas if
H2S is well above the ppm level. Figure 2 AGRU configuration
A typical configuration for an
AGRU is shown in Figure 2. evaluates the benefits and consequences of the
For scenarios where both CO2 and H2S are available options.
present there is the possibility that the H2S con- Acid gas from the AGRU with sufficient H2S
centration in the recovered acid gas from the is processed in the SRU. The typical SRU con-
regenerator is too low due to the high CO2 con- figuration uses the modified Claus process with
tent for direct processing in the SRU. In such both thermal and catalytic sections. The base-
a case an acid gas enrichment (AGE) unit is line achievable level of SRE ranges from 95% to
required to improve the acid gas quality. Figure 3 98%, depending on the number of Claus reactors.
shows an integrated line-up with the SRU-TGTU. To improve the SRE further requires a TGTU.
The basic arrangement for the AGRU is quite The minimum SRE in Europe is set at 99.5%
standard, with solvent choice as the key differ- and forms the baseline for the case study evalu-
entiator. It is possible to allow certain sulphur ation. The case study also reviews higher SREs.
impurities to slip in the AGRU and then capture Commonly applied TGTU technologies are cata-
them in the dehydration step. Careful analysis lytic conversion processes, amine based tail gas
during solvent selection can achieve considerable treating, and flue gas SO2 recovery.
cost savings, particularly in utilities consump-
tion. As such, it is strongly recommended to con- Catalytic conversion processes
duct a thorough solvent selection study which Catalytic conversion processes using selective

Treated gas to
dehydration Off-gas to
incinerator

Lean solvent from

TGTU regenerator
Main
absorber
Regenerator Acid gas enrichment
absorber
Flash
gas

Feed LP steam
gas
Reboiler
Rich solvent to
TGTU regenerator

Figure 3 AGRU and AGE with SRU-TGTU integration

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296 Gas 2019 3

 HP
steam
Stack
HP HP HP
steam Fuel
steam steam
HP
Incinerator and
steam Reheater Reheater Reheater Reheater Air
waste heat boiler
Selective
Waste heat oxidisation
boiler Claus Claus Claus reactor
H2S 0.5-0.7vol%
reactor reactor reduction
LP LP LP reactor LP QC LLP
steam steam steam steam steam
Combustion
chamber HP
steam
Condenser S S S S Preheater S

FC

Air

FrC Atmospheric To sulphur

degassing pit storage

Feed Air
gas

Figure 4 SRU with selective oxidation tail gas treating

oxidation, such as EuroClaus and SuperClaus, In the quench column, the gas is cooled and
can achieve SREs in the range 99.0-99.6% the remaining H2S is captured in the amine
depending on the feed gas composition. The absorber. From the regenerator that H2S is
remaining 0.4-1.0% of sulphur species are incin- recycled back to the burner on the combustion
erated and sent to the atmosphere as SO2. For chamber. Treated gas is sent to the incinerator
higher SREs, SO2 can be captured from the flue to convert any remaining sulphur species to SO2
gas with a caustic scrubber downstream of the before release to atmosphere. With a standard
incinerator. The SO2 forms sodium sulphate amine based TGTU using regular MDEA as the
which can be treated via the wastewater treat- solvent, 99.9% recovery should be achievable.
ment unit. For large plants in remote areas, the This SRE corresponds to about 550-700 mg/Nm3
scrubber option may not be feasible due to han- SO2 or 200-250 ppm SO2 in the flue gas to the
dling and transporting the large quantities of stack, on a dry basis with 3% excess oxygen.
caustic required to capture SO2. For example, a To meet 150 mg/Nm3 SO2, as specified in the
900 t/d SRU would require daily about 30 m3 of former WBS (which corresponds to about 99.98%
30 wt% sodium hydroxide (NaOH). A detailed recovery), the H2S concentration from the treated
analysis is recommended to investigate the best gas leaving the absorber must be reduced to a
alternate solutions when no suitable water treat- strict minimum, together with small amounts of
ment facilities are available locally. See Figure 4 COS, CS2 and mercaptans that may pass through
for the SRU-selective oxidation process line-up the hydrogenation reactor unconverted. This
for a gas plant. high recovery standard also requires treatment
of vent gas from the sulphur degassing unit.
Amine based tail gas treating unit Pressurised degassing allows routing the vent
If sulphur recoveries above 99.5% are required, gas back to the combustion chamber in the Claus
amine based tail gas treating units are the unit. Alternatively, the use of blowers or steam
industry standard. See Figure 5 for a typical eductors to recycle vent gas from atmospheric
SRU configuration consisting of two catalytic degassing back to the thermal reactor has met
Claus reactors with amine based tail gas treat- with varying degrees of success.
ing. The remaining sulphur species from the For an SRE of 99.98%, the following additional
Claus reactors will be hydrogenated and hydro- features are required compared to 99.8% or
lysed to H2S over a catalyst in a third reactor. 99.9% sulphur recovery:

4 Gas 2019 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296

 HP
steam
Stack
Fuel

Incinerator and
Air
waste heat boiler

HP HP HP Recycle gas
steam steam steam (H2S) to main
HP burner
steam Quench Absorber
Reheater Reheater Reheater TGTU
Recycle gas (H2S) reactor column
from reflux drum
Waste heat Regenerator
boiler Claus Claus
H2S - 2SO2
Reactor Reactor

LP LP LP QC HP
steam steam steam steam LP steam
Combustion
chamber Reboiler

Condenser S S S
Condensate
to SWS
To sulphur
storage

Pressurised degassing
for SRE = 99.8%
FrC

Feed Air Air

gas

Figure 5 SRU with amine based TGTU with pressurised degassing for 99.98% SRE

• Pressurised degassing to recycle sulphur very effective technology choices when wanting to
vapours from sulphur degassing to the front end minimise total plant SO2 emissions. Other features
of the thermal reactor. of this type of tail gas treating technology are:
• Use of acid-aided MDEA instead of regular • Degassing vapours and other sulphur contain-
MDEA. Particularly in hot climates, the high ing gases such as from the AGE absorber, which
performance amines, Flexsorb SE Plus (EMRE), normally bypass the SRU, can be sent to the
OASE yellow (BASF) or Jefftreat Ultra (Shell/ incinerator without losing SRE. The SO2 formed
Huntsman), have demonstrated better per- will be captured in the Cansolv or SolvR unit and
formance with respect to the amine circula- recycled to the Claus unit combustion chamber
tion rate and reboiler duty. In colder climates, • The temperature of the acid gas burner in the
this advantage over acid aided MDEA is less Claus unit needs to be checked as the addition
pronounced. of the SO2 recycle will lower the flame temper-
It is important to note that depending on the ature. This can hinder the BTEX destruction
feed gas quality, the 99.98% SRE might not be capability of the burner
achievable with only these fea- • The unit produces a dilute
tures, and the off-gas might Feed gas design basis and sulphate waste stream which
require other polishing steps. treated gas specification possibly requires an effluent
treatment plant for further
Flue gas SO2 recovery unit Component Mol% Mol% processing.
H2S 9.7 <4 ppmv
Removal of SO2 from flue gas CO2 8.6 <0.5
is another method of attaining N2 5.0 - Case study
low sulphur emissions. Shell’s See Table 1 for the conditions
CH4 76.5 -
C2H6 0.2 -
Cansolv and MECS SolvR are COS 150 ppmv <40 ppmv of a typical feed gas from a
examples of this type of technol- R-SH
Total sulphur
80 ppmv <10 ppmv
<60 ppmv
European gas plant. Based on
ogy. Such units can easily meet Temperature 25 this feed, a case study has been
150 mg/Nm3 in the stack gas Pressure 75 barg created to demonstrate the
Flow rate 250 000 Nm /h
3

with the advantage of minimal mechanics of a feasibility study

impact on the plant’s investment to select the optimum technol-
and operating costs. They are Table 1 ogy line-up.

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296 Gas 2019 5

 following configuration options
Sulphur block have been evaluated:
• 99.5% SRE using a selective
SRU TGTU
oxidation process as the tail gas
Stack
treatment
Inlet Gas • 99.8% and 99.9% SRE with
AGRU Dehydration Sales gas
receiving polishing regular MDEA in an amine
based TGTU
• 99.98% SRE with acid aided
Figure 6 Process scheme for the case study MDEA in the TGTU.
For this case study, a selec-
The treated gas will be sold as pipeline sales tive oxidation TGT with a caustic scrubber is not
gas. Hydrocarbon recovery is not considered considered feasible as the gas plant is in a remote
economically feasible since the fraction of C2+ area. The logistics to bring in the caustic and deal
is only 0.2 mol%. Nitrogen content is 5 mol%, with the waste stream make this configuration
which is higher than typical pipeline specifi- cost prohibitive. Although flue gas SO2 recovery
cations. Nitrogen rejection is not considered technology can be an attractive solution for some
necessary since, by reducing the CO2 content very specific situations, in this instance it is also
to 0.5 mol%, the total concentration of diluents not economically feasible for these gas conditions.4
(non-combustible components) will be kept con- For this evaluation, the unit has been devel-
stant at about 6 mol%. It is concluded that there oped into a high level design and the different
is no need to bring the treated gas specification TGTU technologies are compared based on the
to a level suitable for refrigeration process steps. following evaluation criteria:
The analysis leads then to the gas processing • Investment cost
scheme shown in Figure 6. • Operating cost: includes all costs for utilities,
Shifting the focus to the AGRU, the feed gas chemicals and planned replacements to be able to
contains almost equal amounts of H2S and CO2, run the plant during its lifetime
with COS and mercaptans also present. There is • Net Present Value (NPV): the NPV calculation
no need for deep CO2 removal in the amine unit uses the total costs and revenues for investment
and therefore a solvent should be chosen with and 20 years of operation related to the rate of
absorption capabilities for COS and mercaptans. discount
Examples of typical solvents for this type of per- • Equivalent CO2 emissions directly due to plant
formance are Sulfinol-M and Flexsorb SE Hybrid. operation: it has been assessed5 that the CO2
As part of a study, the unit configuration was emissions from equipment manufacturing and
simulated comparing both solvents to confirm plant construction are negligible compared to the
the resulting treat gas conditions. Modelling CO2 emissions due to plant operation. Therefore,
confirmed that the treated gas specification can CO2 emissions resulting from construction are
be met without the need for additional mole not evaluated.
sieves and that a typical TEG unit is sufficient for For this case study, it was assumed that there
dehydration. are no restrictions, with respect to available plot,
As the amount of sulphur produced will be available utilities and regulatory requirements,
about 840 t/d, the modified Claus process is the that would prohibit the viability of the chosen
obvious choice for the SRU configuration. The configurations. The case study is based on a
acid gas from the AGRU to the SRU has roughly greenfield AGRU/SRU/TGTU for a gas plant in
51 mol% H2S and 45 mol% CO2. There is no need Europe, using average European climatic condi-
for an AGE, and this composition can be han- tions and utility prices. It has been assumed that
dled in a typical straight through SRU configu- the unit will run at design capacity continuously.
ration. After selecting the configurations for the
dehydration, AGRU and SRU, all that remains Case study evaluation and discussion
is determining the TGTU technology. The main With the defined case information, simulations
evaluation criteria are the emission specifications and design calculations were carried out for the
set by the local environmental authorities. The AGRU/SRU with different TGTU options. The

6 Gas 2019 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296

results are provided and dis-
Comparison of relative investment and operating costs
cussed in the following.

Configuration description Investment cost index Operating cost index

Investment and operating costs AGRU + catalytic TGTU for SRE 99.5% 100 100
The main equipment dimen- AGRU + amine based TGTU with SRE 99.8% 114 117
sions are listed in Appendix A. AGRU + amine based TGTU with SRE 99.9% 116 121
AGRU + amine based TGTU with SRE 99.98% 122 132
Items such as columns, incin-
erator, degassing, and so on do Table 2
not change significantly for the
different SRE scenarios, because
140
the gas flows and liquid sul-
Investment costs
phur flows differ only margin-
130 Operating costs
ally between 99.5% and 99.98%
SRE.
120
In Appendix B, a breakdown is
Relative cost index
given for the utility consump- 110
tion/production, and chemical/
catalyst consumption for each 100
configuration, including the unit
rates. In Table 2, the relative dif- 90
ferences in investment and oper-
ating costs between the options 80
99.50 99.80 99.90 99.98
are summarised. The AGRU +
Sulphur recovery efficiency, %
99.5% catalytic TGTU config-
uration is indexed at 100. The
investment and operating costs Figure 7 Comparison of indexed investment and operating costs
for the other configurations are
relative to the AGRU + 99.5% catalytic TGTU cost tion can these emissions be reduced. The costs
index. for CO2 emissions from the necessary utilities is
The amine based TGTU for an SRE of 99.98% included in the total costs for each utility.
is relatively more expensive than the other con- It is worth noting that this study is highly sen-
figurations, mainly due to pressurised degassing sitive to the unit price of LP steam which has
and the larger equipment required by the higher been assumed at €6.5/t. However, if the site has
solvent circulation rate and regenerator strip- an excess of LP steam, such as in cases where
ping duty. Figure 7 provides a graphical overview a cogeneration plant is nearby, or pumps and
of the cost index numbers in Table 2. It clearly blowers are steam turbine driven instead of elec-
demonstrates that moving towards higher sul- tric, and the net costs for using this LP steam are
phur recovery efficiencies increases investment negligible, the yearly operating costs will be the
costs, and the operating costs tend to increase at same for each of the options. The main LP steam
an even higher rate. This indicates that removal consumers are the reboilers of the regenerators
of additional sulphur becomes more and more in the AGRU and the amine based TGTU. Due
difficult, requiring exponentially more energy, to the LP steam price and differences in con-
especially low pressure (LP) steam. sumption figures for the options, LP steam is an
The yearly operating costs include the costs important parameter in calculations of the oper-
for CO2 emissions at a rate of €10/t of CO2 emit- ating costs for this case study.
ted,6 in accordance with the EU Emission Trading
System (ETS). This carbon pricing accounts for Net present value
about 30-50% of the total operating costs for each The input data for NPV calculations are tabu-
case. Most of the CO2 emissions in the stack are lated in Appendix C. The result for each technol-
extracted from the natural gas in the AGRU. Only ogy is shown in Figure 8.
by using additional technology for carbon cap- A positive NPV means that the project is prof-
ture and storage or other means of CO2 valorisa- itable; the option with the highest NPV is eco-

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296 Gas 2019 7

 favourable sulphur recovery
180 technology is advantageous for
160 the overall economic perfor-
mance of the gas plant.
140

120 CO2 footprint for utilities,

Net present value, €M

100 chemicals and catalyst

80
60
40
20
0 and production figures with
99.50
Sulphur recovery efficiency, %
Figure 8 NPV comparison
nomically the most attractive. In situations where
the investment cost for one option is lower com-
pared to other options but the operating costs are
higher, the NPV calculation provides a balanced
number for comparing options economically.
The investment and operating costs increase both
with increasing SRE (see Figure 7) and therefore
the NPV decreases.
This means that the 99.5% option is economi-
cally the most profitable one. The NPV is positive
for all options due to revenues of sulphur sales
and generation of high pressure (HP) steam. The
break-even point after 20 years of operation for
the 99.5% SRE option is reached if the sulphur
price decreases from €130/t to €87/t. However,
sulphur recovery is primarily an environmental
requirement. Selection of the most economically
120
99.98
110
CO2 emissions, kiloton/year
The yearly consumption and
production figures for utilities,
chemicals and catalyst are esti-
mated to determine the operat-
ing costs in the previous section.
By multiplying the consumption
99.80 99.90 99.98 each corresponding CO2 equiv-
alent emission factor, the yearly
CO2 equivalent can be esti-
mated. For some chemicals and
catalysts, no factor was found in
the literature. For those chemicals and catalyst, a
factor is taken from a comparable component. In
Figure 9 the yearly CO2 equivalent emission for
the utilities, chemicals and catalyst are given for
the configurations of different SREs. In Appendix
D the assumed CO2 emission factors are provided
for reference.
From Figure 9, the catalytic TGTU configuration
has the best performance regarding CO2 footprint
compared to the amine based TGTU options. With
higher sulphur recovery efficiencies, CO2 emis-
sions increase exponentially. It is also clear that
a small reduction in SO2 emissions will cause an
order of magnitude increase in CO2 emissions.
Considerations
The results and discussion presented here are
applicable only for this spe-
cific case and the assumptions
used for evaluating the differ-

100
99.90
ent configurations in this arti-
90 99.80 cle. If a minimum SRE of 99.5%
80
is required, it is very likely that
70
60
simpler catalytic conversion
50 processes will outperform other
99.50
40 technologies with respect to
30 investment cost, operating cost,
20 NPV, and equivalent CO2 emis-
10 sions. However, if LP steam is
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
freely available at the site, with
SO2 emissions, kiloton/year no appreciable unit cost, the cat-
alytic TGTU process could result
Figure 9 Annual CO2 emissions for utilities, catalyst and chemicals in operating costs and CO2 emis-

8 Gas 2019 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296

sions similar to the amine based
Overview of global SO2 emissions by industry sector and natural SO2
TGTU options. In such a case, emissions in 2005
the overall energy efficiency of
the plant should be optimised, Emission source Global SO2 emission, MMton/year
resulting in more efficient appli- Combustion for power generation 58
cation of excess LP steam. This Combustion by industry 15
in turn highlights the need for Metal smelting 14
Other processes 13
an initial feasibility study of Transport 1
technology options prior to Shipping 9
defining and fixing the process Domestic 8
line-up for design. Fires and waste incineration 2
Total anthropogenic SO2 emissions 120
Even though for the 99.5% SRE Total natural emissions1 369-543
catalytic TGTU SO2 emissions are Note 1: Natural SO2 sources include, for instance, wind erosion, sea spray, volcanic activity
highest at 3300 t/y, in all other
evaluation criteria this option
outperforms the other config- Table 3
urations with higher SREs. It is
worthwhile noting that the performance improve- other emission sources also need to be considered.
ment is relatively small when increasing the SRE In that respect, the regulations for SO2 emissions
from 99.9% to 99.98%, reducing SO2 emissions by in Europe and Canada can be considered a very
only 400 t/y. However, there are significant costs valid basis for further discussion. Europe applies
associated with this improvement in performance the guidelines as published in the BREF (Best
when you consider the increases in cost, utility Available Technology Reference documents),
requirements and equivalent net CO2 emissions. which specifies a minimum SRE of 99.5%, but also
Where countries start to implement the Paris allows using a ‘bubble concept’ for a site. In that
Climate Change Agreement or follow other mech- case, a site gets a maximum SO2 emission limit
anisms of carbon pricing, the industry will start assigned and the site can decide to a large extent
to see changes in the economic viability of the gas how to stay within this limit. In this way, max-
plant. In order to keep the global temperature rise imum ground level SO2 concentrations are kept
within 2°C, simulations show that the costs for below safe margins.
CO2 emissions should increase to €100/t.7 In this The Industrial Heartland Area, in central
scenario, one can imagine that the utility prices Alberta, Canada, is considering using emission
for gas processing will increase considerably. targets based on the total amount of SRU capac-
Consequently, this could have a serious impact on ity in a specified geographic area, irrespective of
the economics of the gas plant. It is possible that individual plants’ SRU capacities. With this con-
minimising CO2 emissions could become a key cept, safe ground level concentrations of SO2 will
parameter in sulphur recovery technology selec- also be met, minimising the regional intensity of
tion in the future. Alternatively, SO2 emissions emissions.
could be negotiated with the local environmen- From Table 3, it can be concluded that, in most
tal authority when taking the corresponding CO2 situations, the SRU’s contribution to overall
emissions into consideration. regional SO2 emissions is relatively small com-
pared to the background worldwide emissions.
Added value of reducing SO2 emissions? The contribution of all SRUs worldwide is esti-
Table 3 provides an overview of activity and SO2 mated at around 0.3% of global SO2 emissions.10
emissions globally.8,9 SO2 emissions are affecting However, the most suitable SRE to maintain safe
the environment regionally. SO2 is converted in ground level SO2 concentrations could be evalu-
the atmosphere to sulphate which attracts water ated per site and region using an approach like
and forms aerosols that settle down within a cou- the Alberta example and Europe. It has been
ple of weeks. At high concentrations this causes demonstrated that requiring a 99.98% SRE brings
smog and can result in acidification of the soil and no appreciable performance improvement with
aquatic systems. Therefore, SO2 emissions needs respect to SO2 emissions compared to 99.9%, but
to be assessed by case and by location because it does come at the expense of extra operating

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296 Gas 2019 9

 and investment costs. The suitability of the 99.5%
SRE catalytic TGTU process could depend on
pre-existing regional SO2 emission levels. It may
not make sense in a heavily industrialised area
with many other local emitters. But in a more
remote area, this technology could lead to accept-
able ground level SO2 concentrations, while offer-
ing the advantages of minimising CO2 emissions
and good economic performance.
The global political debate is currently focused
on preventing global warming by limiting CO2
emissions. It is shown that SO2 has a cooling
effect as it forms aerosols that reflect sunlight. If
the SO2 contribution from an SRU at ground level
is small compared to other emission sources and
below an acceptable value with respect to human
health, soil and aquatic life, it is not a logical
decision to decrease the SO2 emissions of an SRU
further at the cost of an exponential increase in
CO2 emissions.
The 99.5% SRE catalytic TGTU process is cur-
rently being further optimised, with the end
goal of achieving an SRE of 99.8% using easy to
implement technologies and shrewd selection of
the best operating parameters. As a result, cata-
lytic conversion technology has the potential to
combine attractive economic performance with
acceptable SO2 emissions at a minimum of equiv-
alent CO2 emissions.
Conclusions
When deciding on the best possible AGRU/
SRU/TGTU configuration, it is strongly advised
to undertake a study by a party that can offer
many different solutions to compare technol-
ogy alternatives. Important project figures like
investment costs, operating costs, net present
value and plot area need to be considered and
evaluated. These factors vary by geographic
location and are sensitive to utility prices and
feed gas composition. The study method pre-
sented in this article also provides adequate
data for discussions with the local environ-
mental regulatory authorities. Based on Jacobs
Comprimo’s experience, every situation can be
different and needs to be assessed in a timely,
customised matter, preferably as a study in the
pre-feasibility phase of a project.
If an SRE of 99.5% would be acceptable, the
catalytic conversion process has the best score in
every evaluated category. Jacobs Comprimo is
working on improving the SRE of their catalytic
8 Gas 2019
conversion processes further and a recent test run
was carried out proving an SRE of 99.6% average
is possible.11 Even at this high SRE for a catalytic
conversion process, there is still room for further
optimisation of operating conditions and equip-
ment design, which will further close the gap with
the amine based TGTU processes, giving a wider
range of economical SRU configuration options to
natural gas producers.
It is important to set reasonable SO2 emission
targets, in cooperation with the environmen-
tal authorities, with a focus on ground level SO2
concentrations in the region due to the operation
of the SRU rather than pursuing the maximum
SRE technically possible. Enforcing very low SO2
emission targets on a revamp project or an SRU
upgrade project can have a very negative impact
on the economics and equivalent CO2 emissions.
Overall plant economics would be especially
impacted if the costs for CO2 emissions are sig-
nificantly increased with future carbon pricing
regulations.
EUROCLAUS and SUPERCLAUS are marks of Jacobs Nederland
BV.
Acknowledgment
We wish to thank Tobias Roelofs and Greg Hanlon for
their valuable contributions, constructive review and
recommendations.
References
1 IFC (International Finance Corporation) Environmental,
Health, and Safety Guidelines for Petroleum Refining World
Bank Group, Rev. April 30, 2007.
2 Press Release No: 2018/087/CCG, www.worldbank.org/
en/news/press-release/2017/ 12/12/world-bank-group-
announcements-at-one-planet-summit, Paris, 12 Dec 2017.
3 European Commission, Report on the functioning of the
European carbon market, 23 Nov 2017.
4 Kidnay A J, Parrish W R, Fundamentals of Natural Gas
Processing, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
5 Hennipman J W, The optimum sulphur recovery process -
looking at recovery, energy efficiency and CO2emission, Sulphur
2017 Abu Dhabi, Feb 2017.
6 Evans S, Q&A: Will the reformed EU Emissions Trading System
raise carbon prices?, 6 Dec 2017, www.carbonbrief.org/qa-will-
reformed-eu-emissions-trading-system-raise-carbon-prices.
7 Bauer N, McGlade C, Hilaire J, Ekins P, Divestment prevails
over the green paradox when anticipating strong future climate
policies, Nature Climate Change, vol 8, 130-134, 2018.
8 Smith S J, van Aardenne J, Klimont Z, Andres R J, Volke A,
Delgrado Arias S, Anthropogenic Sulphur Dioxide Emissions:
1850–2005, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11:1101-1116,
2011.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296
9 McClive T E, Estimation of Global SO2 Emissions: An Economist’s
Perspective, Working Articles in Agricultural Economics, Feb 1990.
10 Slavens A, Dreitzler L, Khan S, Balancing Energy Efficiency vs.
Sulphur & Carbon Management in Middle Eastern Gas Processing
Facilities.
11 van Son M, van Grinsven R, Higher sulphur recovery targets
in the Middle East, Sulphur, Sep-Oct 2016.
12 Winnipeg – Veolia Water, Process Selection Report Winnipeg
Sewage Treatment Program, Appendix 7, 12 July 2011.
Karen Hanlon Kinsberg is a Principal Process Engineer with
Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions. She has been with Comprimo
for almost 10 years and has over 21 years of experience in
the oil and gas industry. Her project experience has primarily
focused on the Alberta oil sands and she recently returned from
an assignment in Technical Sales with the Comprimo office in
The Hague, The Netherlands. She holds a Bachelor degree in
chemical engineering from the University of Calgary, Canada.

Jan-Willem Hennipman is a Technology Specialist with Jacobs

Comprimo Sulfur Solutions, The Hague, The Netherlands. With LINKS
a broad knowledge in all aspects of sulphur recovery, sour More articles from: Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions
water stripping and amine treating, he has more than 12 years
of engineering experience in the oil and gas industries. He More articles from the following categories:
holds a MS degree in chemical engineering and a professional Gas Processing and Treatment
doctorate in engineering from Delft University of Technology, Sulphur Removal and Recovery
The Netherlands.

Appendix A:
Equipment data
In Tables A1 to A5, the equip-
ment data used for the case
study is specified. The power
provided for the pump sizes
indicates the absorbed power
estimate, which is used to cal-
culate the electrical power con-
sumption of the unit.
For the amine based tail
gas treating unit, air coolers
or plate and frame type heat
exchangers are applied. Plate
and frame type heat exchangers
have proven good performance
in TGTUs at relatively low cost
and small plot area compared
to shell and tube exchangers.
All equipment items as pro-
vided in Table A2 for an SRE
of 99.8% are also applicable for
an SRE of 99.9%. Only within
the TGTU part the equipment
Equipment specifications for the AGRU, large equipment items only
AGRU Size M.o.C.
Main absorber 3.3 m x 19.2 m CS
Regenerator 4.7 m x 15.3 m CS
Flash vessel 3.7 m x 13.7 m CS
Reflux drum 3.3 m x 5.0 m CS
Solvent drain drum 8.0 m x 15.8 m CS
Lean/rich exchanger 400 m2, 26500 kW SS
Lean solvent air cooler 1500 m2, 26600 kW SS
Lean solvent trim cooler 300 m2, 7600 kW CS
Reboiler 1750 m2, 53000 kW SS
Overhead condenser 1200 m2, 16600 kW CS
Lean solvent pump 1070 m3/h, 560 kW SS
Lean solvent booster pump 1000 m3/h, 3000 kW SS
Reflux pump 50 m3/h, 30 kW SS
Lean solvent filter 20 m2 CS
Activated carbon bed 4.0 m x 4.0 m CS
Solvent storage tank 11.5 m x 17.0 m CS
Table A1
items that deviate are specified SRE of 99.98%. Only within the
in Table A4. TGTU part and the degassing
All equipment items as pro- the equipment items that devi-
vided in Table A2 for an SRE of ate are specified in Table A5.
99.8% are also applicable for an

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002296 Gas 2019 9

 Equipment specifications for 99.5% SRE catalytic TGTU

SRU Size M.o.C.

Acid gas KO drum 2.4 m x 3.7 m CS
Main burner and combustion chamber 4.4 m x 3.8 m CS + lining
Waste heat boiler Exchanger 3.9 m x 7.5 m, 42 MW CS + partly lined
Steam drum: 2.5 m x 7.5 m
1st Claus reactor
2nd Claus reactor
Appendix C: Net Present 4.6 m x 15.0 m
4.6 m x 15.0 m
CS + lining
CS + lining
3rd Claus reactor Value Input Data 4.6 m x 15.0 m CS + lining
Selective oxidation reactor 4.6 m x 25.0 m CS + lining
1st Sulphur condenser The data used for the NPV 2.8 calcula-
m x 5.0 m, 8.2 MW CS + partly lined
2nd Sulphur condenser 2.8 m x 5.0 m, 7.5 MW CS + partly lined
3rd Sulphur condenser tion has been tabulated in 2.6 Table
m x C1.
5.0 m, 2.9 MW CS
4th Sulphur condenser NPV calculation input 2.6
datam x 5.0 m, 1.6 MW CS
5th Sulphur condenser 2.8 m x 6.1 m, 5.1 MW CS
1st Reheater 900 m2, 2400 kW CS
2nd Reheater Variable Value 500 m2, 1300 kW
Remarks CS
3rd Reheater Interest 5 %560 m2, 1100 kW CS
4th Reheater Sulphur price 130 580 m2, 1900 kW
€/ton CS
Coalescer Capacity 3.8 m x 4.5 m
840 ton/day sulphur CS
Incinerator burner andMaintenance
combustion chamber 4.2 m x 13.7 m
cost 5 % of investment CS + lining
Incinerator waste heatPeriod
boiler 20 Exchanger
Years 3.7 m x 7.2 m, 25 MW CS
Steam drum: 2.0 m x 7.4 m CS
Main air blower Table C1 83000 kg/h, 1900 kW CS
Incinerator air blower 78000 kg/h, 600 kW CS
Sulphur pit, incl. degassing 65 m x 22 m x 5 m concrete
Sulphur transfer pump 20 m3/h, 11 kW SS

Table A2

Equipment specifications SRU with 99.8% SRE amine based TGTU Equipment specifications SRU with 99.9% SRE
amine based TGTU
Amine based TGTU Size M.o.C.
Acid gas KO drum 2.5 m x 3.8 m CS TGTU absorber 4.2 m x 10.4 m CS
Main burner and Regenerator 3.1 m x 20.4 m CS
combustion chamber 4.4 m x 3.8 m CS + lining Lean/rich exchanger 560 m2, 22.8 MW SS
Waste heat boiler Exchanger 4.1 m x 7.5 m, 45 MW CS + partly lined Lean solvent air cooler 610 m2, 7.3 MW CS
Steam drum: 2.6 m x 7.5 m Lean solvent trim cooler 140 m2, 3.7 MW CS
1st Claus reactor 4.7 m x 16.0 m CS + lining Reboiler 620 m2, 18.9 MW SS
2nd Claus reactor 4.7 m x 16.0 m CS + lining Overhead condenser 610 m2, 8.5 MW CS
1st Sulphur condenser 2.9 m x 5.0 m, 8.7 MW CS + partly lined Rich solvent pump 350 m3/h, 130 kW SS
2nd Sulphur condenser 2.9 m x 5.0 m, 7.4 MW CS + partly lined Lean solvent pump 380 m3/h, 140 kW SS
3rd Sulphur condenser 2.9 m x 5.0 m, 3.4 MW CS
1st Reheater 970 m2, 2700 kW CS
2nd Reheater 540 m2, 1500 kW CS Table A4
TGTU reheater 610 m2, 2300 kW CS
TGTU reactor 4.6 m x 18.0 m CS
Quench column 4.3 m x 8.1 m SS
TGTU absorber 4.1 m x 9.5 m CS Equipment specifications SRU with 99.98% SRE
Regenerator 2.8 m x 19.5 m CS
amine based TGTU
Reflux drum 3.0 m x 8.5 m CS
Solvent drain drum 6.0 m x 12.0 m CS
Quench water air cooler 1100 m2, 15.2 MW SS TGTU absorber 4.3 m x 12.0 m CS
Quench water trim cooler 200 m2, 5.1 MW CS Regenerator 3.6 m x 20.4 m CS
Lean/rich exchanger 510 m2, 20.6 MW SS Lean/rich exchanger 27.3 MW SS
Lean solvent air cooler 540 m2, 6.5 MW CS Lean solvent air cooler 8.7 MW CS
Lean solvent trim cooler 130 m2, 3.4 MW CS Lean solvent trim cooler 4.5 MW CS
Reboiler 510 m2, 15.6 MW SS Reboiler 28.2 MW SS
Overhead condenser 470 m2, 6.3 MW CS Overhead condenser 15.7 MW CS
Quench water pump 450 m3/h, 100 kW SS Rich solvent pump 420 m3/h, 170 kW SS
Rich solvent pump 320 m3/h, 120 kW SS Lean solvent pump 450 m3/h, 150 kW SS
Lean solvent pump 340 m3/h, 125 kW SS Sulphur degassing vessel 4.1 m x 20.0 m CS
Reflux pump 20 m3/h, 15 kW SS Sulphur collecting vessel 3.5 m x 5.0 m CS
Quench water filter 5 m2 SS Sulphur degassing pump 20 m3/h, 11 kW SS
Lean solvent filter 10 m2 CS Sulphur transfer pump 20 m3/h, 11 kW SS
Solvent storage tank 6.0 m x 12.0 m CS
Incinerator burner and
combustion chamber 4.2 m x 13.6 m CS + lining
Incinerator waste Table A5
heat boiler Exchanger 3.7 m x 7.2 m, 25 MW CS
Steam drum: 2.0 m x 7.4 m
Main air blower 83000 kg/h, 1900 kW CS
Incinerator air blower 78000 kg/h, 600 kW CS
Sulphur pit, incl. degassing 65 m x 22 m x 5 m Concrete
Sulphur transfer pump 20 m3/h, 11 kW SS

Table A3
Appendix B: Utility, The background data used for the Appendix C: Net present
chemical and catalyst cost utility, chemicals and catalyst cost value input data
estimates are provided in the
estimate background data
Tables B1 and B2. The data used for the NPV calcula-
Utility, chemical and catalyst cost unit rates tion has been tabulated in Table C1.

NPV calculation input data

Utility/chemical/catalyst Cost Unit Remarks
Electric power 0.032 €/kWh
Sour water treating 0.975 €/m3 Treating sour water takes Variable Value Remarks
150 kg LP steam/m3 sour water Interest 5 %
Cooling water 0.086 €/m3 Sulphur price 130 €/ton
Fuel gas 0.26 €/kg Capacity 840 Ton/day sulphur
Boiler feed water 3.5 €/ton Maintenance cost 5 % of investment
HP steam 10 €/ton Period 20 Years
LP steam 6.5 €/ton
LP condensate 2.0 €/ton Table C1
CO2 emission rights 10 €/ton
Regular MDEA 2.0 €/kg Regular amine price
Acid aided or high performance amine 5.0 €/kg Based on GAS/SPEC CS-553
Claus catalyst Al2O3 1347 €/m3
Claus catalyst TiO2 9637 €/m3
TGTU hydrogenation catalyst 12318 €/m3
Selective oxidation catalyst 27852 €/m3

Table B1

Utility, chemical and catalyst consumption

Utility/Chemical/Catalyst AGRU Catalytic Amine Amine Amine

TGTU TGTU TGTU TGTU
99.5% 99.8% 99.9% 99.98%
SRE SRE SRE SRE
Electric power, kW 4068 2546 3330 3402 3529
Sour water, m3/h 0 0 -0.9 -1 -1
Cooling water, m3/h 720 0 820 860 900
Fuel gas, kg/h 0 3077 2852 2865 2881
Boiler feed water, t/h 0 143 136 136 137
HP steam, t/h 0.0 -91.8 -87.6 -87.5 -87.4
LP steam, t/h 99.6 -28.6 1.7 7.8 27.2
LP condensate, t/h -100.6 -15.4 -43.4 -49.9 -69.7
CO2 emission, t/h - 50.0 49.6 49.7 49.7
(High perf.) Amine make-up, kg/y 83869 26775 29925 35438
Claus catalyst Al2O3, m3/4yrs 183.7 135.3 136.4 137.5
Claus catalyst TiO2, m3/4yrs 86.9 70.4 70.4 71.5
TGTU hydrogenation catalyst, m /6yrs
3
93.5 93.5 113.3
Selective oxidation catalyst, m /6yrs
3
116.6

Note: A minus sign means production, a positive number means consumption

Table B2

Appendix D: CO2 footprint CO2 footprint unit rates for utilities, chemicals and catalyst
estimate background data
for utilities, chemicals and Utility/chemical/catalyst
Electric power
Value
0.54
Unit
kg CO2/kWh
Remarks

catalyst Sour water treating 18.38 kg CO2/m3 Treating sour water takes
150 kg LP steam/m3 sour water
The background data used to Cooling water
Fuel gas
0.14 kg CO2/m3
2.66 kg CO2/kg fuel gas

estimate the CO2 footprint for
the utility, chemicals and cata-
lyst consumption is provided
in Table D1 based on the infor-
mation of references 9 and 12.
With the consumption figures
in Table B2, the footprint per
utility, chemical and catalyst
can be calculated.
Table D1
Boiler feed water 0.87 kg CO2/m3
HP steam 0.10 kg CO2/kg stm
LP steam 0.12 kg CO2/kg stm
LP condensate 0 kg CO2/m3 Used as BFW make-up;
consumption and therefore
no net CO2 effect
(High perf.) Amine 2.00 kg CO2/kg amine
Claus catalyst Al2O3 5.00 kg CO2/ltr Estimated
Claus catalyst TiO2
TGTU hydrogenation catalyst 5.00 kg CO2/ltr Estimated
Selective oxidation catalyst 5.00 kg CO2/ltr Estimated