gas

2019

S E L E C T DIGITAL
GAS PLANT TWINNING
TECHNOLOGY L N G P L A N T
C O U N T E R SULPHUR
AMINE FOAMING PLANT
P T Q su p p l e m e n t D E V E L O P M E N T S

gas cover copy 2.indd 1 13/03/2019 15:40

 THREE LEGACIES ONE FUTURE
For years, the energy and petrochemical industries have counted on the catalysts, technology licensing, and
services provided by the companies that comprise Criterion, CRI, and Shell Global Solutions. Today, these
companies have come together under the Shell Catalysts & Technologies brand, channeling years of experience
providing value-adding solutions, technologies, and services that drive the industry — and the world — forward.

Learn more about the promise of Shell Catalysts & Technologies at Shell.com/CT

shell.indd 1 10/03/2019 09:09

 ptq gas
PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY

2019
www.eptq.com

3 Virtual delivery
Chris Cunningham

7 War stories from the foaming front

David Engel
Nexo Solutions
Ben Spooner and Michael Sheilan
Amine Experts

17 Digital twins enhance LNG plant performance

Tim Shire and Andrew McIntee
KBC

25 Technology selection for a natural gas plant

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

39 Liquefaction technology for mid-scale LNG production

Saeid Mokhatab
Gas processing consultant

47 Developments in sulphur recovery

Mahin Rameshni and Stephen Santo
Rameshni & Associates Technology & Engineering (RATE)

Cover
LNG terminal at Klaipeda Seaport, Lithuania; project management was by Chart Industries.

Photo: Klaipeda Seaport

©2019. The entire content of this publication is protected by copyright full details of which are available from the publishers. All rights
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means –
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
The opinions and views expressed by the authors in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor or publisher and while every
care has been taken in the preparation of all material included in Petroleum Technology Quarterly and its supplements the publisher
cannot be held responsible for any statements, opinions or views or for any inaccuracies.

ed com copy.indd 1 13/03/2019 15:52

 Proven H2 Help increase output and profits with UOP Polybed™ PSA systems
for hydrogen purification. For high recovery, on-stream reliability
and 99.9+% pure hydrogen, count on the proven UOP Polybed™ PSA

Reliability system. UOP invented and patented the 5-step PSA cycle 50 years
ago and has designed and commissioned more than 1,000 PSA units
worldwide. All UOP Polybed PSA systems are backed by global design
and local support, so you can depend on our systems to help maximize
your hydrogen recovery and profits, for years to come.

PSA

For more information, please visit

years www.UOP.com

© 2017 Honeywell International. All rights reserved.

uop.indd 1 10/03/2017 14:50

 ptqPETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY
Virtual delivery

E
Editor xport of liquefied natural gas derived from huge and developing resources,
Chris Cunningham US shale for instance, is transforming consumption and sharpening
editor@petroleumtechnology.com competition on a global scale. The downside of this grand plan is at the
receiving end. What if the infrastructure that links the megaterminals built
Production Editor
to receive large scale shipments of LNG cannot eventually deliver gas to
Rachel Storry
production@petroleumtechnology.com potential consumers?
On a much smaller scale, the increased supply, lower carbon content and
Graphics Editor more competitive price of gas fuel is driving the fast-paced growth of smaller
Rob Fris scale liquefaction and regasification plants to make more of local supplies.
graphics@petroleumtechnology.com The smaller scale of these operations in turn enables them to feed local
markets that are unavailable to the conventional gas grid via what have
Editorial
come to be known as virtual gas pipelines. ‘Virtual pipeline’ in fact refers to
tel +44 844 5888 773
fax +44 844 5888 667 a chain of transportation systems adapted to the job of moving gas in rela-
tively modest quantities.
Business Development Director The aim of a virtual gas pipeline is to emulate a static pipeline, taking the
Paul Mason fuel, usually by means of rail or road transport, to places where an actual
sales@petroleumtechnology.com pipeline does not exist or is inadequate to supply the potential market for
gas along its route.
Advertising Sales Office
The virtual pipeline begins its journey at a liquefaction terminal where
tel +44 844 5888 771
fax +44 844 5888 662 natural gas is compressed to LNG then injected into custom designed
containers for loading onto trucks or trains, although canal barges and ships
Publisher can also be part of the plan. These smaller liquefaction terminals do not have
Nic Allen the scale of operations of the big terminals that receive shipments of LNG
publisher@petroleumtechnology.com from major sources such as US shale gas and conventional gas from Qatar,
but they do have flexibility in choice of site to meet relatively small scale
Circulation
demand. And they can be built quite rapidly.
Fran Havard
circulation@petroleumtechnology.com For instance, the Klaipeda terminal in Lithuania, featured in the
Technology in Action section of the Q2 issue of PTQ, is demonstrating the
Crambeth Allen Publishing Ltd viability of small scale storage, for distribution around the littoral of the east-
Hopesay, Craven Arms SY7 8HD, UK ern Baltic Sea. In the same region, the PGNiG Baltic Sea Swionujscie LNG
tel +44 844 5888 776 terminal already supplies thousands of truck journeys to consumers outside
fax +44 844 5888 667 the national gas grid. Once it has been shipped to its destination, the gas
is commonly transferred to a small regasification unit which supplies
ISSN 1362-363X
end users.
In Africa, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation has signed a contract
PTQ (Petroleum Technology Quarterly) (ISSN for the development of a virtual gas pipeline network for power generation,
No: 1632-363X, USPS No: 014-781) is published
quarterly plus annual Catalysis edition by Crambeth in the drive to make more of the nation’s gas resources. The project will rely
Allen Publishing Ltd and is distributed in the US on the construction of Mini-LNG plants designed to fill customised cryogenic
by SP/Asendia, 17B South Middlesex Avenue,
Monroe NJ 08831. Periodicals postage paid at New tankers and supply areas that are not easily accessible via pipelines.
Brunswick, NJ. Postmaster: send address changes to
PTQ (Petroleum Technology Quarterly), 17B South
Meanwhile, several big names in the energy business have already devel-
Middlesex Avenue, Monroe NJ 08831. oped services along the supply chain in response to the potential of virtual
Back numbers available from the Publisher
at $30 per copy inc postage.
gas pipelines. GE Oil & Gas, for instance, has its LNG In a Box, small scale,
‘plug-and-play’ fuelling stations. This is an integrated regasification unit
that turns LNG into gas as fuel for trucks and buses. And Shell has a fleet
of bunker barges to fuel a variety of vessels serving Europe’s rivers and
coastal waters.

CHRIS CUNNINGHAM

Gas 2019 3

ed com copy.indd 2 13/03/2019 15:12

 2.pdf 2 8/23/17 11:00 AM

CM

MY

CY

CMY

uniontech.indd 1 10/03/2019 08:36

 War stories from the foaming front
Many factors can cause an amine unit to foam. Often there is more than one
cause, so foaming problems demand thorough investigation
DAVID ENGEL Nexo Solutions
BEN SPOONER and MICHAEL SHEILAN Amine Experts
A
mine solution foaming is a
phenomenon that has been
intensively studied and
reported elsewhere. Several root
causes of foaming have been deter-
mined throughout the years, how-
ever the latest experiments suggest
that the predominant mechanism
for foaming is related to contami-
nants in the form of surface-active
materials, or surfactants. These
contaminants can enter the unit in
solid, liquid or gas phases and often
modify the solution properties in
such a way that foam (in gas contac-
tors) and emulsions (in liquid-liquid
treaters) is produced, leading to a
series of negative e ects, predomi-
nantly hindering the process from
meeting specifications and causing
amine solution losses.
When the amine has a given foam-
ing tendency and stability, foam is
initiated when energy is imparted
to the solvent, which happens dur-
ing agitation. A decrease in surface
tension will, in some cases, correlate
with an increased foaming tendency
of the solvent, such as when liquid
hydrocarbons are introduced into
the system. However, these foam
events can be short-lived and, in
many cases, go unnoticed as they
may not a ect the amine system in
a significant way. When surfactants
and other compounds that change
the interfacial rheology of the foam
are present, there is not only an
increase in foaming tendency but
also an increase in foam stability. If
this type of foaming occurs, it does
not go unnoticed and several process
changes may be observed, such as:
• i erential pressure increases
across the trays/packing in the con-
tactor and/or regenerator
www.eptq.com
gas nexo.indd 1
• Decrease in contactor and/or
regenerator bottoms liquid level,
or more likely a closing of the
absorber/regenerator level control
valve to maintain the setpoint
• Temperature bulge position
changes inside the contactor tower
• Increasing liquid level in the
amine contactor outlet knock-out
drum, as amine solution is carried
over with the treated gas (leading
also to amine losses)
• Increase in H2S or CO2 levels in
the treated gas (in the case of selec-
Foaming of the
amine can often lead
to carry-over from
the contactor or
regenerator with the
treated gas or acid
gas, respectively
tive MDEA service, the CO2 levels in
the treated gas may actually reduce)
• Increased liquid level in the reflux
drum
• Amine, hydrocarbon and sur-
factant contamination of the regen-
erator reflux water.
Foaming of the amine can often
lead to carry-over from the contac-
tor or regenerator with the treated
gas or acid gas, respectively. Most
amine units have separation vessels
after the contactor outlet to recover
the carry-over. In extreme cases,
amine carry-over may exceed the
removal capabilities of the knock-
out drum and reach downstream
systems such as dehydration units,
mercaptan removal beds, mercury
removal beds, and others. Foaming
in a regenerator is also detrimental,
as foaming amine will not regen-
erate. Furthermore, flooding of the
reflux accumulator can result in
carry-over with the acid gas, which
can reach the sulphur recovery
units, flare systems, acid gas injec-
tion units, or other downstream
processes. In cases of CO2-only pro-
cessing, the carry-over may manifest
itself as amine spraying from a vent
stack into the surrounding environ-
ment or process units.
Determining the source of foam-
ing requires thorough investigation
of several possible sources. The fol-
lowing is a list of some of the many
contaminants and sources we have
determined to be the root cause of
amine foaming:
• Ine ective inlet separation, lead-
ing to contaminant ingress:
■ pipeline chemicals such as cor-
rosion inhibitors, hydrate inhibitors,
fracture fluid organic acids, disper-
sants, soap sticks
■ liquids from pigging
■ compressor lubrication oils
• Ingress of gas-phase contaminants
carried with the feed gas (such as
BTEX)
• Hydrocarbon condensation inside
the contactor by not maintaining an
appropriate temperature di eren-
tial between lean amine and inlet
gas (or, more accurately, the hydro-
carbon dewpoint) when processing
heavy hydrocarbon-rich feed gas
• Problems in the activated carbon
bed:
■ incorrect type of activated car-
bon (exposed to phosphorous based
activation)
Gas 2019 5
13/03/2019 09:13

Figure 1 Lean TEG sample showing foam (left) and with phase separation 24 hours
later (right)
■ spent activated carbon beds
releasing contaminants into the out-
let stream
• High concentration of suspended
solids in the amine
• High soluble iron in the lean
amine resulting in fast high solids
formation in the contactor)
• Problems with the antifoam
■ incorrect antifoam (some anti-
foams will cause foam)
■ excess antifoam injection
(excess antifoam use can, in some
cases, stabilise or induce foam)
• Contaminants present in the fresh
amine and or make-up water
• Incompatible filter media or mate-
rials of construction
• Cleaning chemicals not properly
flushed before filling system with
amine.
Because amine foam is stabilised
by contamination of one type or
another, foaming can be eliminated
or greatly reduced in severity and
or frequency if e cient inlet sepa-
ration filtration and coalescence is
in place upstream of the amine con-
tactor. However, if the amine solu-
tion does become contaminated, a
proper amine filtration system and
activated carbon adsorption beds
are helpful in removing the con-
taminants. Antifoam use is a com-
mon method to temporarily control
6 Gas 2019
gas nexo.indd 2
Triple trouble
the detrimental e ects of foaming,
however the e ectiveness of a given
antifoam may be limited depend-
ing on the type of antifoam used
and the location where it is injected.
Some plants use antifoam on a reg-
ular basis, but this could harm the
solution and plant in the long term.
Root cause analysis of foaming and
the elimination of its source are the
best ways to deal with a foaming
amine solution. Nevertheless, anti-
foam may be required when spo-
radic foaming incidents occur and
the source of foaming agent has not
yet been identified.
Plants should proceed with cau-
tion when adding antifoam to keep
the unit under control, especially
when operating at high production
rates. The antifoam will usually sep-
arate as a top layer in the unit flash
tank, sump or surge tank surface. It
also can be removed by certain fil-
ters and carbon adsorption beds (for
most types of antifoam), hence their
build-up in the circulating solu-
tion can be controlled. Typical anti-
foams used in amine service fall into
the following categories: silicone
based, silicone esters, polyglycols,
high molecular weight alcohols,
and polyalkyl ethoxylates. The cor-
rect antifoam for the system is best
determined with on-site foam test-
ing. However, silicone based anti-
foams are perhaps the most e ective
products, but at the same time the
least chemically compatible with
amine solvents.
War stories from the foaming front
Field experience in amine unit foam-
ing, testing and troubleshooting are
critical factors to better understand
the foaming phenomenon, its ori-
gins and how to combat its e ects.
Foaming can be a tricky problem to
solve, as it involves investigation
into the chemical, operational and
design aspects of the unit. In the
following six case studies, we give
examples of how thorough, disci-
plined reviews of various foaming
incidents resulted in mitigation of
the foaming problems.
State of the unit
A Southern US gas processing
plant rated for 200 MMSCFD, using
activated MDEA, was shut down
because the plant could not meet its
H2S specification, well below rated
capacity, because of severe foam-
ing. On-site work was performed to
determine the root cause of the orig-
inal foaming event, but it became an
ongoing foaming study when the
newly replaced solvent continued to
show significant foaming and foul-
ing, even with reduced gas flows
entering the amine unit. The oper-
ators were perplexed, because the
system had what would normally
be considered a very good system
preparation and filtration set-up.
The plant had a large slug catcher,
a post-compression separator and a
newly installed helical inlet filter
coalescer. There were particle filters
and a carbon bed on the lean amine,
as well as particle filters on the rich
amine. Feed contaminants should
have been reasonably removed,
but if they did enter the system via
inlet carry-over, the in-system filtra-
tion should have been successful at
cleaning up the amine.
Root causes
Solving the foaming problem was
made more urgent when the down-
stream glycol dehydration system
also showed signs of severe foam-
ing (and fouling) when some of
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:13
 T:210 mm
S:190 mm

Creating a particle
of difference.
Enabling your growth is our expertise, because
your success shapes the industry. That’s
why we’re committed to providing you with
the same advantaged catalysts and process
technologies that we use in our own facilities to
help deliver results and long-term value.

Where common challenges meet shared

solutions. ExxonMobil Catalysts and
Technology Licensing

S:277 mm
T:297 mm

www.catalysts-licensing.com

© 2019 ExxonMobil. All trademarks used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries.
L0518-087E49

exxon.indd 1 10/03/2019 09:36

 the feed gas entered the glycol unit
without having first passed through
the amine unit (low feed gas H2S
and CO2 composition meant some
gas could bypass the amine unit
and, when blended with the amine
treated gas, would still meet pipe-
line specification . Not only did
the glycol foam uncontrollably,
similar to the amine, but the previ-
ously water white glycol suddenly
became black and viscous. Figure 1
shows the foaming glycol after tak-
ing the sample and a day later after
allowing phase separation. The
solution looked remarkably like the
amine prior to the shutdown.
It appeared that if gas rates were
maximised to the facility, significant
contamination of the process units
was inevitable. The contaminant not
only increased foam tendency and
stability but also the fouling of the
systems. The source had to be found
immediately or the entire plant
would need to be shut in.
Tracing back from the inlet to
the amine unit, and downstream of
the helical separator, black liquids
were found in a low spot in the gas
line. When introduced to both fresh
amine and TEG, it increased the
foam tendency and stability of the
foam. ad the coalescer been work-
ing properly, this fluid should not
have been in the gas line. A Gasco
test rig showed that the new coa-
lescer was only separating at
e ciency, well below its rated e -
ciency of . of solids down to
. μ and . of liquids . μ and
larger. Optimisation of this coa-
lescer was left to the manufacturer.
Sampling further back to the large
inlet hori ontal separator, we found
what looked like an eruption of
foaming grey fluids filling the lower
half of the knock-out drum. Figure
2 shows the foaming inlet separa-
tor fluids, which were being swept
downstream of the knock-out drum
at maximum gas rate conditions.
iscussion with operations sta
indicated the inlet separator had
level control issues after a new
black powder pipeline clean-
ing product solvent was injected
upstream of the plant feed gas
header. A sample of the solvent was
added to fresh amine and caused
the solution to foam right out of the
8 Gas 2019
gas nexo.indd 3
performing coalescer and into the
amine and glycol systems. The
product’s high surfactant properties
increased the foaming in the sys-
tems, and its solid removal proper-
ties cleaned any residual solids o
the vessel walls and piping in both
the amine and glycol systems, lead-
ing to the elevated solids loads in
the systems.
The major foam event was
solved and plans were put in place
to discontinue the high solvent
injection rates and install a more
e ective, element based filter coa-
lescer downstream of the helical
unit. The amine and glycol solvents
were replaced after cleaning the
units and circulated with clean, dry
sales gas flow to prevent pre-con-
tamination of the system before the
Figure 2 Inlet knock-out drum fluids new separation device was installed.
Unexpectedly, the amine solution
test frit. Figure 3 shows the results of continued to foam quite severely
the foam test. even with clean gas and new sol-
The new pipeline flow control sol- vent. This problem required fur-
vent was indeed the cause of bad ther technical support to solve. A
plant foaming and fouling. It was gamma scan was performed on the
surmised that, at lower gas rates, contactor, showing that the foam-
the inlet separation devices did not ing was taking place at the top of
entrain as much of the foam/froth the tower. This was the first indica-
from the inlet knock-out, and any tion that foaming was likely being
material that did pass through was caused because of the foam ten-
primarily removed by the new coa- dency exhibited by the lean amine
lescer. owever, at high gas rates, solution. If the foaming occurred at
excess froth was swept out of the the bottom sections of the contactor,
knock-out and through the poorly it would suggest that the feed gas
had the foam promoting contami-
nants. Testing of the make-up water
and fresh amine in storage (diluted
with distilled water showed no
foam formation. Both factors were
discarded as the foam root cause.
The carbon bed should have been
able to clean up any foam pro-
moting residuals in the system.
owever, it appeared to be ine ec-
tive. Samples of the amine entering
and exiting the carbon bed both
showed foaming. Evaluation of the
carbon indicated that it was an infe-
rior product for the application and
it was replaced with a material hav-
ing the correct pore distribution for
the type of contaminants that are
typically found in amine systems.
There were definitely shortfalls in
the carbon adsorption bed, but why
the elevated foaming tendency with
Figure 3 Foam test of black powder solvent clean amine in a clean system? That
added to amine solvent required further evaluation.
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 16:13
 The pleated-style rich amine fil-
ters used yellow cellulose as the
filter media. The materials in the
filter filter media, screens, adhe-
sive showed good chemical com-
patibility with the amine solution
after testing and did not contribute
to appreciable foam stabilisation.
Attention then turned to the lean
amine filters, which were located
between the regenerator and the
lean/rich exchanger. The harsh
chemical environment combined
with the high temperatures in this
location significantly limits materi-
als compatibility and the possible
options for filtration.
Figure 4 shows a simple chemical
compatibility test, foam formation
and stabilisation with 50% acti-
vated M EA solvent taken from
the fresh amine storage tank. A test
soak conducted on all material com-
ponents in the filter element indi-
cated that the white cellulose filter
media was causing severe foam
stabilisation. Foam was stable up
to two hours after a few minutes’
contact with the amine solvent. The
test was conducted at ambient tem-
perature. Therefore, at the much
higher regenerator outlet tempera-
ture, it is expected that the e ect is
exacerbated.
The fact that the yellow cellulose
rich filters did not cause amine
solution foaming but the white cel-
lulose lean filters did called for a
more in-depth investigation. After
a review of available information,
it was determined that the yellow
cellulose is impregnated with a phe-
nolic resin that is amine compati-
ble, whereas the white cellulose is
impregnated with polyesters and
other amine incompatible compo-
nents. The impregnation process is
used to impart mechanical resist-
ance to the cellulose material. The
adhesive in the filter element was
not tested and became irrelevant as
the media was much more impor-
tant in comparison. It is important
to know that some cellulose mate-
rials should not be used in amine
units. Only properly specified cellu-
lose filter media, with correct com-
patibility properties, will function in
amine units properly and not cause
any foaming.
There are several aspects to con-
www.eptq.com
gas nexo.indd 4
sider in materials compatibility in enhancing also any possible chemi-
an amine unit. Some of these can cal degradation
promote foaming and some a ect • Mechanical compatibility related
the process negatively but not nec- to the tensile strength of the filter
essarily cause foam. The key aspects material at actual process conditions.
of materials compatibility in an Chemical incompatibility is per-
amine unit are: haps the leading cause of materi-
• Chemical degradation of filter als compatibility leading to amine
materials: leaching residues released foaming. An example of such a sit-
from the filter material can be foam uation is the use of polyester filter
promoters media in an amine unit process.
• Media erosion and distortion Polyester will su er a chemical reac-
(physical changes, not necessarily tion with the amine solution, essen-
associated directly with foaming, tially causing the fibre to dissolve,
leading to eventual filter media
Only properly damage, rupture and by-pass. It can
also often promote foaming.
specified cellulose
Conclusions
filter media, with Solving foaming short term and
long term at this plant was challeng-
correct compatibility ing and required a multi-pronged
approach improving inlet liquids
properties, will removal, better materials compati-
bility, and ceasing injection of foam
function in amine promoting chemicals at the plant
units properly and not inlet. The plant was required to
install a high e ciency gas coalescer
cause any foaming downstream of the helical coalescer.
This improved liquids removal
e ciency at the inlet of the unit
but reduce the particle removal e - and ensured minimal contaminant
ciency of the filter, which can then ingress. The plant also optimised its
lead to increased foam stability) antifoam programme, using a more
• Filter media fibre release can also e cient antifoam which was deter-
lead to foam stabilisation) mined through proper laboratory
• Thermal compatibility related to testing of several di erent products.
melting or softening of filter mate- The lean amine filter media was
rials: high temperatures can com- changed from a chemically incom-
promise certain filter materials, patible cellulose to cotton; in addi-
Figure 4 Soak and foam test of the materials in the lean amine filter using fresh 50%
formulated MDEA. Test was performed at 77°F for four hours. The vials were agitated
for one minute. The image was taken after five minutes’ resting. Left: cotton media (no
foam formation). Middle: filter support screen (no foam formation). Right: white cellulose
media (high foam formation and high foam stability)
Gas 2019 9
13/03/2019 16:11
 The Right Fit for the Challenge
INTALOX® ULTRA random packing

The new industry standard Reduce column diameter or height for new construction
with thousands of successful
installations worldwide. Increase capacity without loss of efficiency

Increase efficiency without loss of capacity

Lower pressure drop which minimizes foaming

Minimize liquid carryover and solvent losses

Reduce reflux and energy consumption

See the details at:
Greater heat transfer
koch-glitsch.com

United States 316-828-5110 | Canada 905-852-3381

Italy +39-039-638-6010 | Singapore +65-6831-6500
YOU CAN RELY ON US.

For related trademark information, visit www.koch-glitsch.com/trademarks. © 2019 Koch-Glitsch, LP.

koch.indd 1 10/03/2019 10:04

 tion, the filter O-ring elastomers
Comparison of inlet and treated gas
were switched from Viton to EPDM streams from the absorber
(best compatible material with
amine solutions). Finally, the plant Component Inlet gas Treated gas
ceased the injection of the black H2S 24.3
powder solvent into the feed gas at CO2 9.7
C1 58.1
the inlet of the plant. The combina- C2 3.9
tion of these items alleviated consid- C3 1.47
erably the foaming incidents in the C4 0.93
amine unit, and any further foam C5 0.52
C6 0.2
incidents were controlled much C7 0.06
more e ectively. C8 0.099
C9 0.05
Meet the hydrocarbons
State of the unit Table 1
A large gas plant using diglycola-
mine (DGA) experienced almost hydrocarbon dewpoint was dramat-
continuously high absorber di er- ically shifted as the gas bubbled up
ential pressure readings and bot- through the trays. Figure 5 shows
toms level control problems during the H2S and CO2 removal profile,
the winter months. The e ect was and Figure 6 shows the inlet/treated
not as pronounced in the summer.) gas hydrocarbon dewpoint phase
Unless antifoam was continuously envelopes.
injected in the winter time, the con- As Figure 6 shows, the hydrocar-
tactor level controller would close bon dewpoint in the inlet gas (at the
flow, causing the flash tank level absorber pressure) was 42°C/108°F,
controller to close flow and ulti- whereas in the treated gas it was
mately starving the regenerator of
amine solvent.
0
This plant had excellent inlet gas
separation and coalescing filtration.
The amine was also very clean and 5
had an appropriate filtration pro-
cess. The amine was maintained at 10
a temperature of 5°C warmer than
the inlet gas, apart from the summer
15
months when the ambient tempera-
ture prevented adequate cooling of
the amine and the di erential tem- 20
perature increased to approximately
ra
50°C/122°F, which was exactly the
same as the set point of the lean
amine. In the summer months, the
amine could not be cooled to the set
0 point; instead, it operated at tem-
0 peratures of 55-60°C/131-140°F,
88.2
5.8
which was above the hydrocarbon
2.2 dewpoint. It was in the winter time,
1.4 when ambient conditions allowed
0.8 for better amine cooling, that the
0.3
0.09
hydrocarbon dewpoint line was
0.15 crossed.
0.08 When the dewpoint of the treated
gas matches the lean amine temper-
ature, it is almost certain that hydro-
carbons have been condensed inside
the absorber, therefore these com-
ponents do not appear in the treated
gas analysis they were liquified and
do not exit with the treated gas.
Because the DGA was so power-
ful at removing the acid gas com-
ponents from the inlet gas, the gas
was ‘sweet’ after passing through
only the bottom three trays of the
absorber. Once there was no more
exothermic reaction occurring, the

15°C/27°F. Foam testing of both the 25

lean and rich amine revealed very 0E-5 2E-5 4E-5 6E-5 8E-5 10E-5
low foaming tendency and stability oncentration
levels.
This plant was brand new, clean, 0
well operated and showed no signs
of contamination. So, what was the
5
problem?

Root causes 10
The root cause of this foaming prob-
lem was related to the condensa- 15
tion of hydrocarbons within the
absorber. Table 1 lists the acid gas
20
and hydrocarbon composition of
the inlet and outlet gas streams of
ra

the absorber. 25
Because the large volume of H2S 0E-4 1E-4 2E-4 3E-4 4E-4 5E-4 6E-4
and CO2 being removed by the oncentration
DGA resulted in a concentration of
the remaining hydrocarbons, the Figure 5 H2S and CO2 removal profiles

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 11

gas nexo.indd 5 13/03/2019 09:13

 Conclusions
150 Rules of thumb should not be used
V.F. = 0% to determine operating setpoints in
V.F. = 100%
125 amine units. What works for five
Critical point
units in a row may not work for the
100 Stream condition
sixth unit. For lean amine tempera-
ture, it should be set as low as pos-
75
sible but still above the treated gas
Pressure, barg

hydrocarbon dewpoint.
50

25
The clean amine that never was
State of the unit
0 A gas plant had operated several
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 years with minimal foaming inci-
Temperature, ºC dents until, rather suddenly, the
regenerator began su ering from
150 frequent episodes of amine carry-
over. The reflux drum level would
125 quickly increase, to the point where
the reflux pumps could not keep up
100
with demand and the vessel would
fill to , allowing amine car-
75
ry-over with the acid gas. No matter
Pressure, barg

50
25
0 owever, this particular plant pro-
−100
Temperature, ºC
Figure 6 Inlet gas (top) and treated gas (bottom) phase envelopes
gas simply cooled to the same tem-
perature as the lean DGA, which
was C 22 F. This cooling hap-
pened by Tray from the bottom,
which is where the foaming would
have originated. The first symptom
operators noticed was an increase
in di erential pressure, followed
roughly two minutes later by a
closing of the absorber level con-
trol valve. The reason for the delay
in the valve closing was it takes
roughly two minutes for the bottom
couple of trays to drain once the
foaming amine above stops flowing
downward. Because the inlet gas is
now contacting dry trays, the tem-
perature bulge shifts upwards, as
does the foam and, if antifoam was
not added, eventually there would
have been 2S breakthrough and
amine carry-over. Because of the
lack of rich amine flow, the opera-
tors added antifoam long before this
ever occurred.
Solutions and mitigations
Because of the large volume of acid
V.F. = 0%
V.F. = 100%
Critical point
Stream condition
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
gas removed, which greatly shifted
the hydrocarbon dewpoint, the typ-
ical ‘rule of thumb’ to keep the lean
amine C F warmer than the
inlet gas temperature was not ade-
quate. In this case, the required dif-
ferential temperature between the
lean amine and inlet gas was closer
to C 2 F which the plant was
doing in the summer time, just not
on purpose . This adjustment was
made, and antifoam is no longer
required at this facility, although
the nervous operators still keep it on
hand.
In most amine systems, this level
of di erential temperature would
put the plant at high risk of going
o -specification on 2
S because
hot absorbers do a poor job of H2S
removal . Luckily, a combination of
very high 2S and CO2 partial pres-
sures in this absorber and the use
of a primary amine such as DGA
allowed this facility to remain oper-
ating within required parameters
and specifications, even at higher
temperatures.
what process is downstream of an
amine reflux drum S U, compres-
sor, thermal oxidiser, and so on), it
is never good to send amine into it.
cessed only CO2 and the gas exiting
the reflux accumulator was simply
vented to atmosphere. This meant
that amine was actively and fre-
quently spraying out of this vent,
all over the equipment and ground
below.
Root causes
When investigating a situation
such as this, where the plant oper-
ated acceptably for a long time
months, if not years then sudden
problems arise, it is important to
determine what has changed in
either the operation of the plant
or the chemistry. In this case, the
plant had brought on additional
wells which increased the volume
of gas being processed and was
also resulting in larger volumes
of liquids when the lines were
pigged. The foaming incidents in
the regenerator seemed to coincide
with the line pigging schedule, so
the two events were presumed to
be linked.
There were two problems with
this plant which were resulting in
foaming. One was inadequate inlet
separation, and the other was inad-
equate residence time in the rich
amine flash drum.

12 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas nexo.indd 6 13/03/2019 09:13

 Inadequate inlet separation
This was a somewhat unique situ-
ation that was figured out with the
help of some luck (to be honest).
There are two inlet separation
devices at this facility: a large ‘slug
catcher’ followed by an inlet gas
coalescing filter. The operators
had suspected the slug catcher to
be under-sized for the liquid vol-
ume generated when the lines were
pigged, but the level indicator never
did show the vessel exceeding about
75% full, based on the DCS level
indication, so management was not
convinced that a larger vessel was
needed, or that liquid carry-over
was occurring. And even if it was,
the coalescing filter should have
removed any carried-over liquids.
As is a typical first step in foaming
troubleshooting, we wanted to take
samples of the slug catcher and coa- Figure 7 Reflux water before (left) and after (right) increasing reflux ratio
lescing filter liquids and determine
if they were the source of foam sta- the slug catcher, however, simply but it did not have a sample point
bilisation. The coalescer, however, resulted in a bottle of greyish water, or skim line. There was a sight glass,
did not have any liquid in it, so it which did not have an associated which was stained completely black
was not possible to take a sample. foaming tendency. We were more and useless to give level indica-
(Only gas came out when we tried.) interested in what was floating on tion but did have an area where we
Taking a sample from the bottom of top of the water in the separator, could connect tubing to the top and

THE RVP PROFIT ANALYZER

MINIVAP ON-LINE
• Vapor Pressure of Gasoline, Crude Oil and LPG
• RVPE, DVPE, TVP, V/L Analysis
• According to Latest ASTM & ISO Standards
• Unparalleled Measuring Accuracy
• Up to 2 Sample Streams
• Adjustable Temperature: 20-60°C
• Automatic Calibration
• Fast and Easy Maintenance

Phone +43 1 282 16 27-0 | Fax +43 1 282 16 27-300 | grabner.sales@ametek.com | www.grabner-instruments.com

ON-LINE half page.indd 1 01.03.2019 10:15:28

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 13

gas nexo.indd 7 13/03/2019 09:13


Figure 8 Lean amine before (left) and after (right) increasing reflux ratio
hopefully get a sample of the upper
layer inside the separator.
We had no idea where the liquid
level actually was in the vessel the
CS screen indicated full, but
it was not clear what that meant in
reality, as the level indicator taps
were not located on the physical
top and bottom of the vessel they
were somewhere in the middle.
So, with the bottom tap of the sight
glass closed, we opened the top con-
nection to sample and were very
surprised to find pure foam com-
ing from the sample point we had
made. We brought out buckets and
filled several of them with this foam
before closing the connection. We,
of course, expected to either have
liquid or gas coming from our sam-
ple point.
The samples of foam were
extremely stable. The foam did not
collapse to liquid for several hours.
When this liquid was added to our
lean amine sample, it increased the
foaming tendency instantly and
dramatically. It is not known where
the foam found in the inlet separa-
tor originated from, as this plant
processes gas from many wells
operated by many companies, but
it is believed to be likely from soap
sticks used in the field.
It was presumed that this foam
was ‘sitting’ on top of the liquid
in the inlet separator at almost all
times. When the lines were pigged,
the liquid level rose not to the
14 Gas 2019
gas nexo.indd 8
point where liquid itself carried
over with the gas, but certainly high
enough to push foam with the gas.
This presumption was later proved
by the client through use of thermal
imaging scans and a gamma scan.
The coalescing filter, which was
not making liquids, was then inves-
tigated and it turned out that the
steady rise in gas production over
the years had pushed the operating
parameters so far above what the
filter had been originally designed
for, that it was unable to adequately
perform. eplacing the coalescing
filter with a larger, more appropri-
ately designed vessel is a longer
term project the plant is currently
working on.
Inadequate residence time in the
rich amine flash tank
Once amine is contaminated, the
first step in the clean-up process
is through proper utilisation of
the flash tank. At this plant, how-
ever, because the operators had
increased the amine circulation
rate when the inlet gas flow rates
increased, the flash tank residence
time had decreased from a design
2 minutes to a much shorter 2
minutes. When oil skimmed from
the flash tank was sampled, we
only got a bottle of typical rich
amine no hydrocarbon inter-
face had formed as there was not
enough residence time for proper
liquid phase separation.
Solutions and mitigations
With the flash tank unable to
remove contamination due to
low residence time, the next piece
of equipment, the regenerator,
becomes a contamination removal
device instead. If contamination
is removed from the amine, it is
expected that the reflux water will
be foamy, and the lean amine will
be foam-free. Before making any
operational changes to the facil-
ity, the reflux water sample had
a low foaming tendency, and the
lean amine did still foam although
not as badly as the rich . When
the reflux water was added to the
amine sample, the foam height
increased noticeably, and this was
concluded to be the cause of the
regenerator foaming the operators
were struggling with intermit-
tently contaminated reflux mixing
with the rich amine in the top of the
tower.
We decided to use the regenerator
to strip out as much contamination
from the amine as possible. Typical
CO2-only M EA systems operate
with a reflux ratio of approximately
. - depending on the absorber
pressure and desired level of CO2
removal and this plant was no
exception. We had the operators
raise the reflux ratio to . , however,
which meant an increase in regen-
erator overhead temperature from
- C and 2 2-2 F. After a
few hours, the same samples were
taken and foam tested the result
was much foamier reflux water and
less foamy lean amine. The lower
and higher reflux ratio samples of
the reflux water and lean amine are
shown in Figures 7 and 8.
Once it was proven that the
foam-promoting contaminants
could be vaporised, and that return-
ing the reflux water to the regener-
ator would only promote foaming,
the plant did not hesitate to dump
the reflux drum to the water dis-
posal tank, therefore ridding the
system of the contamination. This
was done several times over the
afternoon, during which time there
were no foaming issues within the
regenerator. The plant now empties
the reflux drum every time the inlet
gas lines are pigged.
This approach works for cleaning
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:13
 the amine after it has been contaminated, but it involves
higher energy usage (due to the higher reboiler duty
requirement and the frequent disposal of reflux water SERVICE
and addition of make-up water. A better long term
approach is to install a properly designed coalescing fil-
ter to prevent contamination in the first place, which the
plant is working on currently.

Conclusions
Increasing the reflux ratio followed by purging
the reflux water is one of the best ways to remove
foam-promoting contaminants using the amine unit
available equipment.

Final remarks
One of the most important lessons we have learned over
many years of work in various amine units and solving
foaming problems globally is that there can be a mul-
titude of factors causing an amine unit to experience
foam. Only in some cases is there a single factor as the
main cause leading to foaming: oftentimes there are sev-
eral items contributing to foaming. Perhaps one of the
most important factors in foam promotion are inlet con-
taminants, so contamination control at the unit entry is a
critical step for ensuring minimal foaming episodes.
The majority of plants that do not consider this step
often fight against foaming in addition to high operat-
ing costs, low reliability of equipment, and many other
adverse incidents with economic and environmental
impacts. Other sources of foaming should also be con-
sidered, such as operational practices and the materials
being used within each piece of the amine plant equip-
ment. Sometimes the culprits can be found where one
least expects. Therefore, a comprehensive testing plan,
with systematic analysis protocol, should always be per-
formed, not only to determine the cause(s) of foaming
but also to form a plan for e ective, long term foaming

SERVICE
mitigation.

YOUR PROFITS
David B Engel is Managing Director of Nexo Solutions and Global
Technology Leader with Exion Systems. With 25 years of industrial
experience, he has published more than 75 articles and has 18
invention patents in his name. Currently, he is a board director with
several technology companies, President of the American Filtration
and Separations Society, Southwest and member of the Gas Processors
Association (GPA). He holds a BS degree in industrial chemistry from Tailor-made performance begins by putting
the University of Santiago, Chile, and a PhD in organic chemistry from your needs center stage. Services offered by
Indiana University at Bloomington, Indiana.
HOERBIGER provide long-term improvements
Michael Sheilan is a Senior Principal Engineer with Amine Experts Inc.
and has been involved in the gas processing industry for 39 years. He in reliability, efficiency and environmental
has a long history of expertise in training operators and engineers in soundness. The goal: to make your plant run
gas processing as well as troubleshooting all aspects of upstream gas even more profitably.
treating processes, and has more recently focused on dehydration and
amine sweetening. He has provided technical support to over 500
facilities, is a Professional Engineer in Alberta, a member of the Gas px.hoerbiger.com
Processors Association of Canada (GPAC) and the National Association
of Corrosion Engineers.
Benjamin H Spooner is a Regional Engineer – USA with Amine Experts
and provides expert assistance and advice regarding plant operations,
troubleshooting, optimisation and operator training. With more than 20
years’ experience in the amine industry as an operator or engineer, he is
a primary speaker at Amine Experts’ Amine Treating Seminar.

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 15

gas nexo.indd 9 13/03/2019 09:13

 Others simply sell a product –
A control and shut off technique you can rely on. we offer a solution.
OHL Gutermuth

OHL Gutermuth switching- and metal seated butterfly valves are

specified and accepted internationally, as the ultimate in reactor
switching valves for Sulphur Tail Gas Clean-up Processes.
We offer an exceptionally rugged valve with a different concept. Optimize your
production sequences, using a switching valve, which is providing an extremely
low leakage rate, with a minimum pressure drop, as well as superb reliability.
Available in sizes ranging from 1” through 80” with fabricated or cast steel
body and heating jacket.
Literally dozens of plants and refineries, worldwide, using SULFREEN,
MCRC and CBA processes, among others, have OHL Gutermuth
hot gas switching valves and butterfly valves in their system
„made in Altenstadt/Germany”.
It’s good to know where to find OHL Gutermuth
perfect valve technology. Industrial Valves GmbH

Helmershäuser Strasse 9+12 · 63674 Altenstadt/Germany

Phone +49 6047.8006-0 · Fax +49 6047.8006-29 · www.ohl-gutermuth.de · og@ohl-gutermuth.de

ohl.indd 1 10/03/2017 16:12

 Digital twins enhance LNG plant
performance
Digitalisation technologies offer new and disruptive ways to overcome the challenges
of increasing margin, reducing carbon emissions and addressing talent shortages
TIM SHIRE and ANDREW McINTEE
KBC
L
eading LNG operators have
been forced to move away
from simply maximising LNG
production towards a ‘manage for
margin’ approach which considers
operating cost, liquids yield as well
as production rate in the pursuit of
profitability.
Historically, LNG facilities have
been designed and operated with a
strong focus on achieving high pro-
duction rates due to feed gas that
was perceived to be free or cheap
and a high LNG sales price. The
engineers’ and operators’ focus was
on pushing throughput, even at the
expense of high operating costs,
certain that it would still boost the
facility’s economic return.
Industry and shareholder expec-
tations have changed due to the
challenges which the hydrocarbon
industry is facing. LNG producers
have particular challenges on top of
broader oil and gas industry issues:
• Oil and gas industry challenges:
■ Greenhouse gas regulation
■ Shortage of skilled engineering
sta
■ Lower for longer oil prices
• Specifically For LNG
■ Globalisation of markets
■ Disappointing return on capital
employed.
The globalisation of LNG mar-
kets – with a growing proportion
of output traded on the spot mar-
ket rather than sold on long term oil
linked contracts and the increase in
the number of facilities – is leading
to a competition driven reduction in
LNG sales prices.
This is coupled with an increase
in feed gas prices due to increasing
capex required to maintain produc-
tion in declining fields, a wave of
www.eptq.com
gas kbc.indd 1
Power and
Liquefaction
process steam
generation
BOG and
fuel
Figure 1 Energy consumption is tightly
linked to production
LNG construction in more di cult
for instance deep water fields, or
in some cases, such as the US and
Australia, feed gas is procured on
the open market. In addition, car-
bon taxation holds the potential to
further add to emissions costs as
governments and companies look to
improve sustainability.
Energy represents
the largest
controllable
operating cost, with
a typical LNG plant
burning around 10%
of its feed
These drivers mean that single-
minded focus on production is no
longer valid. Throughput cannot
necessarily be considered as the
sole important item, and only by
considering the operating costs and
managing the margin of each tonne
produced will the facility meet the
shareholders’ expectations.
This shift in mindset means that
there is a reprioritisation of criti-
cal tasks and a critical examination
of the production margin. The first
step in this mindset shift is bench-
marking, to understanding the
facility within the enterprise and
also against peers and globally.
Benchmarking leads to focus areas
being correctly assigned, meaning
that for gap-closing improvements
the capital spent is focused, the pro-
jects get e ectively implemented,
the results are tracked and the
return is achieved.
Complex interactions in variable
cost reduction
Energy represents the largest con-
trollable operating cost, with a
typical LNG plant burning around
of its feed. For a single mil-
lion t/y LNG train with a gas price
of MMBTU this equates to
around $50 million/y in operating
costs. Further, if carbon tax prices
were to rise to $20/t this would
increase the cost of fuel by a fur-
ther . owever, the direct cost
of fuel is potentially only the tip
of the iceberg. Where plants are
feed limited, all gas burned as fuel
is potentially lost product, which
would be valued at the LNG selling
price, typically 2-3 times the feed
gas price.
Value on this scale is highlighted
as a priority in a ‘manage for mar-
gin’ approach, but any new priority
cannot be simply considered as the
new solitary operational focus.
In a LNG facility energy con-
sumption is tightly linked to
production, for example the refrig-
Gas 2019 17
13/03/2019 09:22
 Impact of Co-Pilot

Case study Co-Pilot Impact/benefits

Structured margin improvement
methodology Waterfall Agile Adapt to fluctuating situation
Tools and models* Multiple models in disparate Digital twin using Petro-SIM Faster modelling iteration
software v7 with integral GT-SIM and utilities allows true holistic optimisation
models (and pipeline networks)
Data* Historian data dumps by email Real time data mirrored in 50-70% engineer time saving.
the Secure Industrial Cloud Data is always current and assured
Expertise* Project team covering Worldwide analytical talent Access wider expertise, make
skillset that was expected better use of scarce resources
Third parties Exchanged Excel files, Linked to real time data digital Direct and faster response.
meetings and phone calls. twin and collaboration forum More ideas generated
Used in a silo’d capacity
Result tracking Single dashboard Customised dashboards by user role Each stakeholder gets focused content
Communications Regular on-site meetings Updated via online forum Continuous updates
Critical on-site meetings

Table 1

eration system performance is Case study One particular opportunity,

interlinked with the production of
boil-o gas BOG and the main cry-
ogenic heat exchanger pressure. The
refrigeration compressors are often
direct coupled to gas turbines which
impact the fuel balance, which in
turn needs to be balanced to the
BOG production rate see Figure 1).
Complexity is increased on multi-
train sites, which typically share
product storage and utility sys-
tems, meaning changes on any one
train a ect the others. Only a struc-
tured methodology and tools that
consider the interactions will mean
that improvement in the production
margin is achieved.
The technical challenges are exac-
erbated by human challenges where
substantial increases in global LNG
capacity have led to a worldwide
shortage of skilled engineering
and operations sta . The remote
nature of many LNG production
sites makes it di cult and costly to
build up human capabilities. This
means that the workload of sta on
the facility has increased, leading
to a reactive or firefighting culture.
Issues therefore may not be iden-
tified before they become prob-
lems, and the problems take longer
to fix due to the required input of
expertise not being readily availa-
ble. Capital improvement projects,
when installed, solve the problem
locally but do not consider the facil-
ity wide systems leaving the bene-
fits diminished when considering
the holistic view.
In 2011, at the World Petroleum
Congress in Doha, Loo Yong Eng
of KBC presented a case study of a
completed project titled On-Stream
Optimisation of LNG Liquefaction
Plant. The case study displayed how
KBC employed a structured margin
optimisation methodology based
on expertise and rigorous Petro-
SIM simulation software on one of
the world’s largest LNG liquefac-
tion facilities at a single location in
Southeast Asia.
The project identified oppor-
tunities that were evaluated using
the simulation model, with eight
non-investment projects selected to
be implemented at a total annual
profit improvement of million.
KBC
collaboration
Mirrored
plant
Mirrored
economics
Mirrored
data
Figure 2 Digital twin
which alone generated $30 million
per year, was to shift loads between
compressors at high ambient con-
ditions. As an overview, the facil-
ity uses a multiple refrigerant (MR)
process, with the main cryogenic
heat exchanger (MCHE) being the
key element for liquefaction of the
LNG. More cooling capacity can
be derived by lowering the suction
pressure of the MR compressor
by controlling its inlet guide vane
(IGV). This adjustment provides
more driving force for cooling in the
MCHE, which can either be used for
higher throughput or to lower the
LNG temperature so that less flash
gas is generated from the storage
tanks, minimising the loss. After 10
years of optimisation, the facility
believed that it was at its perfor-
mance limit through the control of
the advanced process control sys-
tem (APC), but based on ambient
variability, there was margin avail-
able in reducing MCHE pressure
by modifying the compressor IGV
limits. This opportunity was agreed
with the compressor manufacturer
and, by rigorous simulation of the
entire plant, it was demonstrated
that further margin optimisation
can be achieved with adjustments
against the current ambient air
temperature.
The project required a track-
ing dashboard built into the con-
trol room and posted an engineer
on-site for six months to support
implementation and capability

18 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas kbc.indd 2 13/03/2019 09:22

 ENGINEERED
SOLUTIONS
WITH
PROVEN
RESULTS.
THAT’S
SMART.
John Zink Hamworthy
Combustion and ETI have
delivered proven oil and gas
processing solutions for
decades, backed by an
engineering and design
staff with over 200
years of combined
project experience. We
have the experience to
provide analyses of new
and existing processes
and the expertise to deliver
new equipment, upgrades, or
retrofits to help your company
meet spec.

That’s smart. That’s JZHC.

For patent and trademark information,

see johnzinkhamworthy.com/legal
johnzinkhamworthy.com | +1 918 234 1800 ©2019 John Zink Company LLC.

j zink.indd 1 10/03/2019 09:15


Figure 3 KBC’s digital twin features Petro-SIM software and GT-SIM unit model
transfer. This improvement project
represented best-in-class techniques
using the technologies of the day.
Changing world
igitalisation technologies o er
new and disruptive opportunities.
Enterprises are slowly realising
the opportunities that exist whilst
grappling with the question of
how to realise those opportunities
in practice. Expectations are also
changing in the digital world, such
as the reduced time for data extrac-
tion, accurate processing with fewer
assumptions, shorter reporting
styles accommodating the chang-
ing situations, and greater access to
knowledge despite new hires and
increased sta turnover.
Applied appropriately, digitali-
sation allows the facility to manage
day-to-day performance safely and
reliably, respond to swings in mar-
ket pricing, operate closer to a true
optimum, squeeze down on the
gap between realised and poten-
tial margin, create more value for
the customers, and outmanoeuvre
competition.
It also enables an operations
team to extend its problem-solv-
ing ecosphere beyond the facility:
to engage the support, brainpower
and technologies of its key partners,
customers and suppliers who can
each bring their own specific exper-
tise and experience to augment
the facility’s own capabilities and
resources.
20 Gas 2019
gas kbc.indd 3
impact using the case study as an
example.
Digital twin
In the case study, the use of various
simulation models was key to eval-
uating projects based on historical
performance, but central to digital-
isation and the delivery of Co-Pilot
is the digital twin (see Figure 2).
The digital twin provides a sin-
gle source of truth for what is going
on inside the facility at a molecular
and asset level. It enables everyone
to see the data inside and perceive
things that are not being directly
measured.
The core technology element in
KBC’s digital twin is the Petro-SIM
software and GT-SIM unit model
(see Figure 3 , which is KBC’s first
Greater expectations principles simulator, modelling
The case study showed what could both process and utility systems,
be achieved using a structured including a detailed gas turbine
methodology and yesterday’s tech- model able to predict performance
nology, but KBC believes that dig- across a range of operating condi-
italisation can drive a new level tions. Alongside the process unit
of enhanced outcomes with more operations, all equipment found in
projects progressed, shorter time to utility systems, both hot oil based
value, robust solutions applicable (gas turbines and heat recovery) or
over a wider range of conditions, steam based (headers, deaerator,
and accessible expertise always steam turbines, boilers, and so on)
available to support. are included. This provides a sin-
By combining methodology gle process and utility flowsheet
and digital tools, KBC aims to for power/production balances,
overcome the traditional hurdles and full facility process, energy and
and deliver ‘operational-excel- reliability optimisation. This allows
lence-as-a-service’ leading to a both design and operation of tightly
sustainable step change in per- integrated systems to be speeded up
formance. KBC’s service is called and simplified, which in turn allows
Co-Pilot and Table 1 identifies the greater optimisation.
factors that have changed and their Data gathered from the facility
in real time is validated and sta-
tistically reconciled to ensure that
Traditional all physical and chemical laws are
simulation Digital twin respected; and electronic noise
Particular Full range of asset and dynamic e ects are eliminated
operating case operation through filtering.
A snapshot in time Full history and future The digital twin aims to be an
Ad-hoc basis to Automated to accurate representation of an asset
answer a question business workflows over its full range of operation. It
Owned and used Centralised single works in the present, mirroring the
by isolated groups version of the truth, actual facility in simulated mode,
used by everyone
but with full knowledge of its his-
Specific tools for Single integrated
different silos twin of process, torical performance and accurate
utilities and heat understanding of its future poten-
exchange systems tial. Digital twins move beyond
purely simulations (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 The digital twin aims to be an The digital twin allows ‘what
accurate representation of an asset over if?’ and ‘what’s best?’ evalua-
its full range of operation tion of opportunities to be run
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:22
 automatically to determine available strategies that
maximise margin. The right experts can review the
recommended strategies to assess the impact of each
potential opportunity.

Real time data

Utilising KBC’s Secure Industrial Cloud and Web
Technician (an IIoT Service) to make the software and
data available through the web to the selected stake-
holders, the digital twin is hosted in the cloud, so that
the insights are instantly available without manual
data and model adjustments, and run in a consistent
way that everyone can understand and agree on.
The case study highlighted that, for sustainable
improvement, opportunities require definition, ongoing
dashboard tracking and reporting of key performance
indicators (KPIs) against targets. Digitalisation enables
global access to real time data. Apart from the above
stated advantage of ease of data transfer, it allows the
implementation of a facility and enterprise wide bench-
marking and goal management system to monitor the
performance and enforce accountability through the
organisation for achievement of goals set, without oner-
ous and often inconsistent data collection.
Automating the reporting of achievements and high-
lighting areas that fall short brings non-compliance
to the attention of the accountable person quickly.

The utilisation of real time data

accessible in the cloud allows Increase yield
greater collaboration GEA gas jet compressor
systems for the exploitation
Organisational escalation and integration with other of gas fields
business systems increases e ciency, for example to
request maintenance work orders if a worn part or
fouled equipment is a source of the energy e ciency To improve the performance of a mechanical
non-compliance. compressor, gas jet compressor systems boost
The utilisation of real time data accessible in the the pressure of the suction gas to a higher
cloud allows greater collaboration. One such col- level. In this way, they extend the use of the
laboration network is that between KBC and Phillip installed mechanical compressors and thus
Townsend Associates (PTAI) who benchmark over also the service life of the gas field.
75% of all the LNG produced worldwide and conduct Special features of GEA ejector systems:
benchmarking programmes for the entire LNG value • simple construction
chain. • no moving parts
Access to real time data, through Co-Pilot, allows • almost maintenance-free
the site to quantify and understand its strengths and • reliable in operation
weaknesses, allowing management to quickly reallo- • low operating costs, if installed and
cate capital and other resources in making changes in operated correctly
costs and operating practices that impact e ciencies • can handle large suction flows
across the enterprise.
PTAI benchmarks compare metrics pertaining to For more information, please contact us
energy use/costs, productivity, utilisation, mainte- at gea.com/contact
nance cost, labour costs, and health and safety, reveal-
ing overall performance and operating costs, which is
key to the structured ‘manage for margin’ approach.
In the partnership with PTAI the Benchmarking KPIs
and results are available in real time, to drive sustaina-
ble performance improvement, rather than providing a
retrospective snapshot of missed potential.
The cloud is also used to deliver these benchmark-

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 21

gas kbc.indd 4 13/03/2019 09:22


Figure 5 Data is mirrored from the facility through a single ‘data pipeline’
ing elements direct to management
and other stakeholders, giving
them direct access to reports and
graphs highlighting competitive
gaps, along with a forum for discus-
sion on their competitive position
in their industry on a regional or
global basis.
Worldwide analytical talent
The case study involved many pro-
ject team meetings with site per-
sonnel and with external experts,
as well as the on-site deployment
of the implementation team for
a period of six months. With the
Co-Pilot service, using KBC’s secure
Industrial Cloud, data is made
available, allowing people and
technologies from across the enter-
prise and outside its boundaries to
engage real time in the process from
geographically diverse o ces.
This connectivity created by the
digital world aids the e ciency of
the improvement project by allow-
ing all required expertise to be
available to join in the day-to-day
progress of the margin optimisa-
tion opportunities of the facility as
if they were present on site. Projects
are therefore more cost e cient and
progress is quicker (see Figure 5).
The example of the case study
required connecting the facility with
KBC experts and a third party com-
pressor manufacturer. However,
once Co-Pilot is set up, further con-
nection to more partners, such as
chemical suppliers and catalyst ven-
22 Gas 2019
gas kbc.indd 5
dors, can be easily configured and
quickly completed. As the data is
mirrored from the facility through
a single ‘data pipeline’ (see Figure
5) then no matter how many parties
are sharing there is no third party
ever connected to the facility’s live
system and the connectivity can
grow or shrink as required. All data
is treated as sensitive, so only the
appropriate data is provided to the
di erent partners in the format and
resolution needed.
Digitalisation is
about automating
workflows and
reducing the degree
of assumptions in
decision-making,
enabling more
precise executions at
all levels
Even in larger enterprises, the
remote locations of many LNG facil-
ities mean cost e ective talent is
sometimes just not available in suf-
ficient quantities or needed
of the time at one facility; working
with a digital twin and data con-
nectivity allows the enterprise to
have the right number and type of
in-house experts covering a wider
area, without additional cost or
travel time.
Digitalisation
Digitalisation is about automating
workflows and reducing the degree
of assumptions in decision-making,
enabling more precise executions at
all levels to provide higher assurance
of delivering the desired outcome.
Digitalisation has enabled these
greater expectations that can turn
a distracted organisation bogged
down with day-to-day issues and
inundated with data, information
and advice, into an agile, well-tuned
machine that anticipates issues and
organises to prioritise and solve
them before they escalate.
Digitally wise operators are ben-
efitting from being more real time,
nimble and agile in their decision
making. The concept of being ‘dig-
itally wise’ and how the digitally
wise facility will outmanoeuvre the
competition is interesting the entire
workforce, as the tools and technol-
ogy will have an impact at all levels.
When considering the latest digi-
talisation technologies, the digitally
wise operator should also look for
the following from the transforma-
tion project:
• It is outcome oriented
• It is holistic in thinking and
application
• It uses technology fused with
expertise
• Executing has clear and deliber-
ate digital transformation actions.
In an industry moving towards
the future, it is important not to be
left behind. KBC has presented a
digitalisation roadmap to remind
facilities what steps to take to
ensure value sustainment from their
project, whether they are just start-
ing out with digitalisation or have
already accomplished a lot.
Based on KBC’s experience, there
are five key steps to implement and
sustain robust digital transforma-
tion. This results in an enterprise
which is not only capable of making
the best use of the current techno-
logical developments, but also being
sustainably setup to remain ahead
of the competition.
The five key areas include
1. Readiness: readiness of data,
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:22
 infrastructure, systems and people, Further reading
innovation programme and was product
ensuring that the required holistic 1 Paper presented by Tim Shire of KBC in 2018
manager for KBC’s suite of energy software.
approach to the digital transforma- at Gastech Exhibition and Congress, Spain.
He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in
2 Case Study Presented by Loo Yong Eng of
tion is considered chemical engineering from the University of
KBC in 2011 at the World Petroleum Congress,
2. Situational awareness: leveraging Cambridge, UK.
Qatar.
data so that throughout the organ- 3 KBC Digitalization Manifesto, KBC.
Andrew McIntee is Marketing Manager with
isation people understand deeply KBC. A Chartered Engineer with 19 years’
consulting and operations experience, he
what is happening, and what the
Tim Shire is Vice President of Energy Transition delivers technical value solutions through
future implications of that are.
with KBC, with a focus on digitalised solutions operational consulting as well as simulation
3. Decision making: grounded on a to address the changing energy landscape. software, advising both refinery and
robust ensemble of first principles He has worked on a range of projects in petrochemical clients on energy efficiency
and statistical analytics, helping the oil refining, petrochemicals, gas and LNG projects, strategic investment activities and
organisation make better decisions worldwide. He previously led KBC’s consulting the integration and optimisation of units.
based on facts.
4. Operational execution: address-
ing how digitalisation can automate
execution processes and eliminate
human error to achieve success with
e cient and e ective operational
execution.
5. Value sustainment: changing UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.
technology adoption from a one-
time fix, and developing a sustaina-
SHRINKING BUDGETS.
ble culture to remain at the technical UNEXPECTED DOWNTIME.
leading edge.
AND YOU HAVEN’T EVEN FINISHED YOUR COFFEE.
Conclusions When every day sees this many challenges, you need a strong
With digitalisation and using a ‘man- partner in your corner. SENTRON™ offers a full range of stationary
gas engine oils backed by a team of experts ready to share
age for margin’ approach, a facility’s
recommendations and find new efficiencies - ensuring you see
true potential can be realised. The exceptional performance, less downtime and new possibilities.
use of the latest generation digital
twin, capable of monitoring, manag- SENTRON. REDEFINING
WHAT’S POSSIBLE.
ing and optimising the full facility
and its costs by seamlessly integrat-
ing process and energy models, is
essential in correctly prioritising,
identifying opportunities and then
tracking the improvement’s impact.
By hosting the digital twin in the
cloud, a new world of collaboration
becomes possible, as remote talent is
able to assure the continued opera-
tion and accuracy of the digital twin,
enabling the facility team to always
make decisions on a sound basis.
Furthermore, a worldwide pool of
talent across all disciplines, availa-
ble constantly, can be alerted to any
issues, provide advice, insight and
build up local capabilities easily and
when the facility needs it.
Critically analysing previous
successful projects has shown that
the margin optimisation method-
ology is successful and, with dig-
italisation, Co-Pilot can drive the
facility to complete more opportuni-
ties, provides more e ective imple-
mentation and lowers the time and
e ort required to sustain the neces- ™ Owned or used under license.

sary margin improvement.

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 23

gas kbc.indd 6 13/03/2019 09:22

 INTRODUCING
ANEWNAME
ININDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
SOLUTIONS
IPCO is a new name in Industrial Process solutions but a
business partner with whom many in the sulphur industry
will already be familiar.

Previously operating as Sandvik Process Systems, we are

now an independent company within the Wallenberg group,
a business with approx. 600 000 employees and in excess
of €140 billion in total sales of holdings.

We continue to develop customized solutions for the sulphur

industry, with the same people, skills and process systems –
including our world-renowned Rotoform® pastillation process
– but under a new name and brand.

Read more at ipco.com

IPCO_SPS-IPCO_PTQ_210x297.indd
ipco.indd 1 1 31/05/2018
10/03/2019 08:58
09:38
 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 recovery
units the sulphur block in a
new gas plant is mainly determined
by the treated gas specification and
SO2 emissions specification. The
treated gas specification is set by
the mode of transport and applica-
tion of the natural gas, for instance
sales gas via pipeline, hydrocar-
bon recovery, liquefaction for over-
seas transport, or production of
chemicals. SO2 emissions, on the
other hand, are enforced by local
authorities.
Treated gas specifications are
fixed, dictated by the downstream
application. But SO2 emissions, on
the other hand, may be negotia-
ble. The trend in SO2 emissions has
gradually become more stringent
through mandates from regulatory
bodies around the world since the
s. It is important to acknowl-
edge that restricting SO2 emissions
was and is necessary to protect the
environment from acid rain and to
prevent the adverse e ects of SO2
on human health. In some parts
of the world, the SO2 emissions
specification is heading towards
mg Nm3 SO2 or ppm SO2
in the stack flue gas on a dry basis
with excess oxygen, previously
known as the World Bank Standard
WBS .1 The World Bank is step-
ping back from this standard as it
is phasing out the funding of fossil
fuel projects after 2 .2 This level of
SO2 emissions corresponds approxi-
mately with a sulphur removal e -
ciency S E of . . This deep
sulphur removal requires consid-
erably more energy consumption
compared to less stringent S Es of
. or even . .
www.eptq.com
gas jacobs.indd 1
Sulphur block
SRU TGTU
Inlet
AGRU Dehydration
receiving
Figure 1 Gas plant configuration
This article demonstrates how to
select the optimum sulphur block
configuration given a certain feed
gas composition, treated gas specifi-
cation and SO2 emission levels. We
will also discuss how to consider
CO2 emissions for each option in the
technology evaluation, as a param-
eter for assessing the added value
of ultra high recovery e ciencies,
and as a parameter in the operating
costs for CO2, in the context of the
European Emission Trading System
EU ETS .3
Typical gas plant treating steps
The treating steps in a gas plant are
mainly determined by the mode of
transport to end users, via pipeline
or overseas transport as liquefied
natural gas LNG . The technologies
for the final polishing step depend
on the end user application as fuel
or to produce chemicals.4
Figure 1 provides a general over-
view of the di erent processing
units within a gas plant.
The gas plant consists of the fol-
lowing processing steps
Inlet receiver
Gas from the well passes first
Stack
Hydrocarbon Gas LNG or
polishing sales gas
recovery
Liquids
processing
NGL
through the inlet receiver, consist-
ing of a slug catcher to separate con-
densed water, hydrocarbon liquids
and solids 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)
ere 2
S and CO2 are removed
from the raw gas, as 2S and CO2
form a weak, corrosive acid in
the presence of water which can
damage carbon steel piping and
equipment. 2S is a very toxic gas
while CO2 is non-flammable, there-
fore both are undesirable in large
quantities in sales gas. eep CO2
removal, typically to below ppm,
is required to prevent solid CO2 for-
mation for LNG production primar-
ily, but also for other refrigeration
steps in the gas plant.
Sulphur recovery unit (SRU) and tail
gas treating unit (TGTU)
If 2S is present, the following pro-
cessing options are available
• Incineration and venting to
atmosphere or capturing SO2 with a
caustic scrubber.
Gas 2019 25
13/03/2019 15:35
 Acid gas
a solvent with a high a nity for
Treated gas to to SRU mercaptans and COS. There can
be di erent approaches to deal-
dehydration

ing with regeneration gas because

of intermittent flows and varying
compositions. If a treating system
Main
absorber is in place, mercaptans and COS are
Regenerator then routed to the S U for sulphur
Flash
gas recovery. Otherwise, regeneration
Feed LP steam
gas very often ends up blended
gas with fuel gas or routed to the incin-
Reboiler erator, depending on allowable sul-
phur emission levels.

Hydrocarbon liquids recovery

Figure 2 AGRU configuration
This option is only to be con-
sidered if the quantity of sulphur
is below 2 t d and the concentra-
tion of 2S in the acid gas from the
AG U is below ppm.
• Treatment using 2S scavengers
generally feasible when removing
less than kg per day of sulphur,
which equates to ppm levels of 2S
in the raw gas
• Conversion to elemental sulphur
through a liquid redox process or
with the Thiopaq biological process,
for up to approximately t d of
sulphur removal
• ecovery of pure elemental sul-
phur using the modified Claus pro-
cess for sulphur quantities above
t d
• Acid gas compression and re-
injection into a suitable under-
ground formation as a disposal
method. This option is only eco-
nomical for specific cases.
Dehydration and mercaptan removal
The treated gas from the AG U
is water saturated. Glycol units
are typically used to achieve the
necessary pipeline specification.
Alternatively, molecular sieves are
used in cases where cryogenic pro-
cesses recover the C2 fraction from
the inlet gas, if nitrogen rejection is
required, or if the natural gas prod-
uct is sent to an LNG plant. Water
needs to be removed to less than .
ppmv to prevent hydrate formation
in the cryogenic sections. Molecular
sieves can also be used for mercap-
tan removal.
The formation of carbonyl sul-
phide COS is an important con-
sideration when using molecular
sieves for dehydration in the pres-
ence of sulphur species. COS is
formed during the regeneration of
the beds, and the resulting regener-
ation gas requires treatment using
If the gas contains su cient C2+
fractions, it may be economically
feasible to extract these liquids,
resulting in a product that may
have a higher sales value than nat-
ural gas. ydrocarbon liquid recov-
ery might also be required to meet
the heating value specifications of
natural gas.
Natural gas polishing
This section covers all other pro-
cessing steps necessary to meet the
sales gas or LNG product specifica-
tions, for instance nitrogen rejection
in cases where natural gas needs to
meet a nitrogen specification, typi-
cally ranging from - vol .
Liquid processing
The liquids from the inlet receiver
are conditioned to remove any
dissolved salts and to collect any
hydrate inhibitors present in the
raw gas. Stripping o the light
components stabilises hydrocar-
bons from the inlet receiver. The

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

26 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas jacobs.indd 2 13/03/2019 15:35


HP
steam
HP
steam Reheater
Waste heat
boiler Claus
reactor
LP
steam
Combustion
chamber
Condenser S S
FrC Atmospheric
degassing pit
Feed Air
gas
Figure 4 SRU with selective oxidation tail gas treating
liquids from the hydrocarbon
recovery may be further processed
in a natural gas liquids (NGL) frac-
tionation train, resulting in ethane,
propane, butane, and natural gaso-
line fractions.
Sulphur block configuration and
evaluation criteria
The following are key criteria for
the sulphur block when meeting
natural gas specifications
• CO2 removal from a gas that con-
tains no H2S
• H2S removal from a gas that con-
tains no CO2
• Simultaneous removal of both
CO2 and H2S
• Selective removal of H2S from a
gas that contains both CO2 and H2S.
Additional factors that a ect the
process and solvent selection are
sulphur containing impurities such
as COS, CS2 and mercaptans, which
can be expected to be present in the
natural gas if H2S is well above the
ppm level. A typical configuration
for an AGRU is shown in Figure 2.
For scenarios where both CO2 and
H2S are present there is the possibil-
ity that the H2S concentration in the
recovered acid gas from the regen-
erator is too low due to the high
CO2 content for direct processing in
the SRU. In such a case an acid gas
enrichment (AGE) unit is required
www.eptq.com
gas jacobs.indd 3
HP
steam
Reheater Reheater
Claus Claus
H2S 0.5-0.7vol%
reactor reduction
LP LP reactor LP
steam steam steam
S S
To sulphur
storage
to improve the acid gas quality.
Figure 3 shows an integrated line-up
with the SRU-TGTU.
The basic arrangement for the
AGRU is quite standard, with sol-
vent choice as the key di erentia-
tor. It is possible to allow certain
sulphur impurities to slip in the
AGRU and then capture them in the
dehydration step. Careful analysis
during solvent selection can achieve
considerable cost savings, particu-
larly in utilities consumption. As
such, it is strongly recommended to
conduct a thorough solvent selec-
tion study which evaluates the
benefits and consequences of the
available options.
Acid gas from the AGRU with
su cient 2S is processed in the
S U. The typical S U configura-
tion uses the modified Claus pro-
cess with both thermal and catalytic
sections. The baseline achievable
level of SRE ranges from 95% to
98%, depending on the number
of Claus reactors. To improve the
SRE further requires a TGTU. The
minimum SRE in Europe is set at
99.5% and forms the baseline for
the case study evaluation. The case
study also reviews higher SREs.
Commonly applied TGTU technol-
ogies are catalytic conversion pro-
cesses, amine based tail gas treating,
and flue gas SO2 recovery.
HP
steam
Stack
HP
steam Fuel
Incinerator and
Reheater Air
waste heat boiler
Selective
oxidisation
reactor
QC LLP
steam
HP
steam
Preheater S
FC
Air
Catalytic conversion processes
Catalytic conversion processes
using selective oxidation, such as
EuroClaus and SuperClaus, can
achieve SREs in the range 99.0-
99.6% depending on the feed gas
composition. The remaining 0.4-
1.0% of sulphur species are incin-
erated and sent to the atmosphere
as SO2. For higher SREs, SO2 can be
captured from the flue gas with a
caustic scrubber downstream of the
incinerator. The SO2 forms sodium
sulphate which can be treated via
the wastewater treatment unit. For
large plants in remote areas, the
scrubber option may not be feasi-
ble due to handling and transport-
ing the large quantities of caustic
required to capture SO2. For exam-
ple, a 900 t/d SRU would require
daily about 30 m3 of 30 wt% sodium
hydroxide (NaOH). A detailed anal-
ysis is recommended to investigate
the best alternate solutions when no
suitable water treatment facilities
are available locally. See Figure 4 for
the SRU-selective oxidation process
line-up for a gas plant.
Amine based tail gas treating unit
If sulphur recoveries above 99.5%
are required, amine based tail gas
treating units are the industry
standard. See Figure 5 for a typical
S U configuration consisting of
Gas 2019 27
13/03/2019 15:35
 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

two catalytic Claus reactors with phur degassing unit. Pressurised Flue gas SO2 recovery unit
amine based tail gas treating. The degassing allows routing the vent Removal of SO2 from flue gas is
remaining sulphur species from the gas back to the combustion chamber another method of attaining low
Claus reactors will be hydrogen- in the Claus unit. Alternatively, the sulphur emissions. Shell’s Cansolv
ated and hydrolysed to 2S over use of blowers or steam eductors to and MECS Solv are examples of
a catalyst in a third reactor. In the recycle vent gas from atmospheric this type of technology. Such units
quench column, the gas is cooled degassing back to the thermal reac- can easily meet mg Nm3 in
and the remaining 2S is captured tor has met with varying degrees of the stack gas with the advantage
in the amine absorber. From the success. of minimal impact on the plant’s
regenerator that 2
S is recycled For an S E of . , the follow- investment and operating costs.
back to the burner on the combus- ing additional features are required They are very e ective technology
tion chamber. Treated gas is sent compared to . or . sul- choices when wanting to minimise
to the incinerator to convert any phur recovery total plant SO2 emissions. Other fea-
remaining sulphur species to SO2 • Pressurised degassing to recy- tures of this type of tail gas treating
before release to atmosphere. With cle sulphur vapours from sulphur technology are
a standard amine based TGTU degassing to the front end of the • egassing vapours and other sul-
using regular M EA as the solvent, thermal reactor. phur containing gases such as from
. recovery should be achieva- • Use of acid-aided M EA instead the AGE absorber, which normally
ble. This S E corresponds to about of regular M EA. Particularly bypass the S U, can be sent to the
- mg Nm3 SO2 or 2 -2 in hot climates, the high perfor- incinerator without losing S E. The
ppm SO2 in the flue gas to the mance amines, Flexsorb SE Plus SO2 formed will be captured in the
stack, on a dry basis with excess EM E , OASE yellow BASF or Cansolv or Solv unit and recy-
oxygen. e treat Ultra Shell untsman , cled to the Claus unit combustion
To meet mg Nm3 SO2, as have demonstrated better perfor- chamber
specified in the former WBS which mance with respect to the amine • The temperature of the acid gas
corresponds to about . recov- circulation rate and reboiler duty. burner in the Claus unit needs to
ery , the 2
S concentration from In colder climates, this advan- be checked as the addition of the
the treated gas leaving the absorber tage over acid aided M EA is less SO2 recycle will lower the flame
must be reduced to a strict mini- pronounced. temperature. This can hinder the
mum, together with small amounts It is important to note that BTE destruction capability of the
of COS, CS2 and mercaptans that depending on the feed gas quality, burner
may pass through the hydrogena- the . S E might not be achiev- • The unit produces a dilute sul-
tion reactor unconverted. This high able with only these features, and phate waste stream which possibly
recovery standard also requires the o -gas might require other pol- requires an e uent treatment plant
treatment of vent gas from the sul- ishing steps. for further processing.

28 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas jacobs.indd 4 13/03/2019 15:35

 Feed gas design basis and treated gas
specification Sulphur block

SRU TGTU
Component Mol% Mol% Stack
H2S 9.7 <4 ppmv
CO2 8.6 <0.5 Inlet Gas
AGRU Dehydration Sales gas
N2 5.0 - receiving polishing
CH4 76.5 -
C2H6 0.2 -
COS 150 ppmv <40 ppmv
R-SH 80 ppmv <10 ppmv Figure 6 Process scheme for the case study
Total sulphur <60 ppmv
Temperature 25
Pressure 75 barg
content is mol , which is higher in the amine unit and therefore
Flow rate 250 000 Nm3/h than typical pipeline specifications. a solvent should be chosen with
Nitrogen rejection is not considered absorption capabilities for COS
necessary since, by reducing the and mercaptans. Examples of typ-
Table 1 CO2 content to 0.5 mol%, the total ical solvents for this type of perfor-
concentration of diluents (non-com- mance are Sulfinol-M and Flexsorb
Case study bustible components) will be kept SE Hybrid.
See Table 1 for the conditions of a constant at about 6 mol%. It is con- As part of a study, the unit config-
typical feed gas from a European cluded that there is no need to bring uration was simulated comparing
gas plant. Based on this feed, a case the treated gas specification to a both solvents to confirm the result-
study has been created to demon- level suitable for refrigeration pro- ing treat gas conditions. Modelling
strate the mechanics of a feasibility cess steps. The analysis leads then confirmed that the treated gas speci-
study to select the optimum tech- to the gas processing scheme shown fication can be met without the need
nology line-up. in Figure 6. for additional mole sieves and that
The treated gas will be sold as Shifting the focus to the AG U, a typical TEG unit is su cient for
pipeline sales gas. ydrocarbon the feed gas contains almost equal dehydration.
recovery is not considered econom- amounts of H2S and CO2, with COS As the amount of sulphur pro-
ically feasible since the fraction and mercaptans also present. There duced will be about 840 t/d, the
of C2 is only .2 mol . Nitrogen is no need for deep CO2 removal modified Claus process is the obvi-

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 29

gas jacobs.indd 5 13/03/2019 16:06


Comparison of relative investment and operating costs
Configuration description
AGRU + catalytic TGTU for SRE 99.5%
AGRU + amine based TGTU with SRE 99.8%
AGRU + amine based TGTU with SRE 99.9%
AGRU + amine based TGTU with SRE 99.98%
Table 2
ous choice for the S U configura-
tion. The acid gas from the AG U
to the S U has roughly mol
H2S and mol CO2. There is no
need for an AGE, and this compo-
sition can be handled in a typical
straight through S U configuration.
After selecting the configurations
for the dehydration, AG U and
S U, all that remains is determin-
ing the TGTU technology. The main
evaluation criteria are the emission
specifications set by the local envi-
ronmental authorities. The follow-
ing configuration options have been
evaluated
• . S E using a selective
oxidation process as the tail gas
treatment
• . and . S E with regu-
lar M EA in an amine based TGTU
• . S E with acid aided
M EA in the TGTU.
For this case study, a selective
oxidation TGT with a caustic scrub-
ber is not considered feasible as the
gas plant is in a remote area. The
logistics to bring in the caustic and
deal with the waste stream make
this configuration cost prohibi-
tive. Although flue gas SO2 recov-
ery technology can be an attractive
solution for some very specific situ-
140
130
120
Relative cost index
110
100
90
80
Sulphur recovery efficiency, %
Figure 7 Comparison of indexed investment and operating costs
30 Gas 2019
gas jacobs.indd 6
Investment cost index Operating cost index
100 100
114 117
116 121
122 132
ations, in this instance it is also not
economically feasible for these gas
conditions.4
For this evaluation, the unit has
been developed into a high level
design and the di erent TGTU tech-
nologies are compared based on the
following evaluation criteria
• Investment cost
• Operating cost includes all costs
for utilities, chemicals and planned
replacements to be able to run the
plant during its lifetime
• Net Present Value NPV the
NPV calculation uses the total costs
and revenues for investment and 2
years of operation related to the rate
of discount
• Equivalent CO2 emissions directly
due to plant operation it has been
assessed that the CO2 emissions
from equipment manufacturing and
plant construction are negligible
compared to the CO2 emissions due
to plant operation. Therefore, CO2
emissions resulting from construc-
tion are not evaluated.
For this case study, it was
assumed that there are no restric-
tions, with respect to available plot,
available utilities and regulatory
requirements, that would prohibit
the viability of the chosen configu-
Investment costs
Operating costs
99.50 99.80 99.90 99.98
rations. The case study is based on
a greenfield AG U S U TGTU
for a gas plant in Europe, using
average European climatic condi-
tions and utility prices. It has been
assumed that the unit will run at
design capacity continuously.
Case study evaluation and discussion
With the defined case information,
simulations and design calculations
were carried out for the AG U
S U with di erent TGTU options.
The results are provided and dis-
cussed in the following.
Investment and operating costs
The main equipment dimensions
are listed in Appendix A. Items such
as columns, incinerator, degassing,
and so on do not change signifi-
cantly for the di erent S E sce-
narios, because the gas flows and
liquid sulphur flows di er only
marginally between . and
. S E.
In Appendix B, a breakdown is
given for the utility consumption
production, and chemical catalyst
consumption for each configuration,
including the unit rates. In Table 2,
the relative di erences in invest-
ment and operating costs between
the options are summarised. The
AG U . catalytic TGTU con-
figuration is indexed at . The
investment and operating costs for
the other configurations are rela-
tive to the AG U . catalytic
TGTU cost index.
The amine based TGTU for an
S E of . is relatively more
expensive than the other configu-
rations, mainly due to pressurised
degassing and the larger equip-
ment required by the higher solvent
circulation rate and regenerator
stripping duty. Figure 7 provides
a graphical overview of the cost
index numbers in Table 2. It clearly
demonstrates that moving towards
higher sulphur recovery e cien-
cies increases investment costs, and
the operating costs tend to increase
at an even higher rate. This indi-
cates that removal of additional
sulphur becomes more and more
di cult, requiring exponentially
more energy, especially low pres-
sure LP steam.
The yearly operating costs
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 16:08
 include the costs for CO2 emis-
sions at a rate of €10/t of CO2 emit- 180
ted,6 in accordance with the EU 160
Emission Trading System (ETS).
140
This carbon pricing accounts for
about - of the total operating 120

Net present value, € M

costs for each case. Most of the CO2 100
emissions in the stack are extracted
from the natural gas in the AGRU. 80

Only by using additional technol- 60

ogy for carbon capture and storage
or other means of CO2 valorisation
can these emissions be reduced.
The costs for CO2 emissions from
the necessary utilities is included in
the total costs for each utility.
It is worth noting that this study is
highly sensitive to the unit price of
LP steam which has been assumed
at €6.5/t. However, if the site has
an excess of LP steam, such as in
cases where a cogeneration plant is
nearby, or pumps and blowers are
steam turbine driven instead of elec-
tric, and the net costs for using this
LP steam are negligible, the yearly
operating costs will be the same for
each of the options. The main LP
steam consumers are the reboilers of
the regenerators in the AGRU and
the amine based TGTU. Due to the
LP steam price and di erences in
consumption figures for the options,
LP steam is an important parameter
in calculations of the operating costs
for this case study.
40
20
0
99.50
Sulphur recovery efficiency, %
Figure 8 NPV comparison
Net present value
The input data for NPV calculations
are tabulated in Appendix C. The
result for each technology is shown
in Figure 8.
A positive NPV means that the
project is profitable the option with
the highest NPV is economically the
most attractive. In situations where
the investment cost for one option
is lower compared to other options
but the operating costs are higher,
the NPV calculation provides a
balanced number for comparing
options economically. The invest-
ment and operating costs increase
both with increasing SRE (see Figure
99.80 99.90 99.98
7) and therefore the NPV decreases.
This means that the 99.5% option
is economically the most profita-
ble one. The NPV is positive for all
options due to revenues of sulphur
sales and generation of high pres-
sure P 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 environ-
mental requirement. Selection of the
most economically favourable sul-
phur recovery technology is advan-
tageous for the overall economic
performance of the gas plant.

www.sogat.org

April 28th - May 2nd 2019 | Abu Dhabi, UAE

April 28th - 30th

SOGAT Workshops
May 1st - 2nd
Conference & Exhibition
Media Partner: Organised By:

PO Box 52641, Abu Dhabi, UAE +971 2 674 4040 nick@domeexhibitions.com

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 31

gas jacobs.indd 7 13/03/2019 15:35

 Considerations
120
99.98
The results and discussion pre-
110 sented here are applicable only for
CO2 emissions, kiloton/year
100
99.90 this specific case and the assump-
90 99.80 tions used for evaluating the di er-
80
70 ent configurations in this article. If a
60 minimum S E of . is required,
50 it is very likely that simpler cata-
99.50
40 lytic conversion processes will out-
30 perform other technologies with
20 respect to investment cost, operat-
10 ing cost, NPV, and equivalent CO2
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 emissions. owever, if LP steam
SO2 emissions, kilo ton/year is freely available at the site, with
no appreciable unit cost, the cata-
Figure 9 Annual CO2 emissions for utilities, catalyst and chemicals lytic TGTU process could result in
operating costs and CO2 emissions
CO2 footprint for utilities, the yearly CO2 equivalent emission similar to the amine based TGTU
chemicals and catalyst for the utilities, chemicals and cata- options. In such a case, the overall
The yearly consumption and pro- lyst are given for the configurations energy e ciency of the plant should
duction figures for utilities, chem- of di erent S Es. In Appendix D the be optimised, resulting in more e -
icals and catalyst are estimated to assumed CO2 emission factors are cient application of excess LP steam.
determine the operating costs in the provided for reference. This in turn highlights the need for
previous section. By multiplying From Figure 9, the catalytic TGTU an initial feasibility study of tech-
the consumption and production configuration has the best perfor- nology options prior to defining
figures with each corresponding mance regarding CO2 footprint and fixing the process line-up for
CO2 equivalent emission factor, the compared to the amine based TGTU design.
yearly CO2 equivalent can be esti- options. With higher sulphur recov- Even though for the . S E
mated. For some chemicals and cat- ery e ciencies, CO2 emissions catalytic TGTU SO2 emissions are
alysts, no factor was found in the increase exponentially. It is also clear highest at 3300 t/y, in all other eval-
literature. For those chemicals and that a small reduction in SO2 emis- uation criteria this option outper-
catalyst, a factor is taken from a sions will cause an order of magni- forms the other configurations with
comparable component. In Figure 9 tude increase in CO2 emissions. higher S Es. It is worthwhile noting

OPTIMIZE YOUR
SAFETY FUEL-RICH FURNACE ENVIRONMENTS PUT LIVES AND EQUIPMENT AT
OPTIMIZED FOR

CO+CH4

RISK. THE SERVOTOUGH Laser 3 Plus Combustion TDL GAS ANALYZER

DELIVERS THE KEY MEASUREMENTS THAT PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE.

• Fast-response cross-furnace measurement of CO and CH4

• Measures across the full temperature range from start-up to operation
• Rapid detection of burner flame-out
• Easily incorporated into control loops and safety shutdown systems

servomex.expert/ad-l3pc

32 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas jacobs.indd 8 13/03/2019 16:05

 that the performance improvement
is relatively small when increasing
the SRE from 99.9% to 99.98%, reduc-
ing SO2 emissions by only 400 t/y.
owever, there are significant costs
associated with this improvement in
performance when you consider the
increases in cost, utility requirements
and equivalent net CO2 emissions.
Where countries start to imple-
ment the Paris Climate Change
Agreement or follow other mecha-
nisms of carbon pricing, the industry
will start to see changes in the eco-
nomic viability of the gas plant. In
order to keep the global temperature
rise within 2°C, simulations show
that the costs for CO2 emissions
should increase to €100/t.7 In this
scenario, one can imagine that the
utility prices for gas processing will
increase considerably. Consequently,
this could have a serious impact on
the economics of the gas plant. It is
possible that minimising CO2 emis-
sions could become a key parame-
ter in sulphur recovery technology
selection in the future. Alternatively,
SO2 emissions could be negotiated
with the local environmental author-
ity when taking the corresponding
CO2 emissions into consideration.
Added value of reducing SO2
emissions?
Table 3 provides an overview of
activity and SO2 emissions globally.8,9
SO2 emissions are a ecting the envi-
ronment regionally. SO2 is converted
in the atmosphere to sulphate which
attracts water and forms aerosols
that settle down within a couple of
weeks. At high concentrations this
causes smog and can result in acid-
ification of the soil and aquatic sys-
tems. Therefore, SO2 emissions needs
to be assessed by case and by loca-
tion because other emission sources
also need to be considered. In that
respect, the regulations for SO2 emis-
sions in Europe and Canada can be
considered a very valid basis for
further discussion. Europe applies
the guidelines as published in the
BREF (Best Available Technology
Reference documents), which spec-
ifies a minimum S E of . , but
also allows using a ‘bubble con-
cept’ for a site. In that case, a site
gets a maximum SO2 emission limit
assigned and the site can decide to a
www.eptq.com
gas jacobs.indd 9
Overview of global SO2 emissions by industry sector and natural SO2 emissions in 2005
Emission source
Combustion for power generation
Combustion by industry
Metal smelting
Other processes
Transport
Shipping
Domestic
Fires and waste incineration
Total anthropogenic SO2 emissions
Total natural emissions1
Note 1: Natural SO2 sources include, for instance, wind erosion, sea spray, volcanic activity
Table 3
large extent how to stay within this
limit. In this way, maximum ground
level SO2 concentrations are kept
below safe margins.
The Industrial Heartland Area, in
central Alberta, Canada, is consid-
ering using emission targets based
on the total amount of SRU capac-
ity in a specified geographic area,
irrespective of individual plants’
SRU capacities. With this concept,
safe ground level concentrations of
SO2 will also be met, minimising the
regional intensity of emissions.
From Table 3, it can be concluded
that, in most situations, the SRU’s
contribution to overall regional SO2
emissions is relatively small com-
pared to the background world-
wide emissions. The contribution
of all SRUs worldwide is estimated
at around 0.3% of global SO2 emis-
sions.10 However, the most suitable
SRE to maintain safe ground level
SO2 concentrations could be eval-
uated per site and region using an
approach like the Alberta example
and Europe. It has been demon-
strated that requiring a 99.98% SRE
brings no appreciable performance
improvement with respect to SO2
emissions compared to 99.9%, but
it does come at the expense of extra
operating and investment costs. The
suitability of the . S E cata-
lytic TGTU process could depend
on pre-existing regional SO2 emis-
sion 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 acceptable ground
level SO2 concentrations, while
o ering the advantages of minimis-
ing CO2 emissions and good eco-
nomic performance.
Global SO2 emission, MMton/year
58
15
14
13
1
9
8
2
120
369-543
The global political debate is cur-
rently focused on preventing global
warming by limiting CO2 emissions.
It is shown that SO2 has a cooling
e ect 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 expo-
nential increase in CO2 emissions.
The . S E catalytic TGTU
process is currently 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 oper-
ating parameters. As a result, cat-
alytic conversion technology has
the potential to combine attractive
economic performance with accept-
able SO2 emissions at a minimum of
equivalent CO2 emissions.
Conclusions
When deciding on the best pos-
sible AG U S U TGTU config-
uration, it is strongly advised to
undertake a study by a party that
can o er many di erent solutions
to compare technology alterna-
tives. 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 sen-
sitive to utility prices and feed gas
composition. The study method
presented in this article also pro-
vides adequate data for discussions
with the local environmental regu-
latory authorities. Based on Jacobs
Gas 2019 33
13/03/2019 15:35
 Information for Reliability and Instrumentation Engineers

INTELLIGENT
machine monitoring

The profit:
Return On
Investment
of condition
monitoring
prognost.com/profit
bbb
How to select a
Condition Monitoring System
monitoringguide.com

prognost.indd 1 13/03/2019 10:07

 Comprimo’s experience, every situ-
ation can be di erent and needs to
be assessed in a timely, customised
matter, preferably as a study in the
pre-feasibility phase of a project.
If an S E of . would be
acceptable, the catalytic conver-
sion process has the best score in
every evaluated category. acobs
Comprimo is working on improving
the S E of their catalytic conversion
processes further and a recent test
run was carried out proving an S E
of . average is possible.11 Even
at this high SRE for a catalytic con-
version process, there is still room
for further optimisation of operating
conditions and equipment design,
which will further close the gap with
the amine based TGTU processes,
giving a wider range of economical
S U configuration options to natural
gas producers.
It is important to set reasonable
SO2 emission targets, in cooperation
with the environmental authorities,
with a focus on ground level SO2
concentrations in the region due to
the operation of the S U rather than
pursuing the maximum SRE techni-
cally possible. Enforcing very low
SO2 emission targets on a revamp
project or an S U 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 signifi-
cantly 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.
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.
Jan-Willem Hennipman is a Technology
Specialist with Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur
Solutions, The Hague, The Netherlands.
With a broad knowledge in all aspects of
sulphur recovery, sour water stripping and
amine treating, he has more than 12 years
of engineering experience in the oil and gas
industries. He holds a MS degree in chemical
engineering and a professional doctorate
in engineering from Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
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.

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

gas jacobs.indd 10 13/03/2019 15:35

 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 tion has been tabulated in 2.8 m x C1.
Table 5.0 m, 7.5 MW CS + partly lined
3rd Sulphur condenser 2.6 m x 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 Remarks500 m2, 1300 kW CS
3rd Reheater Interest 5 %560 m2, 1100 kW CS
4th Reheater Sulphur price 130 €/ton580 m2, 1900 kW CS
Coalescer Capacity 3.8 m x 4.5 m
840 ton/day sulphur CS
Incinerator burner andMaintenance
combustion chamber
cost 5 4.2 m x 13.7 m
% 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 83000 kg/h, 1900 kW CS
Table C1
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

gas jacobs.indd 11 13/03/2019 15:35

 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 Tables
estimate background data B1 and B2. The data used for the NPV calcula-
tion has been tabulated in Table C1.
Utility, chemical and catalyst cost unit rates

Utility/chemical/catalyst Cost Unit Remarks NPV calculation input data

Electric power 0.032 €/kWh
Sour water treating 0.975 €/m3 Treating sour water takes
150 kg LP steam/m3 sour water Variable Value Remarks
Cooling water 0.086 €/m3 Interest 5 %
Fuel gas 0.26 €/kg Sulphur price 130 €/ton
Boiler feed water 3.5 €/ton Capacity 840 Ton/day sulphur
HP steam 10 €/ton Maintenance cost 5 % of investment
LP steam 6.5 €/ton Period 20 Years
LP condensate 2.0 €/ton
CO2 emission rights 10 €/ton Table C1
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, m3/6yrs 93.5 93.5 113.3
Selective oxidation catalyst, m3/6yrs 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
Utility/chemical/catalyst Value Unit Remarks
for utilities, chemicals and Electric power 0.54 kg CO2/kWh
catalyst Sour water treating 18.38 kg CO2/m3 Treating sour water takes
150 kg LP steam/m3 sour water
Cooling water 0.14 kg CO2/m3
Fuel gas 2.66 kg CO2/kg fuel gas
The background data used to esti- Boiler feed water 0.87 kg CO2/m3
mate the CO2 footprint for the HP steam 0.10 kg CO2/kg stm
LP steam 0.12 kg CO2/kg stm
utility, chemicals and catalyst con- LP condensate 0 kg CO2/m3 Used as BFW make-up;
sumption is provided in Table D1 consumption and therefore
based on the information of ref- no net CO2 effect
erences 9 and 12. With the con- (High perf.) Amine 2.00 kg CO2/kg amine
Claus catalyst Al2O3 5.00 kg CO2/ltr Estimated
sumption figures in Table B2, the Claus catalyst TiO2
footprint per utility, chemical and TGTU hydrogenation catalyst 5.00 kg CO2/ltr Estimated
catalyst can be calculated. Selective oxidation catalyst 5.00 kg CO2/ltr Estimated

Table D1

gas jacobs.indd 12 13/03/2019 15:35

 Your operations.
Your insurance rates.
Your community.

Overfill risks them all.

This is why
level matters.
Tank overfill is a constant safety concern for any storage
terminal site, and for good reason. Overfill has resulted in
injuries, loss of life and billions of dollars worth of damages
worldwide. That’s why Magnetrol® matters. We have proven
ways to minimize your risks, reduce insurance premiums and
comply with the latest industry standards. Download our
Overfill Protection Kit and protect what matters. Because at
your site, level matters.

Download the Overfill Protection Kit

©2019 Magnetrol International, Inc. at overfillprotection.magnetrol.com

magnetrol.indd 1 10/03/2019 09:14

 Liquefaction technology for mid-scale
LNG production
Location, capacity and operability of a plant as well as project investment criteria
can greatly affect the choice of liquefaction technology for a mid-scale LNG project
SAEID MOKHATAB
Gas processing consultant
M
id-scale liquefied natural
gas LNG projects are fore-
casted to be the preferred
solution for niche LNG markets
as well as for the monetisation of
smaller gas volumes at reduced
investment cost. As such, there is
great interest in developing success-
ful solutions for mid-scale LNG pro-
jects that may have advantages over
competing baseload projects. The
key step in addressing an econom-
ical solution to the mid-scale LNG
project development is selecting a
less complex and lower cost lique-
faction technology which best fits
the si e range of the project. Mid-
scale LNG plants may be located
onshore or o shore. Although tech-
nical requirements are di erent in
each case, simplicity and modu-
larisation are main targets in both.
This article discusses various natu-
ral gas liquefaction technologies to
allow a selection that best fits the
needs of land based mid-scale LNG
applications.
As large gas reservoirs are slowly
depleted, smaller reservoirs in
remote locations are now exploited.
These opportunities have prompted
some market players to evaluate
mid-scale LNG technology appli-
cations. Mid-scale LNG projects
ranging from . to 2 million t y are
applicable to medium-si ed onshore
and o shore gas fields with around
. to trillion cu ft of gas . Mid-
scale LNG plants may also be fed
by associated gas from nearby oil
reservoirs or use pretreated feed gas
coming from commercial pipelines
for instance, the t y Nordic
Skangas LNG plant at port of
isavika in Norway , which reduces
equipment count, modules, plant
www.eptq.com
gas mokhatab .indd 1
space requirements, total weight,
and cost.
Mid-scale LNG plants produc-
ing between to 2 million t y have
led the recent wave of LNG pro-
jects ,2 since they allow the own-
ers to scale their projects and costs
to market conditions because of
their potential for development of
multiple smaller trains. Often, the
desire is to phase in production in
t y or million t y si es.
Mid-scale LNG projects can also be
brought online more quickly, con-
tributing to shorter payback periods
and improving investor returns.
Further advantages include relative
ease of securing funding for these
plants due to their smaller level of
required investment and concom-
itant reduction of financial risk,
and relative ease of securing long
term LNG contracts with improved
chances of fully subscribing plant
output compared to a typical base-
load LNG project.
Most of the positive trade-o s for
mid-scale LNG production plants
centre on the use of simpler lique-
faction processes, which require
less equipment with reduced oper-
ational complexity, and consequent
reduced maintenance burden. This
increases the range of liquefaction
technologies, equipment vendors
and qualified engineering and con-
struction resources available to
the project. This creates stronger
bidding competition than is typi-
cal for more demanding and costly
large-scale developments. Mid-
scale also means that the plant may
be able to draw its power from the
existing grid rather than having to
design and build dedicated power
generation capability. Plot space
requirements are also smaller than
baseload LNG facilities.4 Finally,
modular construction becomes dis-
tinctly more viable with smaller
LNG facilities. This provides ben-
efits of an accelerated schedule, a
lower installed cost and increased
reliability. Also, project risk is min-
imised by having greater control
of the work and executing fabrica-
tion in a modular yard with safer
working conditions than onsite
construction.
As mid-scale LNG projects con-
tinue to increase rapidly for
instance, the t y Feng hen
Wanjie Gas Company LNG plant in
China scheduled to start up in 2 ,
and Texas LNG’s 2 million t y LNG
plant with first export commenc-
ing in 2 2 , the challenge of lique-
faction process selection, which is
a key element of any LNG project,
becomes increasingly important.
Selecting safe, more versatile and
cost-e ective liquefaction technol-
ogies that meet stringent environ-
mental emissions standards is a key
focus for new mid-scale projects.
Liquefaction cycles
Two main types of refrigeration
cycles turboexpander and mixed
refrigerant have been proposed for
mid-scale applications based on a
proven track record with onshore
LNG facilities. Turboexpander and
mixed refrigerant M based tech-
nologies have been qualified by
numerous operating companies for
mid-scale LNG applications.
Expander cycles
Turboexpander refrigeration cycles,
which use nitrogen N2 as the
refrigerant, have been widely used
Gas 2019 39
13/03/2019 09:34
 for small-scale LNG production
up to 800 000 t/y per train. While
the single-expander cycle has rel-
atively low e ciency, higher pro-
cess e ciencies can be achieved
by adding a second (see Figure 1)
or third expander. Adding a pre-
cooling cycle, based on propane or
other refrigerant hydrofluorocar-
bons, carbon dioxide or methane),
can improve overall e ciency and
significantly increase throughput
for a given plant size. Increased
LNG facility complexity, reduced
overall reliability and the need for
increased refrigerant storage are
potential disadvantages of add-
ing a precooling refrigeration cir-
cuit. Many of the safety concerns
can be mitigated by the selection
of non-flammable refrigerants,5
and reliability concerns can be
addressed by using parallel equip-
ment or trains.
Several developments utilising
methane (sourced from the feed
gas) and/or its combination with
N2 have been proposed based on the
dual-N2 expander cycle, but none of
these schemes have yet been proven
at small- to mid-scale capacities.6
Several companies o er nitro-
gen expander processes, such as
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
(APCI) and Air Liquide. Many of
the processes o ered are open art.
However, there are some licensed
processes available, such as
Aragon’s patent-pending process
that increases the capacity from a
single train of a nitrogen expander
up to 1.5 million t/y.
Most nitrogen expander plants
in operation today are small scale,
Compressor
Cooler
Treated
MR loop feed gas
LNG
Figure 2 Typical process scheme of an SMR
cycle
40 Gas 2019
gas mokhatab .indd 2
Compressor
Cooler
Treated
feed gas
Warm
expander
LNG
Cold
expander
Figure 1 Typical process scheme of a
dual-expander nitrogen cycle
typically used for peak shaving or
boil-o gas reliquefaction. These
have capacities significantly smaller
than the expected mid-scale capac-
ities, introducing either a high cap-
ital expenditure (capex) due to the
large number of trains that would
be required, or the element of risk
associated with the scale-up of the
rotating equipment and process.
Mixed refrigerant cycles
MR technology, which uses a mixed
refrigerant composed of nitrogen
and light hydrocarbons (typically
methane through iso-pentane) opti-
mised to match the natural gas cool-
ing curve as closely as possible, has
been assessed for mid-scale lique-
faction for both single-MR (SMR)
and dual-MR (DMR) cycles.
The SMR process (see Figure 2)
benefits from operational simplicity
and flexibility, as well as reduced
equipment count; however, these
benefits come at the expense of
lower energy e ciency compared to
the DMR cycle. With two refrigerant
loops, the more complex DMR cycle
(see Figure 3) better matches the MR
boiling curves to the overall feed
gas condensation curve.
The DMR process has been suc-
cessfully applied to large-scale
onshore LNG projects, while the
SMR process is a proven solution
for small- to mid-scale onshore
LNG facilities. Onshore SMR cycles
are provided by APCI as well as
Linde, Black & Veatch, and Chart,
while DMR cycles are provided by
APCI, Shell, and ExxonMobil that is
licensed through Black & Veatch.7
The propane precooled single MR
(C3-MR) process, originally devel-
oped by APCI, is a two-refrigerant
loop process similar to the DMR
process in which precooling is per-
formed in multiple kettle-type heat
exchangers with a propane refrig-
eration loop. This feature helps the
process achieve a higher e ciency
than the SMR process, due to the
ability to better match the MR boil-
ing curve to the feed gas conden-
sation curve after propane cooling.
However, the advantage of SMR
and DMR technologies is the use
of compact heat exchangers which
require significantly less footprint
than the C3-MR technology due to
the large inventory of propane and
the relatively large plot space that is
required for the propane evapora-
tors. Also, SMR will typically have
fewer pieces of rotating equipment.
LNG Limited is a recent entry
into the LNG market and has devel-
oped the Optimised Single Mixed
Refrigerant (OSMR) process as a
small- and mid-scale modular con-
struction application. This process
is essentially a simple SMR process,
but the main di erentiator from
other SMR schemes is that it incor-
porates an ammonia pre-cooling
loop. Hence this process has more
similarities to the C3-MR process
Treated
feed gas LNG
Coolers
Precooling MR Cold MR
compressor compressor
Figure 3 Typical process scheme of a DMR
cycle
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:34
 Economy or
ecology?
We have
the energy
for both.

We are investing all of our energy into creating

solutions for sustainable prosperity. That’s why we
have changed our name from MAN Diesel & Turbo
to MAN Energy Solutions.

Step by step, we advance marine, power, and

industry solutions. This is future in the making.
For customers, stakeholders, and society.

www.man-es.com

man.indd 1 10/03/2019 08:27

MAN_EnergySolutions_Imageanzeige_210x297mm_englisch_ISO_V2.indd 1 24.09.18 12:21
 than a standard SMR process. The
ammonia pre-cooling loop is used
to pre-cool the feed gas; the sin-
gle mixed refrigerant additionally
provides inlet air chilling for the
gas turbine refrigerant compres-
sor driver. Waste heat recovery
on the gas turbine exhaust is used
to raise steam which drives the
ammonia compressor. This config-
uration allows an improvement of
the e ciency of the process and an
increase of the LNG output com-
pared to standard SMR processes,
where the OSMR process currently
targets single LNG train capacities
of approximately 2 million t/y. This
version of the SMR process pres-
ently has no references in the indus-
try. But, the company is working
hard to get the mid-scale Magnolia
LNG train project in Lake Charles,
Louisiana to financial closure and
final investment decision by the first
half of 2019 with start-up in 2023.
Another type of MR technology
is the Mixed Fluid Cascade (MFC)
process developed by the Linde/
Statoil (now Equinor) technology
alliance. This process has an e -
ciency similar to the DMR technol-
ogy, but it utilises three discrete
MR refrigeration loops within two
or three coil-wound heat exchang-
ers (CWHEs) in series. This con-
figuration increases the equipment
count, congestion and hydrocarbon
inventory.
Technology selection
A comparison of liquefaction tech-
nologies is necessary to select an
appropriate process for a mid-scale
LNG application. This section com-
pares the liquefaction processes,
taking into consideration typical
criteria that influence the technical
and commercial acceptance of land
based mid-scale LNG projects with
production capacities of up to 2 mil-
lion t/y.
Specific power
The specific power of liquefaction
is a particularly important factor to
consider as a lower specific power
translates into a greater LNG prod-
uct yield, and hence higher revenue,
for a given amount of feed gas.
Generally, the nitrogen processes
are the least e cient highest spe-
42 Gas 2019
gas mokhatab .indd 3
cific power liquefaction processes
due to the use of a single compo-
nent refrigerant. This limits how
closely the natural gas cooling curve
can be matched. The e ciency can
be improved by increasing the num-
ber of expansion stages; however,
this increases the capex and com-
plexity of the process.
The SMR process, which uses a
single mixed refrigerant to better
match the cooling curve of the nat-
ural gas, results in improved e -
ciency for a relatively small increase
in capex. Cost benefits of increased
e ciency are best realised for plants
with higher capacities and greater
on-stream times. Additionally,
high cost of power can influence
the selection of SMR over nitrogen
cycle.8
The C3-MR and DMR processes
use multiple refrigeration loops
with di erent refrigerant compo-
sitions to further increase the e -
ciency of the liquefaction process
beyond that achieved by SMR.
These processes allow the heating
curve of the refrigerant to mirror
the natural gas cooling curve with
a tight temperature approach. The
e ciency gains are typically incre-
mental compared to the benefits of
moving from a nitrogen process to
SMR.
Number of liquefaction trains
A mid-scale LNG plant must mini-
mise costly downtime and lost pro-
duction. The train concept allows
LNG plants to continue produc-
tion when one of the trains is down
for maintenance or unexpected
shutdown. Multiple liquefaction
trains are also required where the
required LNG production capacity
exceeds the maximum capacity of
a single train. Train size is deter-
mined by technical limitations on
key equipment, mainly proven
drivers’ sizes and cryogenic heat
exchangers’ capacity.
Due to the limitations on train
capacity of the proven nitrogen
expander technologies, there is a
need for at least three trains for
LNG production capacity of about 2
million t/y.
For the SMR process using
brazed aluminium heat exchang-
ers (BAHXs), which typically allow
for up to 1.5 million t/y in a sin-
gle train, at least two trains are
required. However, Black & Veatch
has recently developed a new way
to increase the production capac-
ity of a single SMR train up to 2
million t/y by applying the dual
compressor single mixed refriger-
ant arrangement to its PRICO-SMR
liquefaction process that uses a
BAHX for the main cryogenic heat
exchanger.9 In the case of using
CWHEs, the production capacity
can be handled in a single CWHE
that typically allows for 5 million
t/y.10 However, the compression
trains must be duplicated in such a
case.
The maximum capacity for a sin-
gle train of both DMR and C3-MR
processes is up to approximately
4 million t/y; therefore, one train
of DMR and/or C3-MR would be
required for liquefaction at a capac-
ity of 2 million t/y.
Equipment count
The SMR process using a single
CWHE has the lowest total equip-
ment count of the liquefaction pro-
cesses considered. If the cryogenic
heat exchanger is instead a BAHX,
then the equipment count would
rise to be approximately the same
as for DMR, as the BAHX would
require two complete trains.
The C3-MR process has a higher
equipment count compared to the
M process with similar e cien-
cies, due to the heat transfer duty
being distributed between multi-
ple kettles (natural gas pre-cooling,
MR cooling and main liquefaction
exchanger). DMR, on the other
hand, has all the heat transfer for
liquefying the natural gas occur-
ring in the main cryogenic heat
exchanger, which would be larger
as a result. Among the processes
considered here, the nitrogen
expander process has the highest
total equipment count.
Capital cost
At low LNG production capaci-
ties, the nitrogen process generally
has the lowest capex. It is the sim-
plest process, and it has the lowest
equipment count. SM trades o a
slightly higher capex for increased
e ciency, with M and C -M
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:34
 shifting more towards higher capex with higher
e ciency.

WHAT CAN ENSURE MY

At capacities on the order of 2 million t y, the rela-
tively low capex of the nitrogen process increases as
the capacity of this technology is limited to approx-
imately - t y per train. Therefore,
PLANT‘S LONG-TERM
three trains are required to meet the capacity for this
case. This larger number of smaller trains results
EFFICIENCY?
in the overall capex for this technology becoming
unfavourable.
Similarly, SM typically has a lower capex com-
pared to M and C -M at capacities up to approx-
imately . million t y. Above this capacity, the SM
process requires multiple trains compression strings.
In this instance, the process is also constrained by
available power from a single driver. As a result,
SM has higher capex than M , which can handle a
greater capacity in a single train.
Both C -M and M can handle LNG production
capacity of 2 million t y in a single train, reducing
their relative capex compared to the other processes.
owever, the C -M process requires several pieces
of extra equipment, for example the kettles for cool-
ing the M and the feed natural gas. Therefore, it
requires a slightly larger capex compared to M .

Refrigerant availability and ease

of handling

EXPERIENCE!
In the nitrogen expansion process, the refrigerant is a
single component that can be generated on-site using
pressure swing adsorption systems, which produce
nitrogen of varying purities and volumes at relatively The know-how of more than 60 years empowers Böhmer
to build Ball Valves that help customers to realize their
low cost compared to cryogenic air separation. Thus, projects efficiently & successfully for the long term.
there is no requirement for importing flammable
refrigerants. This is ideally suited to remote areas or
lean gases that do not have easy access to hydrocar- 1/8 TO
56 INCH
OIL, GAS, STEAM, CHEMICALS
& SPECIAL APPLICATIONS
UP TO
800 BAR
bons for refrigerants.
For the M processes, the refrigerants are gen-
erally either produced on-site by fractionating the
LPGs present in the feed gas, or they are imported.
For LNG plants processing pipeline-quality gas, the
feed gas is very lean with only small amounts of
LPGs available. Thus, fractionation to produce the
required refrigerants is not feasible. Therefore, refrig-
erants must be imported to site. This increases capi-
tal costs and plot space requirements due to the need
for storage of flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants.
Furthermore, additional pieces of equipment pumps
and pipes are needed to handle the refrigerant.
Storage tanks may be large enough to handle the full
inventory of an LNG train in case the system must be
taken down for maintenance.
Since nitrogen is non-flammable and environmen-
tally benign, any leakage or venting from the refrig-
eration unit is safe with zero environmental impact to
the surrounding area unlike hydrocarbon refrigerant
leakage from the M processes . This can reduce the
si e of the flare system, helping to reduce the project
cost and minimise plot plan complexity. In an M
process, a relatively larger flare system is required to
handle this relief load. The flare system also becomes

www.eptq.com www.boehmer.de

gas mokhatab .indd 4 13/03/2019 09:34

 more complex as the MR system’s
refrigerant contains heavier hydro-
carbons, with propensity to cause
smoke.8
Ease of operation
Nitrogen cycles are simple to oper-
ate and are highly flexible in terms
of start-up. They also have superior
turndown e ciency. Adjustments
to the plant’s production rate are a
simple matter of manipulating the
nitrogen refrigerant loop flows and
inventory, while for the M pro-
cesses these adjustments involve
managing the hydrocarbon refriger-
ant composition and inventory.
In the nitrogen expander cycle,
the refrigerant remains in the gase-
ous state throughout the refrigera-
tion cycle, enabling deep turndown
if the plant must quickly adjust
operations due to changing market
conditions or pipeline demands.
Conversely, MR processes using
BA s are limited in turndown
due to flow stability issues.8
The unique characteristics of
BA s, which are instrumental in
the development of modular plant
solutions, as well as their advan-
tage of low capital investment
costs have enabled mid-scale LNG
projects to become economically
feasible. owever, they are more
sensitive and less resistant to ther-
mal shocks during plant start-up or
malfunctions.1 As such, liquefaction
processes using BA s should be
designed with proper controls to
mitigate situations that introduce
thermal shocks.11
Conclusion
The conclusions presented here
apply only to land based mid-scale
LNG plants producing from 300 000
t/y to 2 million t/y. Other liquefac-
tion technologies may be relevant for
LNG plants with capacities below or
beyond the range indicated.
When it comes to smaller produc-
tion capacities, it is typically capex
that determines the best option
for liquefaction technology. This
is because the benefits of increas-
ing the relative e ciency, and
hence production rate, are reduced
at lower capacities. In the hope
of reducing capital cost, nitrogen
expander cycles are often consid-
44 Gas 2019
gas mokhatab .indd 5
ered for smaller LNG plants due to
their simplicity.
At plant capacities in the range
of 1.5–2 million t/y or higher, the
additional capex required by the
higher e ciency processes often
exceeds the benefit of the additional
revenue that is generated by the
increased e ciency. owever, addi-
tional capex may be justified for
areas where energy costs are high.
This is because small improvements
in e ciency translate to si eable
increases in production rate and
hence revenue as well as reducing
operating expenditure.
The C -M process benefits from
a lower specific power, around
the most e cient of the processes
considered. owever, the higher
equipment count compared to
DMR, leading to higher capex, and
few available licensors o ering this
process with proven experience at
the mid-si e capacity, results in the
C3-MR process not being usually
recommended for mid-scale LNG
plants. Based on the capex and spe-
cific power of the M process, it
would be the recommended lique-
faction process for mid-scale LNG
plants with approximate capacities
of 2 million t y. owever, this rec-
ommendation could vary from one
project to another since, in some
cases, the project owners may pre-
fer to use SMR technology. There
are more potential licensors availa-
ble for SMR technology, and there
is also the potential for an open art
design. Note that, as there is only
one train required for DMR, the
liquefaction facility will likely have
poorer total production availability
due to the larger impact of shut-
downs and trips for the total plant.
Meanwhile, having two trains of an
SMR process increases the availa-
bility of the LNG plant by enabling
partial production to continue.
The selection of the most appro-
priate liquefaction technology for
mid-scale applications is very case
specific. The most relevant parame-
ters to be considered in the selection
will depend on the particular condi-
tions of an LNG project. Specifically,
the location and capacity/opera-
bility of a plant as well as project
investment criteria can greatly a ect
this decision.
Acknowledgment
Thanks are due to Scott Northrop for
reviewing this manuscript and providing useful
comments.
References
1 Schier M, Schwarz M, Mid-scale is scaling
out, LNG Industry, 23-26, Nov 2016.
2 Russell M, A Question of scale, LNG Industry,
55-57, Aug 2018.
3 Price B C, Fossella J, Hoffart S D, Developing
mid-scale lng projects from the contractor’s
perspective, Hydrocarbon Processing, 87, 7, 59-
64, 2008.
4 Lang M, Schier M, Consider Mid-Scale LNG
to monetize natural gas, paper presented at
the 24th World Gas Conference, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 5-9 Oct 2009.
5 Oelfke R H, Denton R D, Miller M R, LNG
liquefaction process selection: alternative
refrigerants to reduce footprint and cost,
paper presented at LNG 17 Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 16-19 April 2013.
6 Mokhatab S, Basi S, Hunter P, Develop
successful nearshore FLNG solutions – Part 2:
natural gas liquefaction, Gas Processing, 17-22,
Sept/Oct 2016.
7 Denton R D, McMahon P D, Vines M J,
ExxonMobil Enhanced Mixed Refrigerant (EMR)
process for next generation LNG projects, paper
presented at the 90th Annual Gas Processors
Association Convention, San Antonio, TX, USA,
3-6 April 2011.
8 Bhattacharya D, Yong J, Trautmann S, Team
spirit – discussing the key considerations when
developing small scale LNG projects, LNG
Industry, 29-34, June 2016.
9 Young K, Talib J H, Reaching maximum
potential, LNG Industry, 63-65, Sept 2018.
10 Szatkowski A, Butler C, Coiled and ready
for higher capacity, LNG Industry, 35-40, April
2017.
11 Ducote D, Shields P, Brazed aluminum
heat exchangers for optimization of natural
gas liquefaction processes, paper presented at
the Gastech 2017 Conference and Exhibition,
Tokyo, Japan, 4-7 April 2017.
Saeid Mokhatab is a world-class expert in
the natural gas processing industry who has
been actively involved in different aspects of
several large-scale gas processing projects,
from conceptual design through plant start-
up and operations support. He has presented
on gas processing technologies worldwide
and has published 300 technical papers and
two renowned handbooks (by Elsevier, the
United States), which are considered by many
as major references to be used for any gas
processing/LNG project in development. As a
result of his outstanding work in the natural
gas industry, he has received a number of
international awards and medals, and his
biography has been listed in highly prestigious
directories.
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 09:34
 At the Core
of LNG

Chart brazed aluminum plate fin heat exchangers (BAHX) are highly efficient, custom
engineered, compact units that have been at the heart of LNG liquefaction processes since
the 1970’s and are facilitating the export of North American shale gas today.

E-mail: bahx@chartindustries.com
www.chart-ec.com

chart.indd 1 10/03/2019 09:58

 35th
Oil | Gas | Fertilizers | Metallurgy | Industrial

Sulphur 2019 CALL FOR

PAPERS
+ Sulphuric Acid DEADLINE
24 MAY
4-7 November, 2019
Hilton Americas, Houston, Texas, USA

CRU Sulphur + Sulphuric Acid 2019 is the global gathering for the sulphur and
acid industries to meet, learn, and do business.

CALL FOR PAPERS FAQ

Why submit an abstract?
The conference is an ideal platform to demonstrate
thought-leadership and operational experience, or
showcase your product or service to a large global
audience of technical experts.
How to submit
All abstracts must be submitted online at
www.sulphurabstracts.com by 24 MAY 2019 to be
considered for the technical agenda.
Who can submit an abstract?
We welcome abstracts from all organisations, but
papers authored or co-authored by operating
companies will be prioritised.
Where can I go for more information?
Visit the website www.sulphurconference.com or contact amanda.whicher@crugroup.com
What subjects are we looking for?
We welcome operational case studies, and/or new
technology, process, materials or equipment
developments, that offer the potential of improved
reliability, safety, environmental or production
efficiencies.
For a full list of subject areas, visit:
www.sulphurconference.com
What happens next?
Abstracts are reviewed by a technical steering
committee chaired by CRU. Selection criteria
include:
Operational experience
Novelty
Operational challenges, and their solutions
Objectivity

INTERESTED IN SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING?

Another great way to increase your profile at the conference is to sponsor or exhibit. Each year more than 70
solution providers from around the world exhibit at the CRU Sulphur + Sulphuric Acid conference – to access a
global audience of sulphur and acid professionals.

Packages are tailored to ensure high-profile brand exposure, and to maximise face-to-face interaction with
delegates. For more information on the exhibition, and sponsorship opportunities available, please contact:
michelle.fisk@crugroup.com +44 (0)20 7903 2159

Sponsors: Official Publications:

For more information and to book you place, please visit: www.sulphurconference.com

SU19 CFP 210mm

sulphur.indd 1 x 297mm.indd 1 07/03/2019 10:05
13/03/2019 08:39
 Developments in sulphur recovery
Process developments and technology selection meet increasingly stringent
emissions limits
MAHIN RAMESHNI and STEPHEN SANTO
Rameshni & Associates Technology & Engineering (RATE)
W
ith the sulphur content
of crude oil and natural
gas on the increase and
tighter limits on the sulphur content
in fuels, refiners and gas processors
are pushed for additional sulphur
recovery capacity. At the same time,
environmental regulatory agen-
cies of many countries continue to
promulgate more stringent stand-
ards for sulphur emissions from oil,
gas, and chemical processing facili-
ties. Typical sulphur recovery e -
ciencies for Claus plants are 90-96%
for a two stage plant, and 95-98%
for a three stage plant. Most coun-
tries require sulphur recovery e -
ciencies in the range 98.5-99.9%.
Emissions regulations are becom-
ing tighter and there is increasing
demand to achieve higher sulphur
and gas processing recovery and
removal. Middle East countries
(Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, for
example), the US, Canada, China,
Venezuela, Brazil, and many oth-
ers must treat immense quanti-
ties of sour gas, while minimising
emissions by maximising sulphur
recovery. Therefore the sulphur
constituents in Claus tail gas need
to be reduced further.
As environmental regulations
have become more stringent around
the world, investors are pushing for
10 ppmv of SO2 stack or zero emis-
sions. The necessity of 10 ppmv of
SO2 from the stack is real.
Several key features a ect the
selection of the tail gas clean-up pro-
cess in what is typically a three step
process. The first step is one of the
most important criteria for the selec-
tion of tail gas treating processes.
When the required sulphur recovery
is established, selection of the tail gas
www.eptq.com
gas rameshni.indd 1
In this article, tail gas treating
Study design basis
options to achieve new regulation
standards with new technologies
Components Amine acid SWS acid are evaluated.
gas, mol% gas, mol%
H2S 90 33
H2O 4 34 Feasibility study assumption and
CO2 5 0 design basis
NH3 0 33 In this study, it was assumed that
C2H6 1 0
Kgmol/h 124,552 54.153 refinery feed compositions to the
Pressure, barg 0.8 0.8 sulphur recovery unit for 100 t/d
Temperature, °C 40 80 production are as shown in Table 1.
Total sulphur 100 t/d The sulphur recovery section
is designed based on a two stage
Table 1 Claus unit with proprietary design
of the two zone reaction furnace
process will be limited. When the with high intensity burner. It is
concentration of impurities in the assumed that titanium catalyst
acid gas such as COS and CS2, H2S is used in the first Claus reactor
content, feed gas composition, and for the hydrolysis of byproducts
finally treated gas specifications are from the reaction furnace, such as
established, the type of amine used COS and CS2. The tail gas unit is
for a particular application can be designed based on using a low tem-
selected in step two. The third step is perature hydrogenation catalyst.
the comparison of alternatives with The tail gas recycle from the
regard to ease of operation, capital regeneration overhead is not shown
and utility consumption, and site here but it was used for each option.
specifics such as remote location. For Figures 1 and 2 are flow diagrams
revamping units, minimum equip- for a two stage Claus unit, which
ment modifications and process con- is the common basis for all cases in
figuration should be considered as this evaluation.
main factors.
The key parameters a ecting the Conventional tail gas treating with
selection of the tail gas clean-up MDEA solvent
process are: This scheme consists of a two or
• SRU feed gas composition, three stage Claus unit followed
including H2S content, hydrocar- by a conventional tail gas treating
bons and other contaminants unit consisting of a hydrogenation
• Existing equipment and process reactor, quench system, an amine
configuration section using a generic solvent like
• equired recovery e ciency MDEA, followed by the incineration
• Concentration of sulphur species system where SO2 emissions from
in the stack gas the stack are about 150-250 ppmv
• Ease of operation dry basis with 3% excess oxygen.
• Remote location The hydrogenation reactor contains
• Sulphur product quality regular or low temperature CoMo
• Costs (capital and operating). catalyst. The quench system may
Gas 2019 47
13/03/2019 10:38
 V-101 V-102 E-108 E-109 HB-101 H-101 E-101 V-103
Amine acid gas SWS acid gas Acid gas Air Reaction furnace Reaction furnace Waste heat boiler Steam drum
KO drum KO drum preheater preheater burner

FC
Flexicoker
gas V-101 PC

Rich gas LS

Recycle acid gas

from regeneration SRU 002
M
MPS H2S/SO2
Sour water to ratio control
SWS unit P-101 A/B
Sum
FC FC PC
NG V-103
(Start-up) Ratio LC
LPS FC
(Start-up) FC
TC
Ratio
FC

HB-101 E-101
FC H-101

SRU 002

Tail gas to
No.1 condenser
FC
PC
V-102

Acid gas FC E-109 M

HP
from SWS unit

M B-101 A/B
ST
Sour water to
SWS unit P-102 A/B

P-101 A/B P-102 A/B B-101 A/B

Amine acid gas SWS acid gas Combustion ait
KO drum pump KO drum pump blower

Figure 1 Two stage Claus unit with tail gas to a condenser

use ammonia or caustic to absorb
any SO2 breakthrough from the
reactor, to prevent contamination of
the amine solvent.
In this scheme, the pit vent from
liquid sulphur degassing flows to
the incinerator.
TG-RATE: conventional tail gas
treating with selective solvent
This scheme is the same as the pre-
vious scheme, except that for the
amine section of the tail gas treat-
ing system the generic solvent
M EA is changed to a proprietary
selective solvent such as TG-10,
S- or Flexsorb SE. The main
reason for using a selective solvent
is the requirement for higher tail
gas reboiler duty to strip more 2S
from the rich solvent and to pro-
duce more lean solvent, meaning
that a higher solvent circulation rate
would be required. Emissions from
the incinerator stack are reduced
significantly, to about - ppmv
of SO2 dry basis and excess oxy-
gen. The selective solvent provides
10 ppmv of H2S in the absorber
overhead, but with sulphur spe-
cies like COS and CS2 the byprod-
uct from the reaction furnace in
the S U would increase the SO2 to
about ppmv. The hydrogenation
reactor may convert some of this,
but as the e ectiveness of the cata-
lyst declines so SO2 emissions will
increase.
In this scheme, the pit vent from
liquid sulphur degassing flows back
to the reaction furnace.
The pit vent from the sulphur
degassing unit consists of 2
S,
H2O, sulphur species, and nitrogen.
When the pit vent is recycled to the
reaction furnace, higher volumetric
gas is added to the system. We did
a very close comparison between
pit vent to incineration and to the
reaction furnace, and the results
show an approximately 4% capac-
ity increase. Therefore we needed
more solvent circulation and more
steam flow to the tail gas reboiler.
Such an extra flow would not have
a significant impact on equipment
costs, however more steam would
be required.
With this configuration, around
50-60 ppmv of SO2 in the stack is
expected.
TG-SMAX: tail gas treating with
selective solvent and hydrolysis
reactor
TG-SMAX is a new US patented
process technology by ATE
to increase recovery by hydro-
lysing additional COS and CS2.
The scheme is the same as the
TG- ATE, except an additional
reactor, a so-called hydrolysis reac-

48 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas rameshni.indd 2 13/03/2019 10:38

 S-101 E-105 R-101 E-103 S-102 E-106 R-102 E-104 S-103 E-107
No.1 No.1 No.1 No.2 No.2 No.2 No.2 No.3 No.3 Waste steam
sulphur seal reheater converter condenser sulphur seal reheater converter condenser sulphur seal condenser
SRU-003

H2S/SO2
ratio control

E-105 HP E-106 HP

ST ST
Note 1 Note 1
HPC TC HPC TC
R-101 R-102

SRU-001 H2S/SO2
E-107
Process gas AC TGU-001
from waste LLPS LLPS
heat boiler Tailgas
to TGU
LC LC LC

E-102 E-103 E-104

BFW BFW BFW

S-101 S-102 S-103

Note 2 Note 2 Note 2

Sulphur to
sulphur pit

Figure 2 Two stage Claus unit with tail gas treatment

tor, is added in the tail gas unit.
The hydrolysis reactor is located
after the conventional hydrogena-
tion reactor before the quench sys-
tem in the tail gas unit. In a new
or grassroots tail gas treating unit,
the hydrogenation reactor and the
hydrolysis reactor can be located in
a common shell.
Based on actual operating data,
the amount of COS and CS2 is in
the range 30-40 ppmv after the
hydrogenation reactor, even though
simulation cannot predict this. A
hydrolysis reactor will hydrolyse
the majority of the remaining COS
and CS2, resulting in lower SO2
emissions in the stack.
In the next section, the di erences
between a conventional CoMo cat-
alyst and a new low temperature
hydrogenation catalyst, and the
impact on recovery, are discussed.
Basically, the hydrogenation reac-
tor operates at higher temperature
using a conventional hydrogena-
tion catalyst and operates at a lower
temperature using the low temper-
ature catalyst. COS and CS2 favour
higher temperatures for achieving
higher hydrolysis of the sulphur
species.
Residual sulphur and CO with
fresh catalyst
Contaminant ppmv
Carbonyl sulphide (COS) <20
Carbon monoxide (CO) <200
Carbon disulphide (CS2) 0 In cases where the tail gas unit is
Methyl mercaptan (CH3SH) 0
Table 2
Tail gas hydrogenation reactor
With good catalyst activity and no
excess hydrocarbons in the acid gas
feed to the reaction furnace, organic
residuals in the absorber o -gas
should be as shown in Table 2.
With fresh conventional cata-
lyst, temperatures of 400-450°F
(204-232°C) are typically required
to initiate hydrogenation reac-
tions, and 540-560°F (282-293°C)
for hydrolysis. As the catalyst
loses activity with age, progres-
sively higher temperatures may be
required. Typically, activity loss is
first evidenced by reduced COS,
CS2 and CO conversion, and (2)
potential methyl mercaptan forma-
tion by the reaction of CS2 and H2,
while hydrogenation of SO2 and Sx
may still be complete because of
the lower initiation temperatures
required.
The potential formation of methyl
mercaptan through low tempera-
ture or impaired catalyst activity
is perhaps not widely appreciated.
discharged without incineration,
nominal mercaptan levels can
result in serious nuisance odours.
In Stretford units, there is reason
to expect that the mercaptan is oxi-
dised to disulphide oil (DSO) which
can impair froth formation.
Excessive hydrocarbons in the
SRU acid gas feed will tend to
increase the carbon-sulphur com-
pounds in the reactor e uent.
Hydrocarbons in the amine acid
gas are evidenced by increased
air demand per volume of gas; (2)
increased tail gas volume resulting
from the additional air and hydro-
carbon combustion products; and
(3) increased total reduced sulphur
T S in the absorber o -gas pre-
dominantly COS, but also poten-
tially including CS2 and methyl
mercaptan (RSH).
Referring to Figure 3, it is known
that feed composition to sulphur
recovery is a function of recov-

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 49

gas rameshni.indd 3 13/03/2019 10:38

 therefore we will have more COS
and CS2 from the reaction furnace.
98

97 Tail gas hydrolysis reactor

96 Adding a tail gas hydrolysis reactor
is one of RATE’s patented processes
95 for the tail gas treating unit.
94 The tail gas feed from sulphur
recovery flows to the tail gas unit.
Recovery, %

93
92
91
90
0 10
H2S content, % dry
Figure 3 H2S content vs recovery
ery; rich acid gas contains high
H2S and low CO2, while lean acid
gas contains low H2S and high
CO2. According to the Claus reac-
tion, byproducts such as COS and
The tail gas unit consists of a hydro-
genation reactor with a low tem-
perature hydrogenation catalyst.
As part of the new development,
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
an additional reactor is added, the
so-called hydrolysis reactor, with
both reactors in one shell to hydro-
lyse remaining COS and CS2 and
any sulphur compounds. Based on
actual operating data, the amount of
CS2 will impact recovery. For lean COS and CS2 are in the order of 30
gases that contain low H2S and high ppmv after the hydrogenation reac-
CO2, the level of these byproducts tor even though the simulation can-
is higher. In a gasification applica- not predict that. As part of the new
tion, we have lean H2S and rich CO2, process, the remaining COS and

V-101 V-102 E-108 E-109 HB-101 H-101 E-101 V-103

Amine acid gas SWS acid gas Acid gas Air Reaction furnace Reaction furnace Waste heat boiler Steam drum
KO drum KO drum preheater preheater burner

FC
Flexicoker
gas V-101 PC

Rich gas LS

Recycle acid gas

from regeneration SRU-002
M
MPS H2S/SO2
Sour water to ratio control
SWS unit P-101 A/B
Sum
FC FC
NG V-103 PC
(Start-up) Ratio LC
LPS FC
(Start-up) FC
TC
Ratio
FC

HB-101 E-101
FC H-101

SRU-002
Pit vent recycle
Tail gas to
No.1 condenser
FC
PC
V-102

Acid gas FC E-109 M

HP
from SWS unit

M B-101 A/B
ST
Sour water to
SWS unit P-102 A/B

P-101 A/B P-102 A/B B-101 A/B

Amine acid gas SWS acid gas Combustion ait
KO drum pump KO drum pump blower

Figure 4 Thermal section of the SRU where the pit vent is routed to the reaction furnace

50 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas rameshni.indd 4 13/03/2019 10:38

 CS2 is hydrolysed in the hydrolysis
reactor. The gas is cooled and flows
to the quench system where addi-
tional water is condensed, then it is
processed in the tail gas amine unit
using a formulated selective solvent
like S- from ow, or similar
solvent from INEOS, untsman, or
Flexsorb SE plus from ExxonMobil
where the absorber overhead will
have less than ppmv of 2S.
Based on this scheme, the SO2
emissions from the stack will be
around 2 - ppmv, depending on
the acid gas composition to the sul-
phur plant and how much COS and
CS2 are produced and hydrolysed.
The primary purpose of the
quench tower is to cool the hot gas
- F, 2 - C from the
hydrogenation reactor to around
F C by direct contact with
cooling water. In addition to low-
ering the temperature, generally
about of the water content is
removed as well. This water would
otherwise need to be purged from
the amine system downstream to
maintain amine strength. A some-
times poorly appreciated secondary
role of the quench tower is to a ord
some measure of protection of the
tail gas treating unit from harmful
contaminants that would otherwise
enter with the quenched tail gas.
In particular, any small amounts
of ammonia and SO2 in the gas can
be removed in the quench tower.
Unless the amine is protected, over
a period of time even small levels
of SO2 contamination can gener-
ate heat stable salts and other more
reactive amine degradation prod-
ucts of the M EA solvent, harming
the selectivity for H2S.
In this scheme, pit vent from liq-
uid sulphur degassing flows back
to the reaction furnace. Figure 4
represents the thermal section of
the refinery sulphur recovery unit
where the pit vent is routed to the
reaction furnace. The location of
the recycle is critical to prevent cold
spot and condensation and ultimate
corrosion.
In some cases, the pit vent is
added to the combustion burner far
away from the inlet air nozzle to
prevent cooling the vent gas stream
containing elemental sulphur.
Selecting the best injection point
should be evaluated case by case to
make sure the impact on the com-
bustion temperature is minimal.
In addition to pit vent recycle to
the reaction furnace, the SO2 stream
could be processed in the sulphur
plant to recover sulphur or reduce
SO2 emissions.
The following steps should be
taken for the SO2 stream:
a. Identification of the optimal tie-in
point for the new SO2 rich stream
b. A control strategy for the new
SO2 stream.
c. Revised heat and material bal-
ances for the SRU and tail gas treat-
ing units
d. Identification of any equip-
ment that may need replacement
or upgrading as a result of the
changes.
e. A cost estimate for any required
changes in equipment, piping, con-
trols and so on.
f. Hydraulic evaluation for the new
conditions.
SO2 feed optimisation
The location of an SO2 stream to the
sulphur plant needs to be optimised
for the following reasons:
• Avoid reduction of the reaction
furnace temperature
• Prevent water condensation and
corrosion
• Provide proper insulation
• Air demand
• Provide a proper angle tee for
mixing
• Provide purge connection
• Prevent localised cold spot in the
condenser
• Choose the optimised location.
The SO2 recycle line tees into
the process gas between the waste
boiler and the first condenser. The
tie-in is a tee connection without

E-201 R-201 E-202 J-201 C-201 E-204 A/B P-201 A/B C-202 P-202 A/B P-207 A/B
Tail gas Hydrogenation Reactor TGU Quench Quench Quench Amine Semi-rich Rich amine
heater reactor and effluent start-up column water trim water pump absorber amine pump
hydrolysis reactor cooler vent ejector cooler pump

AI H2 AI H2S TGU-003

Treated gas to
FC incinerator
C-201
FC CWR
H2 CWS C-202
J-201 E-204 A/B FC
LPS
E-201 FC Lean amine from
SRU-002 MPS FC To regenerator
LC amine AG
Tail gas from F-201
ST wash drum
No.3 condenser
Note 1 FC
MPC TC LC
Caustic
M TGU-003
P-201 A/B FC
R-201 A/B M
P-202 A/B
TC
LLPS

E-202 LC

BFW

Figure 5 TG-SMAX featuring a hydrolysis reactor

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 51

gas rameshni.indd 5 13/03/2019 10:38

 E-209 A/B V-201
Lean amine Regenerator
trim cooler reflux drum

T-202 V-203 F-205 F-202 F-203 F-204 T-201 E-205 A/B E-206 C-203 E-207
Amine Amine Amine Lean amine Amine Amine Lean amine Lean/rich Regenerator Amine Regenerator
storage sump sump filter filter carbon filter particulate surge tank amine reboiler regenerator overhead
tank filter exchanger condenser
P-201
Anti-foam PC
injection Nitrogen
package TC
T-202
V-201
Vent to
incinerator Nitrogen Fresh Acid gas
PC make-up recycle
E-202 E-204 T-201 E-207
LC to SRU
Clean amine
to absorber
E-203 P-205 A/B C-203
FC
CW
E-209 A/B FC
P-204 A/B
FC

Sour water

FC

FC PC
LP steam
Rich amine from F-206 E-205 A/B E-206
TGU absorber LC
Nitrogen Vent to
incinerator LC

PC Cond.

LC
V-203 F-205
Amine drains
P-206 A/B

P-203 A/B P-206 A/B P-205 A/B P-204 A/B

Lean amine Amine sump Amine Regenerator
pump pump make-up reflux pump
pump

Figure 6 Amine system for generic or selective solvent

any injection no le quill. The SO2
recycle itself consists of any SO2
and water and is recycled at a tem-
perature between F and F.
Moreover, there is no insulation or
heat tracing on the line. All of these
circumstances, taken together, lead
to the strong possibility of both
water condensation in the line plus
a relatively low temperature stream
in the feed to the first condenser,
without any assurance of good
mixing with the hot gas leaving the
waste heat boiler. This could easily
result in localised cold spots in the
condenser and condensation of sul-
phuric acid or one of its salts, which
may be a cause of some of the cor-
rosion experienced in the first con-
denser. The single most important
recommendation for handling this
SO2 stream is that the recycle line
be heat traced and insulated to pre-
vent any additional cooling of the
stream and condensation of water.
In addition, the tie-in should have
some type of injection no le to
ensure good mixing with the pro-
cess gas. One refinery had similar
problems with corrosion in the first
condenser until it installed a sim-
ple injection no le, which appears
to have reduced or eliminated cor-
rosion in the first condenser. It is
also possible to change the location
of the SO2 recycle injection point.
It may be preferable to inject the
SO2 recycle stream into the second
chamber of the reaction furnace.
This change in recycle location does
not a ect overall sulphur recovery
but it does shift the major sulphur
condensation load from the second
condenser to the first condenser.
It has the benefit, operationally, of
catching more sulphur upstream
of the catalyst beds, which might
be fouled. egardless of where the
SO2 stream is injected, the recycle
line should be heat traced and insu-
lated. If it is injected into the second
chamber of the reaction furnace, it
will have to be tied into the amine
acid gas line to the second cham-
ber. It is very important to locate
this tie-in as close to the reaction
furnace as possible. In addition,
both lines, amine acid gas and SO2
recycle, must be purged when there
is no flow through these lines. In a

52 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

gas rameshni.indd 6 13/03/2019 10:38

 study, the unit was operating with
oxygen enrichment and SO2 acted
H-201 H-202 H-210/211 X-201 X-204 E-209
as the reducing agent, so oxygen Incinerator Incinerator Incinerator waste Venturi Caustic Spent
consumption was reduced. If the stack heat boiler and
superheater
scrubber scrubber caustic
cooler
temperature reduced significantly HP steam from
then the SO2 stream should be reaction furnace
waste heat boiler
added to the first condenser outlet.
Figure 5 shows the TG-SMA which
includes the hydrolysis reactor. Superheated
HP steam
Figure 6 represents the amine regen- Tail gas from SRU
TC

eration system for the generic or

selective solvent. HP BFW
FC C-204
From dehydration Make-up water
unit PC
Tail gas incineration with caustic Treated gas
from absorber
scrubber FI
X-201
The e uent gas from the incin- FY
AI
erator waste heat boiler is desu- AI pH
FC
perheated in a venturi scrubber
HP BFW
by intimate contact with a wt TC
FC
caustic solution. uring liquid-va- FC H-211
FC
pour contact, a portion of the SO2 is
removed from the vapour and the H-201
LC
H-210
gas is cooled. B-202 A/B Fuel gas Make-up
Blowdown TC
The liquid-vapour mixture then caustic

flows to the caustic scrubber. The E-209

vapour flows upwards through the
packed bed of the caustic scrubber
against a countercurrent stream of
wt caustic solution to scrub
the remaining SO2 from the tail gas.
The treated gas leaving the caustic
scrubber will contain low ppm lev-
els of SO2.
ue to the temperature of the gas
leaving the incinerator waste heat
boiler there is constant vaporisa-
tion of water in the caustic scrub-
ber which needs to be made up.
This make-up water is added to the
column at the upper bubble trays
to knock any remaining entrained
caustic out of the vapour to mini-
mise caustic loss. The caustic sys-
tem uses non-regenerable caustic
to remove SO2 from the tail gas.
The SO2 that is removed slowly
decreases the caustic strength of the
solution so fresh caustic is added
to replace this. The spent caus-
tic is purged on level control and
cooled before being sent o -plot for
disposal.
To summarise, using a caustic
scrubber is another viable option to
control stack emissions to less than
10 ppmv of SO2 and refineries are
required to add one to their existing
units. In this scheme, pit vent from
liquid sulphur degassing flows back
to the reaction furnace or can flow
to incineration.
Figure 7 Thermal incineration with a caustic scrubber
With this scheme, zero emissions
of SO2 (0-10 ppm) from the tail gas
incineration can be achieved.
Figure 7 shows thermal inciner-
ation with a caustic scrubber. The
main advantage of this scheme
is that existing units would not
require any modification or shut-
down while the caustic scrubber
system was added. The main dis-
advantage is the increased waste
stream of spent caustic. Spent caus-
tic can be sent directly to the water
treatment system otherwise a neu-
tralisation unit should be added to
deal with the spent caustic before
it can be released to the sewer. The
neutralisation process takes place in
a tank where air is bubbled into the
spent caustic.
SETR – Super Enhanced Tail Gas
Recovery
SETR is a US patent pending
technology from RATE for zero
emissions of SO2 where a caustic
scrubber or production of spent
caustic is not allowed and sulphur
species from the SRU/TGU can be
recovered. In this scheme, pit vent
Spent
caustic
P-209 A/B
from liquid sulphur degassing flows
back to the reaction furnace or can
flow to incineration.
This process consists of adsor-
bent and regeneration reactors. The
SET reactor switches between
adsorption and regeneration mode
and the reactors are located after tail
gas incineration, before the stack,
replacing any type of the caustic
scrubber system. The process is not
a sub-dew point process where the
bed becomes saturated with sul-
phur. Instead, it comprises fixed
bed reactors that require heating
and cooling down for the Claus tail
gas process. The adsorption mode
operates at cold temperatures to
adsorb SO2.
The SETR tail gas unit can be
added after tail gas incineration to
increase recovery, even if tail gas
treating is already present, to elim-
inate any type of caustic scrubber
system. The reactors can be added
to any sub-dew point tail gas
process.
The disadvantage of a caustic
scrubber is that it generates a new
waste stream of spent caustic con-

www.eptq.com Gas 2019 53

gas rameshni.indd 7 13/03/2019 10:38


Tail gas treating vs sulphuric acid cost
Item Sulphur recovery Tail gas treating
unit, $ unit, $
Total 22 300 000 20 900 000
Table 3
taining absorbed SO2 that needs to
be disposed of or neutralised. In
addition, unrecovered sulphur com-
pounds are also wasted.
RATE decided to invent a process
to eliminate any waste stream and
to recover all sulphur compounds.
Process description
The SETR process is cost compet-
itive solution that does not need
any chemicals, does not generate
any waste streams, and emissions
are near zero. Recycling this stream
would not have any impact an exist-
ing S U and no modification except
adding a nozzle would be required.
The process features two switch-
ing reactor beds. SO2 is adsorbed in
a cold bed reactor so that gas leav-
ing the cold reactor to the stack is
SO2 free. The cold bed reactor con-
taining adsorbed SO2 then switches
to a hot bed reactor which regen-
erates the adsorbed sulphur com-
pounds using an air stream. The
acid gas stream is used to establish
an adequate temperature to regen-
erate adsorbed sulphur compounds
and the gas stream leaving the hot
reactor is recycled to the thermal or
catalytic section of the Claus unit.
The hot and cold reactors are
Incinerator
WHB outlet
Slip air from
SRU blower
Slip stream of
amine acid gas
Figure 8 Flow scheme for SETR technology
54 Gas 2019
gas rameshni.indd 8
Acid plant, $ SRU+TGU, $ SRU+ acid, $
18 000 000 43 200 000 40 300 000
equipped with two- or three-way
motor switching valves. The acid
gas stream to the cold reactor is
driven from the incinerator waste
heat boiler where all the sulphur
compounds are converted to SO2.
SO2 is adsorbed in the cold reactor
and flue gas free of SO2 is sent to the
stack.
The regeneration reactor oper-
ates at 320-400°C to maximise SO2
regeneration to promote the Claus
reaction. The regeneration proce-
dure accomplishes a number of
chemical transformations. Most
importantly, SO2 is displaced by
the hot gas while sulphate and thio-
sulphate present on the surface of
the adsorbent after an uptake cycle
are reduced by H2S in the regener-
ation stream of the amine acid gas.
In addition, any oxygen which is
adsorbed in the uptake cycle will be
removed by reaction with H2S.
Figure 8 shows a flow scheme
for SETR technology, comprising
adsorption and regeneration reac-
tors located after incineration and
before the stack.
Applying SETR to a conven-
tional SRU/TGU for a 100 t/d plant
would add an estimated 10% to
the capital cost. The process does
AI
Recycle
to Claus
Vent gas
not require any utilities or chemi-
cals. The catalyst has to be replaced
every four years, at the same time
that the Claus catalysts are changed.
Case study
RATE was contacted by a power
plant in Asia with 30-50 t/d sulphur
production. An incineration unit is
common to sulphur recovery and
other units through the plant. Gases
containing sulphur, including the
stream from sulphur recovery, flow
to the main incinerator where all
sulphur compounds are converted
to SO2. The outlet from the main
incinerator represents all flue gas
from the power plant.
The power plant employs the
ammonia/ammonium sulphate
method for desulphurisation, pro-
ducing 7000-8000 t/d of waste. The
plant has to deal with wastes gener-
ated from the ammonium sulphate
process to meet environmental
standards. Improving the e ciency
of the waste system is the first
priority.
RATE has proposed replacing
the ammonia/ammonium sulphate
method for desulphurisation with
SET technology so that flue gas
enters the adsorbent reactors and all
of the SO2 is adsorbed onto the cat-
alyst bed. The flue gas is therefore
sulphur free to the stack and the
regenerated stream from the regen-
eration reactor containing H2S, SO2
and sulphur compounds is recycled
back to the existing sulphur plant.
The sulphur plant was evaluated
for the addition of a recycle stream
from the SETR unit. The regener-
ated stream is very small and has
no impact on existing units. Savings
on waste disposal would pay for
the additional process within a few
months. If the SRU had its own
incineration unit then the SETR
unit to serve the entire power plant
would be very small. The power
plant plans to go ahead with the
technology.
Mahin Rameshni is President and CEO
of Rameshni & Associates Technology &
Engineering (RATE), US.
Stephen Santo is Vice President, Sulphur
Technology & Gas Processing with Rameshni
& Associates Technology & Engineering
(RATE).
www.eptq.com
13/03/2019 10:38
 Comprimo® Sulfur Solutions

Whether you are looking for sulfur recovery

technology in compliance with your local
environmental regulations, the removal of
sulfur components from a sour gas stream
through amine treating or removal of H2S
and NH3 in sour water stripping, Comprimo®
Sulfur Solutions provides you the necessary
technology, expertise and support.

„ Global leader in Gas Treating and Sulfur Recovery

Technologies
„ More than 500 units licensed during the last 40 years
„ Customers include major refineries, gas plants, and
coal gasification units, power & chemical plants
around the world
„ Total Project Solutions: Technology Selection &
Licensing, Technical Studies, Basic Design, FEED,
Detailed Design, EP, EPCm & Modular Supply
„ Centers of Expertise in The Hague (the Netherlands)
and Calgary (Canada)

Comprimo® Sulfur Solutions is part of Jacobs, one of the world’s largest and most diverse providers of
technical professional and construction services

jacobs.indd 1 10/03/2019 09:43

 Alphabetical list of advertisers

AMETEK Grabner Instruments 13 Magnetrol International 38

www.grabner-instruments.com www.magnetrol.com/en

Axens OBC Man Energy Solutions 41

www.axens.net www.man-es.com

Böhmer 43 MESPON 2019 29

www.boehmer.de/en www.universulphur.com/mespon

Chart Industries 45 OHL Gutermuth Industrial Valves 16

www.chartindustries.com www.ohl-gutermuth.de/en

Petro-Canada 23
ExxonMobil Catalysts and Technology Licensing 7
www.lubricants.petro-canada.com/
www.catalysts-licensing.com
en-ca/brand/sentron

GEA Group 21
Prognost Systems 34
www.gea.com
www.prognost.com

HOERBIGER Wien 15
Refining India 2019 IBC
www.hoerbiger.com
refiningindia.com

Honeywell UOP 2
Servomex 32
www.uop.com www.servomex.com

IPCO 24 Shell Catalysts & Technologies IFC

www.ipco.com Shell.com/CT

Jacobs Comprimo Sulfur Solutions 55 SOGAT 2019 31

www.jacobs.com/comprimo-sulfur-solutions www.sogat.org

John Zink Hamworthy Combustion 19 Sulphur 2019 46

www.johnzinkhamworthy.com www.events.crugroup.com/sulphur/home

Koch-Glitsch 10 Union Tech 4

www.koch-glitsch.com www.uniontechmfg.com

For more information on these advertisers, go to www.ptqenquiry.com

56 Gas 2019 www.eptq.com

ad index .indd 1 13/03/2019 17:34

 7th
REFINING
INDIA
The Shangri-La, New Delhi | 23-24 September 2019
PTQ’s international conference for India held in partnership with IDS

Refining India provides the perfect opportunity to bring leading edge developments
to the attention of senior executives from all of India’s major refining companies

Take advantage of our early bird rate and save 20% by booking before
16 September 2019: refiningindia.com/registration

What part will your company play in the development of the world’s most dynamic oil
processing industry? Sponsorship packages available from: sales@petroleumtechnology.com

refining ad.indd 1 12/03/2019 14:25

 POWERING
A COMPLETE
OFFER

Building on its latest acquisitions, Axens Group offers a broader

range of solutions that enhances the profitability and environmental
performance of its clients. www.axens.net

axens.indd 1
ad_complete_offer_210X297mm_final.indd 1 17/12/2018
17/12/2018 16:17
14:06:14