SPE

SPE 13728

Debottlenecking of Acid Gas Removal Units

* ADGAS; O.F. El Komy, Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction
by C. de Fraissinette, Co.; and
F. Piquet,● ADGAS
“Secondedfrom TotalCompagnieFranqaiae
desP&roles.

Copyright 1985, So3ety of Petroleum Engineers

- CDC 4 ax M,@a EZ@ 01 T~hn~~l conference and Exhibition held in Bahrain, March 11-14, 1985. The Material iS
Tiiis paper was p~&$8iii6d 61 i!k . . ..- ,------- . __

subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abatract of not more than ~ WOrdS. ‘%%3 ~P=, kx m, ‘!d?eK!Srr%
Texas 7508S-3S3S. Telex 7309S9 SEE DAL.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Abu Dhabi Gas LiquefactionCompany (ADGAS) 4. Feed Separation(by primary cooling)
hae since 1977 operated the only gas liquefa- ~..~f~=~~~Qp-~~~Q~
*
ction plant in the Middle East producingsimul- 5. CryogenicCooling and Liquefaction.
taneouslyIJUl,LPG and I?entaaes.“&e Plact
processes the associatedgases from Abu Dhabi Utilitiesand offaitesfacilitiesof storage
offshore oil fields as well as non associated and loading are common for both process traina.
gas. This is the only LNG facilityin the
world operatingon associatedgas. Following the commissioningof the plant, one
major problem identifiedwas the capacity of
The gas compositionof the 11 differentfeed the Acid Gas Removal Plants. The bottleneck
streams supplyingthe LNG plant varies broadly preventedeither train from matching steadily
and for instance the sour gaa content (C02+H2S) the LNG design throughputof 150 T/hr. on heavy
of each stream can vary between 3.3% and 34%. feed gas. LNG Plant performancesduring 1981
An average gas stream compositionsupplied to are gathered in Table-II.
the Acid Gas Removal Unit is given in Table-1.
Over a period of 16 monthe a high proportion
The Plant consistsof two identicalprocess of the effort of ADGAS TechnicalDepartment
traina in parallel arranged to permit safe ---->....-&- -+*,A.,
was uevuwd +0 ~F.e-.--= of $~ae ~CIJS~S
~f the
overhaul of one train while the other remains bottleneckand the means by which it could be
in service. alleviated.

Each process train consiste of the following

plant sections:

1. Feed Gas Composition

2. Acid Gas Removal
3. Dehydration
2 DEBOTTLENECKING OF A
The ~.--
nroK)OSed
objectivesfor imp??OVeIUentS
were
assignedas follows:
1. Improve the stabilityof the Plant.
2. Match design for acid gas removal.
3. Produce an extra 2.5 T/hr of LNG
(17,500T/year)
2.0 ACID GAS REMOVAL PLANT
2.1 The Process (See Fig. 1)
The acid gas removal plant is designed
..” -.-~- eb~Orption,/regeneration.
as a b...- .+.~e
In the first sweeteningstage a promoted
hot carbonatesolutionis used to reduce
C02 and H2S down to a level of around
2000 ppm and 10W PPm respectively. It
is followedby a second stage using
diethanolamine (D.E.A)solutionaa the
absorbantwhich reduces residualC02 and
H2S levels to below 30 ppm and 2 ppm
respectively.
The carbonateand DEA solutionsare rege-
nerated separatelyat slightlyabove the
atmosphericpreaaure.
The mass transferprocess between liquid
and gas phasea is achieved in a packed
column. While reviewingour packed
tower’s performancethe following
criteriawere speciallyconsideredwith
regard to the Packing and Internala
Design:
wetting rate (T) expressedas liquid
rate (M3/Hr)per tower cross section
area (M2) times packing exchangearea
(M2/M3).
D GAS REMOVAL UNITS SPE 1372[
porosity (void fraction)of the bed
support ani hold dob= grid must be
equal to that of packing.
the liquid should be evenly distributed
in a thin layer over the packing.
the best efficiencyof the packing will
be at around 60$ flooding. It will have
a reasonableflexibilityof between
35-70% .
2.2 Analysis of the Problems
The analysis of the problems associated
with the operationof the acid gas removal
unit was hampered by the lack of equili-
brium and kinetic data on the chemical
reactionsinvolved. This lack of data
meant that we were forced to look mainly
at the varioua physical synmptomsof mal
functionof the units, such as liquid flow
~Ed &~~tTi&tiQE, flOQdLngconditionsand
pulsatoryphenomenon,all factorswhich
determinethe hydraulicsof the CO1-.
The poor performanceof our sweetening
unita experiencedsince commissioningcan
be characterizedby two featurea.
2.2.1 Steady OperatingConditions
Under steady operatingconditionsthe LNG
productionrate of the train was limited
by sweeteningunit which was unable to
match design in term of acid gaa removal.
The original design of each train allows
for a total sour gas removal rate (H2S and
C02) of 47 t/hr equivalentto 1203 Kmole/hr
.m. . ..-lna . J- I-...:--:--**- n r rl t...-, 0 c I -J<-,,,.+
SW 13/Lu L. ue rrd Is> II IeLLe, u. r. EIKUIIIY u r. rlqucL

In practice the maximum acid gaa removal These causes were identifiedas being:
achievedwas around 92-93% weight of the
design capacity (heavy feed gas). feed gas pressure fluctuation
tower hydraulics
Investigationcarried out led us to solutionfoaming
conclude that the poor performanceof the
carbonateregeneratorwas responsiblefor As a result of our investigationwe identi-
the plant limitationunder these conditi- fied the reasons for poor performanceas
ons and the principalcauses were identi- being:
fied as follows:
change of operatingconditionsof the
Firstly, the recommendationof the carbonateregenerator,consequentupon
process licenser,to maintain in the non-commissioningof the Sulphur
the carbonatesolutiona concentration Pisnt.
of DEA around 3% could not be met. It
was found that this difficultyin main- The deteriorationof the ceramic packing
taining DEA concentrationwas due to which occurredat the high temperature
thermal degradationcaused by high .-a .t~nnn
=..-“ nI~BI~n~ty
...- --- of the carbonate

skin temperaturein the carbonate solution. This mainly occurredat the

reboiler exchangers. This high skin bottom of the regeneratorwhere solution
temperatureresulted from insuffi- of the alumina took place, with the free
cient condensatecapacityof the silica being suspendedin the carbonate
desuperheatingstation. solution,and being depositedfurther,
at a later stage causing a fouling in
Secondly,as the regenerationequili- the absorber.
brium is a functionof the operating
pressure of the regenerator,lowering - Blockage of distributors,bed support
the regeneratoroverheadpressure plates and sparge pipes leading to
would improve the quality of the car- liquid mal distributionon the beds,
bonate solution regeneration. This liquid hold-up in the bed and foaming.
waa confirmedwhen one train waa shut- All these factors contributedto
down and two sour flare headers were hydrauiicin tinecokmn.
availablefor service for the other
train. The overheadpressure of the Inadequatesizing of the condensate
regeneratorthen dropped from 0.65 system of the carbonatereboilersand
barg to 0.5 barg. the ~te~ d~~~perheaterstation.

2.2.2 Plant Instability 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONFOR IMPROVEMENT

Plant instabilityled to sour gas break- Followingidentificationof the causes for the
through and thereby off specificationpro- poor performanceof the plant, ADGAS Technical
duct and/or fouling of the main cryogenic Departmentmade recommendationsto overcome the
exchanger. It usually necessitatedthe problems. Also, we drew-up the detailedprocess
operationof both trains at reduced specificationsfor the proposedmodifications,
throughput substantiallybelow those includingpacking and internalsof the columns,
which could have been achieved under as outlined thereafter.
steady operating”
conditions.
I
.-9K
0..
.—

DEBOTTLENECKING OF I
3.1 CarbonateProcess Gas Absorber
+ Replacementof the support plates of
all three beds of the columns,with a
.-...---
,
type having a free area equ~,=.a~tto
the cross-sectionof the column.
+ Replacementof the distributorand
~eti~tri~Jto~xitk.their sparges pipe
above the top and middle beds of the
column. Special care was given to the
design providinga more even liquid
distribution.
+ Installationof a redietributorabove
the bottom bed.
+ Replacementof the ceramic aaddlea in
all three beds of the column with stain-
less eteel packing.
+ Fitting of bed limiterson each bed of
the column to prevent lifting of the
packing.
3.2 CarbonateRegenerator
+ Increasingthe size of the 16” section
of the sour header to 24” in order to
reduce the CarbonateRegeneratoropera-
ting pressure.
+ Increasingthe capacity of the steam
desuperheaterstation to reduce the
superheatexperiencedon the steam to
the carbonatereboilers.
+ Replacementof the steam straps on the
condensateremoval system of the
carbonatereboilerswith level control-
led condensatepots and upsizing the
-.-.-.---A-
T:.,aa+.
CuuueuuabcALuv. .“ -F.v.n+
p....--.~Q~~ensate
1ocking.
.
D GAS REMOVAL UNITS SPE 1372[
+ Replacementof the ceramic saddles in
all four beda of the regeneratorwith
stainleaasteel packing.
+ Replacementof the distributorwith
its sparge pipe above the No. 1 bed
(top bed).
+ Installationof redistributoraabove the
second bed which was not ao equippedin
the originaldesign.
+ Replacementof the redistributorabove
beds No. 3 and No. 4.
+ Replacementof tinebetisupport plates cf
all four beds of the regeneratorwith a
type having a free area around 100% of
+ilebstiCi’cssSectlcm.
+ Fitting of hold down grids on each
packing bed.
3.3 DEA System
The same recommendationswere proposedand
implementedin subsequentmodificationsto
revamp the DEA absorberand DEA regenerator
with regard to the following:
- Liquid distribution
- Packing
- Internals
All the modificationslisted in the above
paragraph3 have been implementedduring a Train
Major Overhaulat a total cost of US$.1,030,000.
I
.
----- ,., --., .- AL– n,-
.sp-
‘E 13/Zb L. ae Fralsslnecte,u.r.
4.0 PLANT PERFORMANCEIMPROVEMENT
Performanceof the train after implementation
of recommendedmodificationscarried out during
1983 Train Major Overhaulshow that our object-
ives have been achieved,as shown in Table-III.
● Operationof the train is now highly stable,
even at a throughputwell above the design
capacity.
* The design for the acid gas removal C02+H2S
has been exceededby more than 10$. The C02
absorptionrate currentlyachieved repre-
sents around 40~ above the design. This
remarkableperformancegauges the improve-
ment achieved in mass transferefficiency
hence c02 reactionwith carbonatesolution
is the controllingfactor in the absorption
process.
* Steam consumptionof the sweeteningunits
has been reduced considerablyper kgmole of
acid gas removed. Around 25% saving in
steam consumptionhas been achieved.
* The debottleneckingof the units has refle-
cted on the LNG make both quantitywiseand
qualitywise. Dependingon the feed case
(heavy or light) and increaseup to 20%
above the design LNG make haa been achieved.
Qualitywiaethe aulphur content of the final
products haa dropped to 50% from the levels
before modifications.
* Economically,the modification have increa-
sed the performanceof the Plant. With some
extra maintenancecost and no increase in
capital or running costs, the plant produ-
ction has increasedmaterially.
[ .07
.JO/
,-, , -— “ F lm—. ._L
ci~omy h r. rlque~
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Hereafter follows the main conclusionswhich
can be drawn from the above mentionedwork.
* Metallic packing mass transferefficiencyis
better than ceramic packing. An increase of
40-60% in the mass transfercoefficientcan be
achievedwhen using the proper size of metallic
packing instead of ceramic packing. This will
~ef~ec~ on the d~ensions of the absorbersand
the regenerationcolumns which could be made
shorter and smaller in diameter in a new plant.
* Life time of metallic packing,when selecting
the adequatematerial for the required service,
is 2 to 3 times longer than the life time of
the ceramic packing. In addition,the circu-
lated solutionson the metallic packing are
clearer and contain less suspendedmatter than
those of ceramic packing which reflect on the
solution filtrationcost.
* To overcomethe poorer liquid redistribution
propertiesof the metallic packing, it is impe-
rative to utilize the proper distributorsand
redistributorsabove all the packing beds.
* Hold down grids and bed support plates should
have a free area equivalentto the cross sect-
ional area of the column.
* Unit ancillariessuch as steam desuperheaters,
condensatedi8posalsystems end sour gas dis-
posal systems should be carefullyconsidered
and checked to match the best performance
requirements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Authora thank ADGAS General Management
for permissionto publish this paper.
 . .

TABLS-I

GASSTBEAU
cOHPOSITIO?i
(swPLY
TOBVJIBTENIKC
VRIT)
TABLE - II

Before 1983 After 19S3 1981 LRG PLANT PssPorWscE

Overhaul Overhaul
(INMf{HR)
Component (Mole%)

3 .OQ 2.92 TRIJWI TRA121-11

H2S

C02 4.88 6.14

[early
average
LRGthroughput
9.06 :baaed on operating the) 134.6 Uo.1
S/Total 7.ss

~& ,c=
wximumthroughput
0.21 0.14 (dailykSiS)
N2

c1 64.92 68.67
L~GProductionLosses 2.36
i ‘“’ 2.32

C2 11.52 11.99 dueto Acid Gas breakthrough

(basedon O@ratiW time)
C3 -/.93 6.51

C4 3.60 2.62
LlfGDesign throughput 150

C5 3.48 0.69

c6+ 0.46 0.32 Acid Gas Removal 2esign 47

[s2s+ C021
S/Total 92.2.2 90.94

mtium unitperformance
TOTAL 100 .0+3 100.00
~

TABLE - III

ACID GASES RSNOVAL UNIT PSRFOSHASCE

De8ign kfore 19S3 ,fter

1983
)verhaul nwrhaul
:arbonateProcess MS Absorber

{2s Loadins
Kg mole/Kg mole of ~co3 0.24s o.ls2 0.230

~.~~~ Q.ZQ2 0.482

.

S/Total o .48a 0.474 0.712

DEA Absorber

s2S Loadins
Kg mole/Kgmole of DSA 0.03’7 0.074 0.101

C02 Loading
5g mole/Kg mole of DEA 0.290 0.191 0.225

S/Total 0.327 0.265 0.326

Steam Consumption(Reboilers
)

u of steam/Kgmole Of acid cm 55.9 73.2 45.2

MC Thmu@p.t IIT/hr 150 155 175

 .

FIEL GAS

v
r-

OSA ABSORISU
Guts

PROUSS W
Cw
64s —
Assonm
7 ,.L

Jx

i-

——
f

I
j
21 RsFlux

w
L1 WWRCO
MAKf

I
WAIUi

%f-
MGH PRfss.
PUHP
Sssi
Fsso
GAS -,
I LJ[ I ()) 1
IQ , MOM

(-o-j-+ol PRESS,
CARBWAlf
Pufv

WA PUMP

Fig. 1 - GAS SWEETENING UNITS PROCESS FL(OWDIAGRAM

l--

w
-4
w
Oa