compare the different options for ngl recovery from natural gas

© Gastech 2005

COMPARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL GAS

Henri Paradowski Andre Le-Gall & Benoit Laflotte

Gas Processing Department Technip,

92973 Paris La Défense, CEDEX France

ABSTRACT

As a result of the growth of the natural gas market, worldwide NGL production capacity has increased strongly and continuously in the last decades and this tendency is expected to continue for some years. NGL recovery activity seems to be driven by its own market forces with a growth rate surpassing that of natural gas.

EPC contractors such as Technip have an important role to play in finding cost effective solutions for the NGL business. Technip has a policy of studying solutions to identify those that best meet the requirements of reliability, efficiency and capital cost. Big improvements have been achieved by moving away from so-called standard practice and through process development studies.

There are many options for the different steps of NGL production; in this paper we will compare alternative routes for selected steps:

� Drying of natural gas,

� Recovery of NGL from natural gas,

� Fractionation of NGL into commercial products,

� Refrigerated Propane Storage.

Studies are presented which illustrate the methods used to identify and present reliable and innovative solutions. These examples are based on natural gas similar to the Qatar North Field for dehydration and NGL recovery and on an NGL mixture similar to that fractionated in Venezuela for fractionation and refrigerated propane storage.

The studies use open art and Technip proprietary technologies.

The underlying experience comes from many LSTK projects in which Technip has been the EPC contractor.

© Gastech 2005 Paradowski 2

COMPARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL GAS

INTRODUCTION

As a major EPC Contractor, Technip has been involved in the conception, design, construction and initial operation of many large size gas treatment and NGL recovery plants over the last forty years.

In several instances follow-up contracts were executed for the same Client, either as debottlenecking projects1 or new capacity additions, therefore providing first-hand access to operating experience. The lessons learnt from past projects give the Contractor a powerful tool for the development of improved solutions that are of benefit to its Clients.

This paper focuses on specific aspects of NGL recovery units where the Contractor can bring a significant input.

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE NGL MARKET

The present paper is focused on NGL recovery from natural gas. In the analysis of the market drivers, a distinction should be made between ethane and LPG (propane, butanes and mixed LPG).

Ethane value is exclusively related to its potential use as cracker feedstock, and therefore its extraction is only considered in the general framework of a downstream petrochemical development. In other cases, ethane has only fuel value.

The world LPG market has seen a significant market growth in the last decades, with an average growth of 2.9% per year over the past ten years and a current worldwide production of over 210 million tonnes. This average growth is slightly higher than the corresponding growth in natural gas production, and nearly twice the average crude oil production growth.

The main drivers for LPG growth worldwide are the residential/commercial sector and uses as petrochemical feedstock, with significant regional disparities.

About 60% of world LPG production originates from natural gas, and this is the dominant source in North America, Northern Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

To illustrate the market driven nature of NGL production, Figure 12 compares the average North American spot prices for natural gas (Henry Hub), propane and n-butane (Mount Belvieu). All product prices are referred to their calorific value.

1 “Increasing NGL Plant capacity”, H. Paradowski, L. Barthe and D. Gadelle, GPA European Chapter, Heidelberg Sept. 2003

2 Adapted from EIA / Barnes and Click


g p p p

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

déc-

95m

ars-

96ju

il-96

oct-9

6ja

nv-9

7av

r-97

août

-97

nov-

97fé

vr-9

8ju

in-9

8se

pt-9

8dé

c-98

mar

s-99

juil-

99oc

t-99

janv

-00

mai

-00

août

-00

nov-

00fé

vr-0

1ju

in-0

1se

pt-0

1dé

c-01

avr-

02ju

il-02

oct-0

2ja

nv-0

3m

ai-0

3ao

ût-0

3no

v-03

mar

s-04

juin

-04

sept

-04

déc-

04

Sources: EIA / Barnes and Click

Henry Hub / Mount Belvieu monthly spot averagesNatural Gas, Propane, n-Butane

Natural gas

Propane Butane

Natural gas

Figure 1: Natural Gas, Propane and Butane prices (in US$/MMBTU)

Although this approach could be accused of oversimplification, the comparison suggests that there is a market incentive to extract the LPG, except for limited periods of time (winter 2000, winter 2003). More detailed studies indicate that the extraction of LPG in North America3 and in Northern Europe4 show positive margins. This situation translates into significant margins in areas of cheap natural gas from which LPG can be sold at market price.

To sustain this current and projected market growth, several larger size gas treatment / NGL production projects have been scheduled or implemented such as the NGL-4 and Dolphin Projects in Qatar, Berri debottlenecking in Saudi Arabia, OGD-3/AGD-2/Ruwais-3 projects in UAE, the Western Libya Gas Project and the Ohanet project in Algeria among others.

Additional NGL will be produced in a number of LNG plants that are under implementation or at various project stages.

3 “Uncertainty about gas quality could delay US LNG imports”, D.J. Hawkins , OGJ Sept. 20, 2004

4 “North Sea Gas Processing Margins”, Purvin & Getz, GPA European Chapter, London Nov. 2004


GAS AND NGL CHAINS : FROM WELLHEAD TO THE CONSUMER

From wellhead to consumer, each of the products to be valorised has to be extracted, purified and transported.

The typical line-up of a sales gas and NGL production chain includes:

Collection and transport from wellhead to processing plant,

Condensate separation and stabilisation for storage and export,

Gas sweetening (H2S, CO2, other sulphur compounds if appropriate) with associated sulphur recovery, if required,

Gas dehydration,

LPG extraction, ethane extraction when desirable,

LPG (and/or ethane) purification to the required specification, storage and export,

Sales gas export to distribution network.

Depending on the nature of the raw natural gas, and in particular, on the amount of contaminants present from the reservoir, an optimised line-up has to be developed.

A simple gas plant, based on lean natural gas and producing LPG might be limited to a few processing steps (glycol dehydration, LPG recovery). More complex feedstock will require additional processing steps and leave room for more complex engineering developments. Typically, optimisation issues are focused around:

• Selection of the acid gas removal process (type of solvent, H2S vs. CO2 selectivity, requirement to remove other sulphur compounds...),

• Selection of the dehydration technology,

• Optimisation of the NGL recovery unit to best match the required level of product recovery, flexibility (ethane recovery vs. ethane rejection) and operability constraints,

• Selection of NGL product purification schemes, including handling of by-products such as disulphide oil in the case of caustic washing of LPG in the liquid phase to remove mercaptans, or regeneration gas handling should gas phase removal of mercaptans be selected.

Such situations are commonly encountered in the Middle East and in the Caspian area, where raw gases are generally wet and sour. Similar situations exist, to a lesser extent in, Africa and South East Asia. All of them pose significant challenges to the process designer making each gas treatment and NGL recovery plant unique.

A second factor that makes each gas plant unique is the relative location of the gas field vis-à-vis the export facilities and the targeted market of each of the products. There are few similarities between the issues to be resolved for a straddle plant, located close to a petrochemical complex and a gas treatment plant in a remote producing area, as encountered for instance in Saudi Arabia and in Abu Dhabi.


A GAS PROJECT EXAMPLE : WLGP

The gas field geographical location offers additional challenges to the project developers and the engineering companies. The Western Libya Gas Project offers a significant example of these complex issues5.

Figure 2: Western Libya Gas Project schematic

The Western Libya Gas Project valorises gas and oil from the Wafa Desert field (located 500 km inland) and gas from the Bahr Essalam field located 100 km offshore. The final products are sales gas, stabilized crude oil, stabilized condensate, butanes and propane. The majority of the gas is exported to Italy by pipeline.

Three gas-processing plants have been built to achieve the project objectives:

1. The Wafa Desert Plant pretreats the oil and gas feedstock to allow pipeline transportation to shore where the final extraction and treatment is performed. The options selected for the Wafa Desert Plant are oil and gas condensate stabilisation, CO2 removal, gas dehydration and LPG extraction using a cryogenic process. All liquids are commingled and transported to shore through a 16” pipeline. The sweet gas that has been conditioned for transport (water and hydrocarbon dew-point) is compressed and sent to the coast through a 32” pipeline.

2. The Mellitah Plant receives gas and condensate separately from the offshore field. Gas is treated to remove H2S and CO2 and is then dehydrated. Part of the LPG is removed and treated. Condensates from the condensate pipeline and the gas pipeline slug catchers are stabilized.

3. Gas from Wafa Desert is mixed at the Wafa Coastal Plant with the gas from the Mellitah Plant and is compressed for export. The liquids from Wafa Desert are fractionated at the Wafa Coastal Plant to yield stabilised crude oil, butane and propane that are shipped separately.

5 ENI web site, Investor Relations, October 2004


PROCESSING OPTIONS FOR SELECTED STEPS IN NGL RECOVERY

In the remainder of this paper, we will illustrate examples of process options that may be considered when developing a gas processing plant line-up. We will compare alternative routes, supported with calculations, for the following steps:

• Drying of natural gas,

• Recovery of NGL from natural gas,

The studies that are presented for these two steps are based on natural gas from the Qatar North Field.

• Fractionation of NGL into commercial products,

• Refrigeration of Propane Storage.

These two examples are based on an NGL mixture from Eastern Venezuela.

The studies use open art and Technip proprietary technologies. The underlying experience comes from many LSTK projects in which Technip has been the EPC contractor.

The following tables provide in one block the basis of the different studies.

Basis for studies on Dehydration and NGL recovery

Nitrogen 4.0% mole

Methane 86.8% mole

Ethane 5.5% mole

Propane 2.1% mole

i-Butane 0.3% mole

n-Butane 0.5% mole

i-Pentane 0.2% mole

n-Pentane 0.2% mole

n-Hexane 0.2% mole

C7+ 0.2% mole

Table 1.1. Natural gas composition.


NG temperature at dehydration inlet 34°C

NG Pressure at dehydration inlet 62 bar abs

NG Pressure at NGL recovery inlet 60 bar abs

Sales Gas Pressure 60 bar abs

Fuel Gas Pressure 25 bar abs

Design Natural gas flow rate 40,000 kgmole/h

(800 MMSCFD)

Process fluid outlet temperature: air cooled exchangers 34°C

Centrifugal compressor efficiencies 82 %

Air temperature 28°C

Available power for different gas turbines GE 5 C 24,200 kW GE 5 D 27,900 kW

Table 1.2. Other fixed conditions.

Basis for Studies on NGL Fractionation

CO2 8.0% mole

Methane 0.1% mole

Ethane 28.9% mole

Propane 33.9% mole

i-Butane 7.6% mole

n-Butane 11.3% mole

i-Pentane 3.7% mole

n-Pentane 2.9% mole

n-Hexane 2.0% mole

C7+ 1.6% mole Table 2.1. NGL Fractionation feed.

NGL Feed temperature 33°C

NGL Feed pressure 24 bar abs

NGL Feed flow 245 t/h

Hot Water Furnace efficiency 90 %

Hot Oil Furnace efficiency 65 %

Steam Boilers efficiency 90 %

Steam Turbine adiabatic efficiency 80 %

Electric power generator efficiency 97 %

HP Steam pressure 63 bar abs

HP Steam temperature 440°C

LP Steam pressure 5 bar abs Table 2.2. Other fixed conditions.


Basis for studies on Refrigerated Propane Storage

Ethane 1.0% mole

Propane 98.0% mole

i-Butane 0.7% mole

n-Butane 0.3% mole Table 3.1. Propane rundown composition.

Propane run down flow rate 160 t/h

Propane storage pressure 1.04 bar abs

Propane storage capacity 75,000 m3

Propane kettles approach (Wieland tubes) 2°C Table 3.2. Other fixed conditions.

DEHYDRATION OF NATURAL GAS

Problem definition When natural gas is processed in an NGL recovery unit the water content has to be decreased whether to avoid the

formation of hydrates or to decrease the amount of hydrates formed and the size of the hydrates particles so that the hydrates will not accumulate and plug the equipment. It is known that hydrates formed at very low temperatures in small quantities will not stick to the walls of heat exchangers, valves and other equipment and that they do not plug equipment. It is also known that hydrates can accumulate in dead end zones, where the velocity is reduced. Some devices such as strainers or mesh pads can stop the hydrates crystals and allow a plug to build up.

Water content ppm mole

Natural gas at 62 bars

Natural gas at 30 bars

20 -20 -26

10 -27 -32

5 -33 -39

2 -42 -47

1 -49 -53

0.5 -55 -59

0.2 -64 -66

0.1 -70 -72 Table 4. Hydrate formation temp. vs water content for natural gas at 62 and 30 bars.

Given that 0.1 ppm is a typical molecular sieve outlet gas specification for water content it can be observed from Table 4 that in deep NGL recovery processes where the temperature reaches –100°C it is not possible to avoid the formation of hydrates. However, the quantity that is formed when the water content is 0.1 ppm is extremely small i.e. 0.07 kg/h, or 600 kg/year.

Molecular sieves: a standard option for deep NGL recovery Based on the above consideration and our experience, the use of mol sieves that can achieve a water content of 0.1

ppm in the dry gas seems a reasonable choice. It is also reasonable to operate the dryers on a fixed cycle basis to avoid any breakthrough of water in the dry gas.


The mol sieve drying unit is capital intensive mainly because of the cost of the vessels, remote operated valves, instruments, etc… and not so much because of the cost of the zeolite. Any cost optimisation shall be done by the contractor with support from a reliable mol sieve vendor.

Mol sieve dehydration units may be troublesome in operation; many problems that have been reported relate to the process design. A short list includes:

• Carry over of liquids, water, hydrocarbons, causing caking of the adsorbent on the upper part of the bed and near the walls of the vessel;

• Presence of volatile basic compounds in the gas to be dried, these compounds can be production chemicals or can come from the acid gas removal unit located upstream;

• Presence of cations in the gas; the zeolites can be destroyed by an ion exchange process.

• Refluxing phenomena occurring during regeneration of the adsorbent: the water formed on the walls will flow on the walls of the vessel and will damage the mole sieves by creating a “cake”;

• The MS “binder” can be damaged during regeneration; the resulting phenomena would be the creation of dust, increased pressure drop and crushing of the pellets;

This list is not exhaustive, but gives a feel of the many potential problems in operation. To minimize them the design has be done with care. We, as a contractor, would concentrate our efforts on the following:

• Design of the unit and its auxiliary systems by the contractor. It should not be considered as a “black box”: avoid packaged units, or strictly control the sub-contractor.

• Use efficient upstream separation of liquids, but avoid creating mists which are very often the result of high shear stress;

• Use simple regeneration sequences with a ramping up of regeneration gas temperature; this will help to avoid or reduce the “refluxing” phenomena; this shall be specified to the vendor;

• Select the mol sieves and not the mol sieve vendor carefully: type, size of pellets, “binder”; it is important to have a precise specification.

• Install a robust filtration system downstream of the dryers.

TEG dehydration

Process design Natural gas dehydration with TEG is a very simple process. Lean TEG is contacted with gas in a column using

structured packing. The TEG water content is in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 % wt of water. This means that the regeneration of the rich TEG has to be performed using dry gas stripping at least.

This process has lower CAPEX and OPEX when compared to molecular sieves.

There are also fewer maintenance and operational issues, so that a TEG unit can easily be installed on an offshore platform.

There are some design issues and the contractor shall be familiar with TEG technology to avoid mistakes with potentially disastrous consequences, especially offshore where it is very difficult to add or modify equipment.

The most important design features from a process standpoint are:

• Control of gas temperature at the inlet of the absorber,

• Design of the absorber internals: distributors, structured packing, demisters, etc…

• Design of outlet separators to minimize losses of TEG by carry over; one has to remember that the melting point of pure TEG is –5°C so that it is very easy to freeze TEG in a cold separation unit.


Parametric study Using the data in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, the influence of the following parameters has been studied with a view to defining optimisation guidelines for large NGL recovery trains. The influence of the following parameters on the water content of dry gas has been covered by discrete studies:

� Lean TEG water content,

� Natural gas temperature,

� Number of stages in the TEG absorber,

Natural gas Temperature

°C

Number of stages TEG water content

% weight

Dry gas water content

ppm mole

34 3 0.1 11.2

34 4 0.1 6.3

24 3 0.1 4.0

24 4 0.1 2.9

24 3 0.2 6.5

24 4 0.2 5.5

Table 5. Effect of TEG Process Design Parameters on Dry Gas Water Content

The TEG absorption drying process is sensitive to three parameters

Lean TEG water content, which is related to the efficiency of gas stripping;

The temperature of the gas at the inlet of the absorber: precooling is very efficient way to obtain low water content in the dry gas.

The number of stages and hence the efficiency of the packing selected: this efficiency depends on packing type, bed height and the quality of liquid and gas distributors;

These parameters are the result of choices made by the contractor with the support of reliable vendors of the column internals.

NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL GAS

Problem definition The study of the market for NGL has shown that there is no doubt about the profitability of propane, butane, and

C5+ recovery from natural gas. The quantities available have to be such that the cost of infrastructure is not too important.

For ethane recovery the situation is complicated because of the absence of a worldwide market for ethane. Many operators have come to the conclusion that ethane recovery does not pay or at best it is seen as a future possibility. In countries where the government has future objectives for an ethane based petrochemical industry, many ERUs have been built for ethane recovery and rejection, but most of them have been operated in ethane rejection.

The process licensors of NGL recovery processes may advertise that the cost of the unit is not much affected by this choice, the reality of a project including infrastructure is different: ethane recovery has a very significant impact on CAPEX and OPEX.

When the recovery of ethane is seen as a future possibility, it is possible to build a propane recovery unit with provisions made for future conversion to ethane recovery.

The way this can be implemented is not so much a function of the process selected: all the processes use similar if not identical features and differ by details. It is the Contractor’s duty to allocate space in the lay out, accessibility, utility connections, etc…


Constant Ethane Production with variable Feed Gas Each case is specific so that it is quite impossible to give the solution. A problem that is met in Europe is that gas

usage and production are variable. In winter the demand for gas is high, while in summer it is low. Underground gas storage is not able to avoid seasonal variations completely.

This situation had to be considered for the ethane recovery unit designed in 1985 and built in 1987 in Lacq, France. As the ethane was feeding an ethylene plant, its production was required to be as constant as possible, whereas gas production was expected to fluctuate between winter and summer despite the use of the Lusagnet underground gas storage facility.

• Case study We studied a similar but hypothetical case where the gas design capacity of the ERU is 800 MMSCFD (see Tables 1.1

and 1.2) i.e. 40,000 kgmoles/h. The targeted ethane production is 400 kt/yr or slightly less than 50 t/h.

With an ethane content in the feed gas of 5.5% mole, the required ethane recovery rate is 72.4% and the production of pure C2 is 47.9 t/h in 50t/h of C2+ NGL. With this moderate extraction rate the “Single Reflux Ethane” recovery process shown in Figure 3 is the more efficient choice. The Demethanizer column C1 is operated at 25 bars abs.

The sales gas compressor requires 23,600 kW of brake horsepower and could be driven by a GE5C or GE5D gas turbine or a VFD electric motor.

Now we consider what happens when seasonal variations in gas demand cause variations in feedstock of 600, 700 and 800 MMSCFD for summer, spring and winter respectively. The ethane recovery rate must now be variable and high in summer. To meet these objectives the “Dual Reflux Ethane” recovery process is chosen.

The power available from the sales gas compressor drivers is used to maintain ethane production constant during periods of reduced natural gas throughput.

The following figures show the main characteristics of the resultant ERU at 800, 700, and 600 MMSCFD.

NGL (C2+)

Feed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gas

V1

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

25 bars-94°C

60 bar34°C

Ethane recovery 72.4% : 47,900 kg/hPower 180 kW.h / t NGL

800 MMSCFD

-34°C

7,600 kW 738 MMSCFD738 MMSCFD23,600 kW

129,700 kg/h

GT

Figure 3: Single Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme (winter)


NGL (C2+)

Feed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gas

V1

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

Ethane recovery : 84.8% 49,100 kg/hPower 195 kW.h / t NGL 84 MMSCFD

recycle7,100 kW

-34°C121,200 kg/h

641 MMSCFD725 MMSCFD23,600 kW

25 bars-99°C

700 MMSCFD

GT 60 bar

Figure 4: Dual Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme (spring)

NGL (C2+)

Feed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gas

V1

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

25 bars-102°C

GT

Ethane recovery : 96 % 47650 kg/hPower 215 kW.h / t NGL

-34°C109,500 kg/h

546 MMSCFD

60 bar

168 MMSCFDrecycle

714 MMSCFD23,600 kW

600 MMSCFD

6,800 kW

Figure 5: Dual Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme (summer)

Operating case Winter Spring Summer

Feed gas flow rate MMSCFD 800 700 600

Recycle gas flow rate MMSCFD 0 84 168

Flow rate in sales gas compressor MMSCFD 738 725 714

Power of sales gas compressor kW 23,600 23,600 23,600

Ethane recovery rate % 72.4 84.8 96

Pure ethane recovered kg/h 47,900 49,100 47,650

NGL produced kg/h 129,700 121,200 109,500

Specific power consumption kW.h /t NGL 215 195 215 Table 6. Seasonal Operating Modes to maintain Constant Ethane Production


This line up was used in the design of the Lacq plant. In the Lacq plant, two compressors operating in parallel, perform the compression of sales gas: a VFD motor driven compressor and a fixed speed asynchronous electric motor driven compressor. The gas that is recycled cannot be contaminated by seal oil as the compressors use “dry seals”. The contractor, Technip, fit the process to the specific Client (ELF in 1987, TOTAL nowadays after the merger of TOTAL FINA ELF) constraints to maintain a constant ethane production.

• Process optimisation As understanding of the thermodynamics of NGL recovery have improved, new processes have been developed.

Technip was granted a patent in 2003 for a Multiple Reflux Ethane recovery process. This process, through the addition of a vessel V2 makes it possible to increase the ethane recovery rate at constant power consumption.

NGL (C2+)

Feed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gas

V1V2

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

Ethane recovery 88.6 % 51300 kg/hPower 191 kW.h / t NGL

7,100 kW

-34°C

640 MMSCFD

123,400 kg/h

25 bars-100°C

GT 60 bar

700 MMSCFD

84 MMSCFDrecycle

724 MMSCFD23,600 kW

Figure 6: Multiple Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme

The MRE process is compared to the DRE process of the late 1980’s in Table 7.

Operating case DRE MRE

Feed gas flow rate MMSCFD 700 700

Recycle gas flow rate MMSCFD 84 84

Flow rate in sales gas compressor MMSCFD 725 724

Power of sales gas compressor kW 23,600 23,600

Ethane recovery rate % 84.8 88.6

Pure ethane recovered kg/h 49,100 51,300

NGL produced kg/h 121,200 123,400

Specific power consumption kW.h /t NGL 195 191 Table 7. MRE vs. DRE Process Performance

Variable Ethane Production with constant Feed Gas Ethane based ethylene plants when built in gas producing regions are frequently fed from multiple suppliers with no

buffer storage. This creates a requirement for variable ethane production, to be adapted to make full use of ethylene plant capacity.

The following study therefore considers how to vary ethane recovery while keeping the propane recovery rate at 99% or at least at more than 95%. To simplify the discussion we shall consider that the feed gas flow rate is constant. Four main options were identified for study that differ in terms of CAPEX, OPEX and operability:

Option 1: Recover C2+ at a constant rate from the feed gas; fractionate C2+ into C2 and C3+, re-inject excess C2 into the sales gas upstream of compression,


Option 2: Adjust C2 recovery in a process designed for high C2 recovery by reducing the reflux and increasing the temperature of the cold separator,

Option 3: Switch from a high C2+ recovery scheme to a C3+ recovery scheme in a bi-modal unit,

Option 4: Change operating conditions in a scheme built for the purpose of variable ethane recovery and high propane recovery.

• Option 1: Reinject C2 into sales gas upstream of the compression This scheme is very robust and easy to operate. It requires distillation of the C2+ cut which increases CAPEX

compared to an ERU designed only for high ethane recovery. OPEX is also high with the paradox that energy consumption is higher in ethane rejection than in ethane recovery. Today this option would be considered only if distillation of C2+ into C2 and C3+ is integrated in the gas plant and if the amount of excess ethane is low compared to ethane production.

• Option 2: Adjust C2 recovery This scheme is very simple and easy to operate. It requires only an additional reboiler on the demethanizer. The

CAPEX is only slightly higher than an ERU designed only for high ethane recovery. The OPEX is also high: the paradox is that the energy consumption is higher in ethane rejection than in ethane recovery. There is a decrease of propane production. Today this option is considered only if the variation of ethane production is limited.

• Option 3: Switch from C2 recovery scheme to C3 recovery scheme This option is very simple in principle but requires skilled operators and good production scheduling. Compared to a

C2 recovery scheme, it requires additional equipment and valves. CAPEX is higher than an ERU designed only for high ethane recovery. This option has better OPEX than options 1 and 2 and better CAPEX than option 1. There is no decrease of propane production. Today this option is considered on many projects.

• Option 4: Slowly adjust parameters to gradually switch from C2 recovery scheme to C3 recovery scheme This option is also very simple in principle and robust. Skilled operators and good production scheduling are less

critical. Compared to a C2 recovery scheme, it requires additional equipment and valves. The CAPEX is higher than option 3 but it has better OPEX . There is no decrease of propane production. Today this option could be used on projects requiring high flexibility.


NGL FRACTIONATION : AN ENERGY SINK

Observation The NGL extracted from the natural gas has to be fractionated to produce the following commercial products:

Ethane, feedstock for ethylene production,

Propane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market,

Iso-butane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market, mainly in the USA

N-butane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market as butane.

Stabilised C5+ cut, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market.

NGL fractionation uses simple principles but consumes large amounts of energy for the reboiling of the fractionation columns, about 300 kW.h / t of NGL or around 3% on an auto consumption basis.

Taking for example the fractionation unit built in Eastern Venezuela by the Technip group in the 90’s and with reference to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 the details are the following:

Duty of the reboiler kW

Product flow rate t/h Product

Deethanizer 21700 65 Ethane

Depropanizer 17800 80 Propane

Debutanizer 11500 45 C5+

C4 Splitter 20000 55 Iso + n Butane

Total 71000 245 Table 8. NGL Fractionation Unit Energy Consumption

Solutions to minimize the energy consumption To minimize primary energy consumption there are several known techniques:

Use process heat integration,

Combine fractionation of NGL with cogeneration.

These techniques can be future improved with the recovery of waste heat from an external source such as gas turbine exhaust gases if available close to the fractionation unit.

The first two approaches are compared with reboiling using pressurized hot water produced in a direct-fired heater.

NGL fractionation with heat integration The following scheme shows the line up of the unit with heat integration used at one location. The main part of the

butane splitter reboiler duty is performed using heat rejected by the debutaniser condenser with trim heating using hot oil.


Hot oil Hot oil

Ethane65 t/h

NGL Feed245 t/h

Deethaniser

Hot oil

C3

Depropaniser Debutaniser

C5+ 45 t/h

Hot oil

n-Butane35 t/h

C4 splitter

Propane80 t/h

i-Butane20 t/h

integration

Figure 7: NGL fractionation with heat integration

However, to increase the debutaniser condensing temperature to a useable level the debutaniser pressure and bottom temperature has to be increased with the consequence that hot oil must be used as heating medium instead of hot water. The hot oil temperature has to be relatively high so that the efficiency of the direct-fired heater used to heat the hot oil falls to about 65% cancelling out much of the theoretical advantage.

NGL fractionation energy minimization with cogeneration Another alternative is plant integration of the process units with utility generation. If the process heat integration of

Figure 7 is abandoned, the scheme becomes that of Figure 8. The temperature of the bottom of the debutaniser column is low, similar to the other columns, so that it is possible to use low-pressure steam from the LP discharge of a steam turbine (Figure 9) used for power generation.

LP Steam LP Steam

Ethane65 t/h

NGL Feed245 t/h

Deethaniser

LP Steam

C3

Depropaniser Debutaniser

C5+ 45 t/h

LP Steam

n-Butane35 t/h

C4 splitter

Propane80 t/h

i-Butane20 t/h

Figure 8: NGL Fractionation with cogeneration


Reboilers

G

Preheaters

Boiler(s)

5 bar abs

63 bar abs

150°C

14 MW

440°C

Figure 9: Cogeneration of electrical power and LP steam

High-pressure steam produced in a boiler is used to produce electric power and LP steam. The boiler efficiency is high because the water inlet temperature is low. With the same fuel consumption as the reference scheme with a direct-fired hot water heater and the scheme using process heat integration and hot oil, it is possible to produce 14000 kW of electric power in addition.

Comparison of solutions Table 9 compares the merits of three configurations that are:

Reference case: No integration and use of hot water for reboiling produced in a direct-fired heater.

Process heat integration (DeC4/C4 Splitter) and use of hot oil for reboiling produced in a direct-fired heater,

Cogeneration.

The options are ranked in Table 9: 1 for the best, 2 for the second, 3 for the last

Scheme No integration

(Reference) Process

integration Cogeneration

Highest column bottom temperature (°C) 125 170 125

Heating medium Hot water Hot oil LP steam

Fuel consumption (kW) 88000 88000 88000

Electrical power production (kW) 0 0 14000

Efficiency 2 2 1

CAPEX 1 2 3

OPEX 2 2 1

Operability 2 1 3

Safety 1 3 2

Reliability 2 1 3 Table 9. Comparison of NGL Fractionation Unit Energy Supply Schemes


Heat recovery from GT exhaust gases Heat recovery from GT exhaust gases in a Waste Heat Recovery Unit (WHRU) requires the presence of GT’s near the

fractionation plant. If possible it would be the best solution as process heat is provided with no perhaps zero fuel consumption.

Scheme No integration

(Reference) Process

integration Cogeneration

1 3 2 Table 10: Adaptabilty to use with GT exhaust WHRU

The comparison in Table 9 would remain valid but in this case hot water would be the best heating medium.

Concluding remarks The increase of the cost of energy makes it necessary to reconsider the cogeneration alternative. Even without gas

turbines the cogeneration option is attractive.

PROPANE REFRIGERATION AND ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE Once extracted, NGL has to be stored before shipment. The C5+ fraction is in most instances stored together with

the stabilized condensate from the inlet separation. Atmospheric storage of stabilized condensate is the standard solution. Ethane, when extracted, is most frequently sent under gaseous state to the steam cracker.

For small inventories of LPG, pressurized storage may be used, but indisputably, the most delicate storage is refrigerated storage at atmospheric pressure, required when LPG has to be stored in large quantities. This is the case for LNG Plants, or for large gas treatment plants treating rich feedstock.

In addition to the refrigeration required to compensate for heat ingress through the tank’s insulation, chilling must be provided to cool the LPG before sending it to the tanks.

In this case study, we have considered and compared three options for the cooling of propane run-down and subsequent storage.

o Closed Loop system with vacuum conditions at the suction of the refrigeration compressor

o Closed Loop system with the refrigeration compressor suction above atmospheric pressure

o Semi-open loop with conditions at the suction of the refrigeration compressor at atmospheric pressure


Closed Propane refrigeration cycle

PropaneRundown

160 t/h

Propane

PropaneBOG

Overall Power Consumption: 5,700 kW

1.3 t/h0.7 bar

2.4 bar8.5 bar

Figure 10: Closed propane refrigeration cycle scheme

Figure 10 depicts an independent propane cycle that cools down the propane rundown before it is sent to the atmospheric pressure storage tanks. The propane cycle compressor comprises, in most instances, three compression stages: low, medium and high pressure suction stages. The boil-off of propane from the storage tank is compressed and condensed, for example, against low-pressure propane. The low pressure stage suction pressure can be below, or above atmospheric pressure, depending on the location of the final let-down valve.

Semi-open propane loop

PropaneRundown

160 t/h

PropaneBOG

Overall Power Consumption: 5,400 kW

10 t/h1.0 bar

2.7 bar8.9 bar

Figure 11: Semi-open propane loop scheme

The concept illustrated in Figure 11 uses the propane run-down itself as the source of refrigerant in a series of kettle exchangers. The entire propane production is vaporized, compressed and condensed. Part of the condensed liquid is recycled as refrigerant while the remainder, approximately equivalent to the rundown and condensed BOG is chilled and cooled before being sent to the storage tank. The boil-off from the storage tank is mixed with the vapour from the last chiller and sent to the low-pressure stage of the propane compressor that is naturally operated at atmospheric pressure.

The main advantage of this solution is the cancellation of the previous boil-off gas recovery system and start up from atmospheric pressure without flaring, thereby leading to a reduction in CAPEX. Such a system has been recently implemented by Technip in an LNG Plant.


Comparison of solutions Table 11 ranks the three options against operational and investment criteria.

Scheme CLOSED LOOP Vacuum

CLOSED LOOP Atmospheric

SEMI-OPEN LOOP

LP C3 Suction Pressure 0.7 bar a 1.2 bar a 1.0 bar a

CAPEX 2 3 1

OPEX 1 1 1

Operability – process stability 2 1 2

Operability – Availability 3 2 1

Safety 3 1 2

Total 11 8 7 Table 11: Comparison of Refrigeration Schemes for Propane Atmospheric Storage

CONCLUSION

NGL recovery from natural gas is an industry that brings together different processes, types of equipment and multiple operating constraints. NGL projects require constant innovation and adaptation of technology to solve complex problems. Although licensed technologies have an important place, the nature of the NGL industry leaves less room for licensed technologies than in refining or petrochemicals.

An EPC Contractor such as Technip, that has maintained its technical capability to evaluate the consequences of the choices, has an important role to play at least during the EPC phase. Project execution plans which adopt design competition principles up to EPC award are an interesting alternative to the widely used prescriptive FEED route to EPC. Clients that have adopted a design competition approach have obtained improved plant designs with reduced schedules. A comparison of solutions by EPC contractors under the pressure of competition is the best way to obtain a clear view of the situation. Such clients have come to accept that the necessity of competition makes it mandatory to leave some major choices open until the end of the design competition.

Success factors in an NGL recovery project There are many success factors and we do not claim to know all of them. From the experience on NGL recovery

projects we wish to express some of them that are not obvious:

• A good understanding of the Client’s objectives and requirements is necessary. It is a starting point to develop solutions. Many options are available, have been used on previous jobs, or are being developed to enhance profitability.

• Understand the requirements: the requirements on the quality of the products are many times expressed in terms of a minimum specification: for example C2/C3 < 0.01; then nobody wonders about what if C2/C3=0.005; what is the benefit if any. Many times surpassing the minimum can be easy, not costly and bring far better operability.

• Compare solutions using life cycle cost: Whatever the energy cost, the main and best criteria for selection remains the minimum overall cost to the operator. The only possibility to bring more resilient solutions back into the competition is to make comparisons based on life cycle cost. As large as some gas reserves may seem to be, they are of course limited and the cost of the feed gas at plant inlet is never negligible.

• Operability comes first: Flaring costs a fortune and gives a poor image of the industry; producing less than expected can jeopardize months of optimisation. It is very difficult to put figures on operability but it is a prime factor that can only be taken into account by experienced and qualified engineers and plant operators. Today the situation is such that managers that have a limited experience of plant operation make decisions that do not take the operability factor with sufficient consideration. The liquefied gases industry is beginning to evaluate the consequences of the


lack of qualified technical personnel and is trying to find solutions to mitigate the phenomena, at a time when many senior engineers and operators are leaving or have already left.

Use of new technologies • Of course it is exciting to be a front-runner and often it pays to increase size, efficiency and go for new technologies.

Today new technologies are well accepted and it is good news. There is only one factor that shall never be forgotten, it is that the use of new technologies is not an aim it is a means to an end.

• In the same way proven technologies are not necessarily old fashioned and shall be allowed to compete as well.

• Experience is not frozen knowledge; it is a practically based starting point that can be useful in evaluating new technologies.

Methodology Methodology is of course of prime importance but it has to be specifically defined for each new projects.

Collaboration between Client-Contractor-Suppliers Collaboration between all the participants: client, contractor and suppliers is a must. Some management techniques

such as team building can help, but good will is the essential ingredient.

During the execution of a contract after the first weeks, difficulties may show up, sometimes it is not very easy to have the process licensor involved at this stage. Problem solving methods based on a comparison of options similar to those presented in this paper should be used from the very beginning.

Compare the different options for NGL Recovery from Natural GasCompare the different options for Compare the different options for

NGL Recovery from Natural GasNGL Recovery from Natural Gas

Henri Paradowski , Andre Le Gall and Benoît Laflotte

Process Division Technip France

GASTECH2005 BILBAO SPAIN

16 March 2005

Henri Paradowski , Andre Le Gall and BenoHenri Paradowski , Andre Le Gall and Benoîît Laflotte t Laflotte

Process Division Technip France Process Division Technip France

GASTECH2005 BILBAO SPAINGASTECH2005 BILBAO SPAIN

16 March 200516 March 2005

1

ContentsContents

11 Market Market

22 Gas and NGL chains from wellhead to the Gas and NGL chains from wellhead to the

consumer consumer

33 Dehydration: Mol sieves or TEG?Dehydration: Mol sieves or TEG?

44 Ethane recovery : which process ?Ethane recovery : which process ?

55 NGL fractionation: how to save energy?NGL fractionation: how to save energy?

66 NGL refrigeration: which cycle use?NGL refrigeration: which cycle use?

2

1. 1. Market driven ?Market driven ?

�� Gas / NGL's market prices translate into an extraction Gas / NGL's market prices translate into an extraction margin in the USmargin in the US

�� Similar situation in North SeaSimilar situation in North Sea

�� CC33 / C/ C44's recovery's recoveryjustified in mostjustified in mostinstancesinstances

�� CC22 recovery onlyrecovery onlyworth if a petroworth if a petro--chemical marketchemical marketis at handis at hand

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

dé

c-9

5

ma

rs-9

6

juil-

96

oc

t-9

6

jan

v-9

7

av

r-9

7

ao

ût-

97

no

v-9

7

fév

r-9

8

juin

-98

se

pt-

98

dé

c-9

8

ma

rs-9

9

juil-

99

oc

t-9

9

jan

v-0

0

ma

i-0

0

ao

ût-

00

no

v-0

0

fév

r-0

1

juin

-01

se

pt-

01

dé

c-0

1

av

r-0

2

juil-

02

oc

t-0

2

jan

v-0

3

ma

i-0

3

ao

ût-

03

no

v-0

3

ma

rs-0

4

juin

-04

se

pt-

04

dé

c-0

4

Sources: EIA / Barnes and Click

US

$ / M

MB

tu

Henry Hub / Mount Belvieu monthly spot averagesNatural Gas, Propane, n-Butane

3

2. 2. Gas and NGL chains : from wellhead to the consumerGas and NGL chains : from wellhead to the consumer

�� Plant complexity function ofPlant complexity function of

�� Gas characteristics and targeted productsGas characteristics and targeted products

�� Plant geographical locationPlant geographical location

�� Example : Western Libya Gas Project*Example : Western Libya Gas Project*

�� Treated Gas / Treated Crude / Propane / ButaneTreated Gas / Treated Crude / Propane / Butane

�� OnshoreOnshore

•• Wafa Desert Plant : Gas Sweetening, LiquidsWafa Desert Plant : Gas Sweetening, Liquids

extraction (blended with stabilized Crude)extraction (blended with stabilized Crude)

•• Oil and Gas Pipeline to coast (over 500 km)Oil and Gas Pipeline to coast (over 500 km)

•• Liquids fractionation at Wafa Coastal PlantLiquids fractionation at Wafa Coastal Plant

�� Offshore Offshore

•• Gas and Condensate sent to shore (Mellitah)Gas and Condensate sent to shore (Mellitah)

for treatment and fractionation.for treatment and fractionation.

* Source : ENI web site (Investor Relations), October 2004

4

3. Pre3. Pre--treatment options : focus on dehydrationtreatment options : focus on dehydration

�� 3.13.1 Hydrates formation temperatureHydrates formation temperature

.1.1

.2.2

.5.5

11

22

55

1010

2020

Water contentWater content

ppm moleppm mole

--7070

--6464

--5555

--4949

--4242

--3333

--2727

--2020

Natural gasNatural gas

at 62 barat 62 bar

--7272

--6666

--5959

--5353

--4747

--3939

--3232

--2626


at 30 barat 30 bar

5


�� 3.23.2 Mole Sieves : a standard option for deep NGL Mole Sieves : a standard option for deep NGL

recoveryrecovery

�� Achieve 0.1 ppm water contentAchieve 0.1 ppm water content

�� Capital intensive and energy intensiveCapital intensive and energy intensive

�� May be troublesome in operationMay be troublesome in operation

�� Design with careDesign with care

•• Upstream separation of utmost importance, Upstream separation of utmost importance,

•• Regeneration sequence to be carefully studied, Regeneration sequence to be carefully studied,

•• Mole sieve binder to be carefully selected.Mole sieve binder to be carefully selected.

6


�� 3.3 3.3 TEG dehydration: a valid option in most casesTEG dehydration: a valid option in most cases

�� Achieve 1 to 10 ppm water content in dry gasAchieve 1 to 10 ppm water content in dry gas

�� Minimizes CAPEX and OPEXMinimizes CAPEX and OPEX

�� Less maintenance and operational issuesLess maintenance and operational issues

�� Design IssuesDesign Issues

•• Sensitive to Absorber feed gas temperatureSensitive to Absorber feed gas temperature

•• Design Absorber with vendor of internals:packing,distributors,..Design Absorber with vendor of internals:packing,distributors,..

•• Design outlet separators to avoid TEG carry overDesign outlet separators to avoid TEG carry over

•• Pure TEG melting point is Pure TEG melting point is ––5 5 °°CC

7


2424

2424

2424

3434


Temperature Temperature °°CC

44

44

33

44

Number ofNumber of

stagesstages

0.20.2

0.10.1

0.10.1

0.10.1

TEG water TEG water

content content

% weight% weight

5.55.5

2.92.9

4.04.0

6.36.3

Dry gas water Dry gas water

content content

ppm moleppm mole

�� 3.4 3.4 TEG dehydration sensitivity: dehydration at 62 barsTEG dehydration sensitivity: dehydration at 62 bars

8

4. Ethane recovery : which process choose4. Ethane recovery : which process choose

�� 4.1 4.1

�� Propane market accepts additional low sulfur LPG Propane market accepts additional low sulfur LPG

�� No world wide Ethane market No world wide Ethane market

�� Ethane production : constant or Variable?Ethane production : constant or Variable?

�� Feed Gas and Sales gas constant or variable ? Feed Gas and Sales gas constant or variable ?

9

4. NGL Recovery process : Constant Ethane4. NGL Recovery process : Constant Ethane

�� 4.2 Constant Ethane with variable Feed Gas4.2 Constant Ethane with variable Feed Gas

�� Situation met in Europe : Lacq from 1987 to 2000Situation met in Europe : Lacq from 1987 to 2000

•• High sales production during winter and reduced gas production iHigh sales production during winter and reduced gas production in n

summer,constant ethane production to meet the ethylene productiosummer,constant ethane production to meet the ethylene productionn

�� Option 1 : reject Option 1 : reject

�� Option 2 : modify recovery rateOption 2 : modify recovery rate

�� Dual Reflux Process is an attractive solution : Dual Reflux Process is an attractive solution :

10

NGL (C2+)NGL (C2+)

Feed gasFeed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gasSales gas

V1

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

25 bars

-94°C

60 bar

34°C

Single Reflux Ethane Recovery Single Reflux Ethane Recovery

Ethane recovery 72.4% : 47900 kg/hPower 180 kW.h / t NGL

800 mmscfd

-34°C

7600 kW 738 mmscfd738 mmscfd23600 kW

129700 kg/h

GT

11

NGL (C2+)NGL (C2+)

Feed gasFeed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gasSales gas

V1

recyclerecycle

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

Ethane recovery : 84.8% 49100 kg/hPower 195 kW.h / t NGL 84 mmscfd

7100 kW

-34°C

121200 kg/h

641 mmscfd725 mmscfd23600 kW

25 bars

-99°C

700 mmscfd

GT60 bar

Dual Reflux Ethane Recovery Dual Reflux Ethane Recovery

12

NGL (C2+)NGL (C2+)

Feed gasFeed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gasSales gas

V1

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

25 bars

-102°C

GT

Ethane recovery : 96 % 47650 kg/hPower 215 kW.h / t NGL

6800 kW

-34°C

109500 kg/h

546 mmscfdrecyclerecycle

168 mmscfd 714 mmscfd23400 kW

600 mmscfd

60 bar

Dual Reflux Ethane Recovery Dual Reflux Ethane Recovery

13

NGL (C2+)NGL (C2+)

Feed gasFeed gas

T1 K1

E1

Sales gasSales gas

V1V2

E2

K2

C1

60 bar

Ethane recovery 88.6 % 51300 kg/hPower 191 kW.h / t NGL 724 mmscfd

23600 kW7100 kW

-34°C

640 mmscfdrecyclerecycle

84 mmscfd

123400 kg/h

25 bars

-100°C

700 mmscfd

GT60 bar

Multiple Reflux Ethane Recovery Multiple Reflux Ethane Recovery

14

4. Ethane recovery : Variable Ethane production4. Ethane recovery : Variable Ethane production

�� 4.3 Variable Ethane ( with constant Feed Gas )4.3 Variable Ethane ( with constant Feed Gas )

�� Option 1 : recover COption 1 : recover C22 and reject Cand reject C22 to sales gasto sales gas

•• Effective easy to operate but costly in fuelEffective easy to operate but costly in fuel

�� Option 2 : limit recovery and possibly loose some COption 2 : limit recovery and possibly loose some C33

•• Easy to operate but not economic if CEasy to operate but not economic if C33 price is highprice is high

�� Option 3 : switch from a high COption 3 : switch from a high C22 recovery scheme to a low Crecovery scheme to a low C22and high Cand high C33 recovery scheme recovery scheme

•• Efficient but needs skilled operatorsEfficient but needs skilled operators

�� Option 4 : change operating conditions : slowly go from a Option 4 : change operating conditions : slowly go from a

high Chigh C22 recovery to low Crecovery to low C22 and high Cand high C33 recovery recovery

•• Efficient and easy to operate but higher CAPEX Efficient and easy to operate but higher CAPEX

15

4.4. The ethane recovery dilemma The ethane recovery dilemma

4.4 4.4 ConclusionConclusion

�� To choose the best scheme To choose the best scheme

�� The different options have to be comparedThe different options have to be compared

�� Some options shall be left open in design competition for Some options shall be left open in design competition for

LSTK LSTK

�� Client has to evaluate different production scenarios Client has to evaluate different production scenarios

�� It is always possible to modify a Propane recovery It is always possible to modify a Propane recovery

scheme to obtain an Ethane recovery scheme scheme to obtain an Ethane recovery scheme

�� Some provisions have to be takenSome provisions have to be taken

16

5. NGL Fractionation : an energy sink5. NGL Fractionation : an energy sink

�� 5.1 Observation5.1 Observation

�� High energy demand for NGL fractionationHigh energy demand for NGL fractionation

�� 5.2 Solutions to minimize this energy consumption5.2 Solutions to minimize this energy consumption

�� Study heat integration Study heat integration

�� Combine fractionation with cogenerationCombine fractionation with cogeneration

Reboiling Heat

300 kW.h / t of NGL

Fuel 360 kW.h / t of NGLTOTALTOTAL

CC44 SplitterSplitter

DebutanizerDebutanizer

DepropaniserDepropaniser

DeethaniserDeethaniser

7100071000

2000020000

1150011500

1780017800

2170021700

Duty Reboiler Duty Reboiler

(kW)(kW)

245245

5555

4545

8080

6565

Product Product

(t/h)(t/h)

i+n Ci+n C44

CC55++

PropanePropane

EthaneEthane

Example in Jose, VenezuelaExample in Jose, Venezuela

17

Hot oilHot oil Hot oilHot oil

EthaneEthane65 t/h65 t/h

NGL FeedNGL Feed

245 t/h245 t/h


Hot oilHot oil

CC33

DepropaniserDepropaniser DebutaniserDebutaniser

CC55+ 45 t/h+ 45 t/h

Hot oilHot oil

nn--ButaneButane35 t/h35 t/h

C4 splitterC4 splitter

PropanePropane

80 t/h80 t/hii--ButaneButane

20 t/h20 t/h

�� 5.3 NGL Fractionation with Heat Integration5.3 NGL Fractionation with Heat Integration


integrationintegration

18

LP SteamLP Steam LP SteamLP Steam

EthaneEthane65 t/h65 t/h

NGL FeedNGL Feed

245 t/h245 t/h


LP SteamLP Steam

CC33

DepropaniserDepropaniser DebutaniserDebutaniser

CC55+ 45 t/h+ 45 t/h

LP SteamLP Steam

nn--ButaneButane35 t/h35 t/h

C4 splitterC4 splitter

PropanePropane

80 t/h80 t/hii--ButaneButane

20 t/h20 t/h

�� 5.4 NGL Fractionation with Cogeneration5.4 NGL Fractionation with Cogeneration


19

ReboilersReboilers

G

PreheatersPreheaters

Boiler(s)Boiler(s)

5 bar abs5 bar abs

110 t/h110 t/h

63 bar abs63 bar abs

150150°°CC

14 MW14 MW

440440°°CC


�� 5.5 Cogeneration5.5 Cogeneration

20


CAPEXCAPEX

Possible use of GT exhaust Possible use of GT exhaust

gasesgases

Efficiency Efficiency

Electrical Power Production kWElectrical Power Production kW

Fuel consumption kWFuel consumption kW

Heating Medium for reboilersHeating Medium for reboilers

Highest column bottom Highest column bottom

temperature (temperature (°°C)C)

lowlow

yesyes

N/AN/A

88 00088 000

Hot WaterHot Water

125125°°CC

No integrationNo integration

mediummedium

N/AN/A

88 00088 000

Hot OilHot Oil

170170°°CC

Process Process

integrationintegration

highhigh

yesyes

highhigh

14 00014 000

88 00088 000

LP SteamLP Steam

125125°°CC

CogenerationCogeneration

�� 5.6 Comparison 5.6 Comparison

21

�� 6.1 : 3 options considered6.1 : 3 options considered

�� CC33 Boil Off Gas compressor , closed propane loop and CBoil Off Gas compressor , closed propane loop and C33

compressor with 1st stage suction under vacuum,compressor with 1st stage suction under vacuum,

�� CC33 Boil Off Gas compressor , closed propane loop and CBoil Off Gas compressor , closed propane loop and C33

compressor with 1st stage suction above atmospheric compressor with 1st stage suction above atmospheric pressure,pressure,

�� Semi open propane loop , single propane compressor with Semi open propane loop , single propane compressor with suction at atmospheric pressure , for Boil Off Gas and Csuction at atmospheric pressure , for Boil Off Gas and C33

refrigerant .refrigerant .

6. C6. C33 Refrigeration and Atmospheric Storage: which cycle?Refrigeration and Atmospheric Storage: which cycle?

22

6.2 Closed Loop6.2 Closed Loop

PropanePropane

BOGBOG


PropanePropane

RundownRundown

160 t/h160 t/h

PropanePropane Overall Power Consumption: 5700 kWOverall Power Consumption: 5700 kW

1.3 t/h1.3 t/h

0.7 bar0.7 bar

2.4 bar2.4 bar

8.5 bar8.5 bar

23

PropanePropane 6.3 Semi6.3 Semi--Open LoopOpen Loop


PropanePropane

BOGBOG

PropanePropane

RundownRundown

160 t/h160 t/h

Overall Power Consumption: 5400 kWOverall Power Consumption: 5400 kW

10 t/h10 t/h

1.0 bar1.0 bar

2.7 bar2.7 bar

8.9 bar8.9 bar

24


SafetySafety

CAPEXCAPEX

LP C3 Suction PressureLP C3 Suction Pressure 0.7 bar a0.7 bar a

CLOSED LOOP CLOSED LOOP

VacuumVacuum

goodgood

1.2 bar a1.2 bar a

CLOSED LOOP CLOSED LOOP

AtmosphericAtmospheric

lowerlower

1.0 bar a1.0 bar a

SEMISEMI--OPENOPEN

AtmosphericAtmospheric

�� 6.4 Comparison 6.4 Comparison

25

7. 7. ConclusionConclusion

�� To design , build and operate the best NGL plantTo design , build and operate the best NGL plant

�� Many options are available and have to be comparedMany options are available and have to be compared

�� Success factorsSuccess factors

�� Understand the requirementsUnderstand the requirements

�� Operability comes first Operability comes first

�� Collaboration between ClientCollaboration between Client--ContractorContractor--Suppliers Suppliers

compare the different options for ngl recovery from natural gas

Documents