Hydro Carbon Alkylization

[ T Y P E T H E C O M P A N Y A D D R E S S ]
2008
RemovalofCO2froma
HydrogenPlant

Department of
Chemical Engineering

Robert St. Pierre, Phung-Minh Dai, Mark Dalton

Removal of CO
2
from a Hydrogen Plant

By:
Robert St. Pierre, Phung-Minh Dai, and Mark Dalton

Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Saskatchewan

2007-2008
i
Abstract

Husky Energys Lloydminster Upgrader wanted to determine if removing carbon
dioxide from their Hydrogen plant would be economical using current technology. A
computer model of the plant was developed using the HYSYS process simulator for this
purpose. The model was used to predict the effects of removing the CO
2
on the existing
plant. From the effects seen in the model the savings related to lowering the heating costs
could be determined.
To remove the CO
2
from the process stream an absorption system using
Monoethanolamine (MEA) was designed. The removal system consists of a 15 tray
absorber, a 17 stage regenerator, and a 12 stage MEA guard absorber along with several
pumps and heat exchangers. The system is able to remove 35 tonnes per hour of CO
2
at
94 percent purity, with the remainder being water. The capital cost of this project is
approximately $9.82 million.
The economics of the project were not found to be favourable. The total savings
from removing the CO
2
from the gas stream are approximately $859,000 per year. The
cost to operate the amine system is around $16.9 million per year. If a value of $50.43
per tonne CO
2
is applied then the net cash flow is zero. If a value of $67.33 per tonne
CO
2
is applied then the project will break even after 25 years. It is RPMs
recommendation that Husky conduct an investigation to determine the value they can
place on the CO
2
product before moving forward with this project.

ii
Acknowledgements

RPM is pleased to acknowledge the following people for their contributions and
guidance:
Tristan Koroscil, Senior Unit Contact Engineer Husky Upgrader
Bob Brierly, Senior Staff Process Engineer Husky Upgrader
Les Alberts, Gas Treating Specialist, Dow Chemical Canada
Dr. Hui Wang, U of S Chemical Engineering Assistant Professor
Dr. Richard Evitts, U of S Chemical Engineering Associate Professor
Dr. Ding-Yu Peng, U of S Chemical Engineering Professor
Dr. Gordon Hill, U of S Chemical Engineer Department Head
Trey Brown, Vice President of Process Engineering, New Point Gas Services

iii
Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
Nomenclature................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Literature Survey: Alternative Processes .................................................................... 2
2.1 Membrane Separation ......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Hot Potassium Carbonate.................................................................................... 3
2.3 Amine Separation................................................................................................ 4
3. Detailed Qualitative Process Description.................................................................... 7
3.1 HYSYS Simulation............................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Detailed Model Specifications........................................................................ 7
3.1.2 Tail Gas Flow Rate Assumption................................................................... 22
3.2 AMSIM Simulation .......................................................................................... 25
4. Equipment Specification and Design ........................................................................ 29
5. Plant Safety Analysis................................................................................................. 31
6. Economic Analysis .................................................................................................... 33
7. Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................... 36
8. References ................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix A: Sample Calculations................................................................................... 39
iv
A.1 Membrane Size ..................................................................................................... 40
A.2 Absorber Size and Cost......................................................................................... 41
A.3 Regenerator Size and Cost .................................................................................... 42
A.4 Condenser Heat Exchanger Size........................................................................... 44
A.5 Centrifugal Pump Size and Cost ........................................................................... 45
A.6 Amine Holding Tank Size..................................................................................... 47
A.7 Depreciation.......................................................................................................... 48
A.8 Combo Gas Savings .............................................................................................. 48
A.9 Combustion Air...................................................................................................... 48
A.10 Steam Losses....................................................................................................... 49
Appendix B: Safety Document ........................................................................................ 50
B.1 Amine Plant Design Criteria ................................................................................. 51
B.2 HAZOP/Safety Considerations ............................................................................. 52
B.3 Plant Safety ........................................................................................................... 59
B.4 Process Safety Management System..................................................................... 62
B.5 Chemical Hazard Information............................................................................... 63
B.6 MSDS.................................................................................................................... 65
B.6.1 Hydrogen, H
2
................................................................................................. 65
B.6.2 Monoethanolamine, MEA ............................................................................. 67
B.6.3 Methane, CH
4
................................................................................................ 75
B.6.4 Carbon Dioxide, CO
2
.................................................................................... 79
B.6.5 Carbon Monoxide, CO.................................................................................... 85
B.6.6 Nitrogen, N
2
................................................................................................... 91
v
B.7 Dow Fire and Explosion Index.............................................................................. 93
Appendix C: EconExpert Equipment Costing Results .................................................... 95
C.1 Towers................................................................................................................... 96
C.2 Heat Exchangers.................................................................................................... 98
C.3 Pumps .................................................................................................................. 100
C.4 Storage Vessel ..................................................................................................... 101
C.5 Process Vessels ................................................................................................... 101
Appendix D: Cash Flow Analysis................................................................................... 104
Appendix E: HYSYS Reports......................................................................................... 107
Appendix E1.1: PSA Tail Gas With CO
2
................................................................ 108
Appendix E1.2: Reformer Furnace With CO
2
......................................................... 112
Appendix E2.1: PSA Tail Gas Without CO
2
........................................................... 124
Appendix E2.2: Reformer without CO
2
.................................................................. 127
Appendix F: AMSIM Reports ....................................................................................... 139

vi
List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Process Changes ........................................................................... 22
Table 2: Summary of Equipment Sizing and Specifications ............................................ 29
Table B. 1: Chemical Hazard Information Summary ...................................................... 64
Table C. 1: Ulrich Equipment Costing .......................................................................... 103
Table D. 1: Cash Flow Analysis .................................................................................... 105
Table D. 2: Cash flows at Different Carbon Tax Rates ................................................. 106
Table F. 1: Composition Profile of CO
2
in Absorber A................................................. 140
Table F. 2: Vapour Phase Properties in Absorber A...................................................... 140
Table F. 3: Liquid Phase Properties in Absorber A....................................................... 141
2
in Regenerator................................................ 141
Table F. 6: Liquid Phase Properties in the Regenerator ................................................ 142

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1: CO2 Removal Processes Comparison................................................................. 4
Figure 2: HYSYS Simulation Section 1 ............................................................................. 8
Figure 3: Specified Inlet Gas Compositions ...................................................................... 9
Figure 4: HYSYS Simulation Section 2 ........................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Specified Combo Gas Composition ................................................................. 18
Figure 8: Plant 30 Block Diagram................................................................................... 24
Figure 9: Amine System Flow Diagram........................................................................... 27
Figure 10: Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow at Different Carbon Tax Rates in $/tonne
CO
2
Emitted.................................................................................................... 35

viii
Nomenclature

Symbol Description Units

A heat exchanger surface area m
2

c
P
purchased equipment cost $
C
BM
Bare Module Cost $
C
P
heat capacity kJ/kg
o
C
D diameter m
e
d,em
electric motor efficiency kJ/s
e
d,gt
gas turbine efficiency kJ/s
i
pump efficiency
f
q
quantity factor
2
CO
F molar flow of carbon dioxide mol/s
F
a
BM
bare module factor,
F
M
material factor
F
P
pressure factor
H
col
height of column m
2
CO
j molar flux of carbon dioxide mol/m
2
s
n
act
number of stages
P pressure barg
em
P electric motor power kJ/s
gt
P gas turbine power kJ/s
Q rate of heat transfer J/s
q volumetric flowrate m
3
/s
s tray spacing m
T
ci
temperature of the cold stream at inlet
o
C
T
co
temperature of the cold stream at outlet
o
C
T
hi
temperature of the hot stream at inlet
o
C
T
ho
temperature of the hot stream at outlet
o
C
U overall heat transfer coefficient W/m
2o
C
s
W shaft power kW

1

1. Introduction

The purpose of this project was to remove CO
2
from a methane reformer gas
stream located at Husky Energys Lloydminster Upgrader. An economic opportunity was
seen in removing this CO
2
for two main reasons. First, the CO
2
produced in the
reforming and shift reactions is currently part of the fuel gas for the reformer furnace and
by removing the CO
2
,

and thereby reducing the heating requirements,

there are potential
savings in the reformer furnace. The second reason is that the CO
2
produced by the
removal process could then be used by Husky for their enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
projects.
The project itself has three major objectives which needed to be achieved in order
for the project to be deemed a success. First a working model of the current Hydrogen
plant using simulation software had to be completed. The CO
2
removal system then had
to be designed, the equipment sized, and the costs estimated. Finally, the effects of the
CO
2
removal on the Hydrogen plant, including savings due to lower combo gas flows and
changes to any additional flows or conditions, had to be determined. From the changes
observed in the system economics could be performed to determine the projects
feasibility.

2

2. Literature Survey: Alternative Processes

2.1 Membrane Separation

One of the technologies examined for the CO
2
removal project was membrane
technology. Membrane separation works by gas molecules permeating through a thin
membrane due to a pressure gradient across the membrane. Different species permeate
the membrane at different speeds due to a large number of factors including the size of
the molecule, the speed of sorption onto the membrane, the ability of the molecule to
dissolve in the membrane, the rigidity of the membrane lattice, and many other factors.
These factors can be summarized by the permeability of the species which is obviously
different for each component through each membrane. Although membranes can
produce the high purities that would be desirable the main design challenge is due to the
large membrane area caused by the high flow rate of the gas stream.
In order to find out if a membrane solution would be feasible a preliminary
calculation was performed. This calculation assumed that only CO
2
would permeate the
membrane, an assumption that would be unacceptable for further design. The calculation
also assumed that the membrane had the highest permeability that could be found for CO
2

based on Scotts Industrial Membrane Separation Technology, which was a
permeability of 2700 Barrer. (Scott) The next assumption made was that the permeate
gas stream was a perfect vacuum, thereby creating the greatest flux. The final
3
assumption was that the membrane has a thickness of 1mm. For a 600 kgmol/hr
separation of CO
2
the minimum surface area, based on the calculated flux of 5.87x10
-4

mol/m
2
s, was found to be 283,736m
2
which is far beyond the range of feasibility. Due to
the extremely large ideal area needed the membrane system was not pursued further. A
summary of the calculation is shown in Appendix A.

2.2 Hot Potassium Carbonate

Another alternative technology that was considered was using a physical solvent,
namely hot potassium carbonate. As displayed in Figure 1 the hot potassium carbonate
process could be used based on the composition of our process gas stream as seen in
Appendix E1.1. However, the hot potassium carbonate process requires a high contactor
temperature which was not ideal for our process system. The contactor temperature
required for the process is 110
o
C and the process gas stream is cooled from 170
o
C to
69
o
C by raw gas air coolers. Therefore in order to utilize the hot potassium carbonate
process the gas stream would need to be reheated to 110
o
C. This additional energy
required is undesired as the energy costs for the process were recognized as a potential
downfall of the project. Therefore alternative solvents were considered, such as primary
and secondary amines.
Other physical solvents are used in industry other than potassium carbonate such
as Dow Chemicals patented Selexol. Selexol is a popular physical solvent in industry
that could possibly be utilized for this system. However because Selexols composition
is proprietary to Dow, simulation and comparison with this solvent was not possible. If
4
this project is to be explored further it is RPMs recommendation that Selexol or another
physical solvent be considered for the process.

Figure 1: CO2 Removal Processes Comparison (Maddox)

2.3 Amine Separation

The third technology explored was using an amine solvent such as
Monoethanolamine or Diethanolomine to absorb the CO
2
from the gas stream. As can be
seen in the Figure 1 the primary and secondary amines are mainly utilized for smaller
acid gas concentrations but can be used in our process as the volume of CO
2
is within the
threshold. Amine solvents are common in industry to sweeten acid gas streams by
removing H
2
S and/or CO
2.

5
The amine process comprises of a contacting tower operating at a high pressure
and low temperature. These conditions are ideal for our process as the hydrogen gas
stream operates at 24
o
C and 2200 kPag at our tie in point. Following absorption in the
contactor the CO
2
can be captured by desorbing the CO
2
from the amine solution in a
regeneration tower at a low pressure and high temperature. The amine solution can then
be recycled back into the contactor tower to absorb more CO
2
.
When amine solvents are used to absorb CO
2
the process occurs through reactive
absorption. When the gas and absorbent are contacted a reversible chemical reaction
occurs, unlike the more common physical absorption like when water is used as a solvent.
When designing an absorption column which undergoes a reversible chemical reaction
new complexities are added to the task. Upon further research it was discovered that
simulating reversible chemical reactions, are best handled by computer-aided
calculations. (J. D. Seader)
There are several amine solutions that can be used to absorb CO
2
, each with different
strengths and drawbacks. The following is a list of potential amine solutions that could
be utilized:
Monoethanolamine (MEA)
Diethanolamine (DEA)
Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)
Triethanolamine (TEA)
Diglycolamine (DGA)
Diisopropanolamine (DIPA)

6
MEA was chosen in the design because it is the strongest base of the listed amines
and therefore reacts most rapidly with the acid gases. The rapid reaction was deemed
beneficial to limit the size of our absorber tower. Also it was discovered that, MEA has
the lowest molecular weight of the common amines (and) it theoretically has the largest
carrying capacity for acid gases on a unit weight or volume basis. (Maddox) The large
carrying capacity was an important factor in choosing MEA because it would enable the
system to use less solvent. A smaller amount of solvent will result in a lower energy
requirement to regenerate the amine.

7

3. Detailed Qualitative Process Description

3.1 HYSYS Simulation

A major part of the project was determining the effects of the CO
2
removal on the
existing system. In order to accurately examine how the rest of Plant 30 would react to
the changes in the system, a HYSYS simulation for the current plant was constructed.
The model deals with the Hydrogen plant from the feedstock until directly after the
pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit. The following section will go through, in detail,
how the HYSYS simulation works, what assumptions have been made, and how the
model was used to examine how removing the CO
2
from after the reformer will affect the
rest of the system. The names of streams and unit operations within the HYSYS
simulation will be referred to in parentheses the first time they are mentioned.

3.1.1 Detailed Model Specifications

The simulation uses the Peng-Robinson equation of state as the fluid package for
the simulation. It is used by HYSYS to calculate the thermodynamic properties
associated with the streams.
8

Figure 2: HYSYS Simulation Section 1

The model begins with the inlet natural gas (Nat gas in) which is at 43
o
C and
3500 kPa pressure. The gas flows at 23.5 tonnes per hour. The composition of the
stream was provided by Husky and can be seen below in Figure 3.
9

Figure 3: Specified Inlet Gas Compositions

The inlet gas is mixed with recycle Hydrogen at 500
o
C and 4581 kPa in a mixer
(MIX-101). The recycle H
2
is flowing at a rate of 290 std m
3
per hour. The mixture is
then heated by convection section gas in a heat exchanger (Hydrocarbon Preheat Coil) to
350
o
C. The heat exchanger is modelled with no pressure drop, no heat losses, and the Ft
correction factor is not calculated. The size of the heat exchanger is modelled as 60 m
2

which is not representative of the actual exchanger, which is much larger. The area,
however, does not matter because the discrepancy between the actual area and the
specified area will be taken into account by the UA term. The UA term was found to be
80900 kJ/
o
C-h, which is based on the outlet temperature specification for the inlet stream
and duty estimates for the heat exchanger from the P&IDs provided by Husky of
7.13MW.
10
In the plant the heated inlet gas stream (Past Sulphur Guard) will move through a
sulphur guard unit to eliminate any H
2
S, however in the HYSYS model the system is
ignored. The sulphur guard system is ignored because it does will not have an effect on
the system when it is changed. It also does not appreciably change operating conditions
of the inlet gas stream, which does not contain H
2
S, and so it has not been included in the
model.
After the sulphur guard the gas is mixed with steam in a static mixer (30-MX-
002) in a molar ratio of 3.348 mol steam to 1 mol of inlet gas. This is accomplished by
the set function (SET-3). The actual molar ratio used is 3.6 mol of steam per mol of
methane. Methane makes up 93 percent of the inlet gas stream and so 93 percent of 3.6,
or 3.348, is used as the set point value. The steam is at a temperature of 330
o
C and is
produced by flue gas in the Steam Superheat Coil. An explanation of the Steam
Superheat Coil can be found later in this section.
The mixed gas stream from 30-MX-002 (To Convection Section) then moves to a
recycle function (RCY-2). The recycle function allows for the HYSYS model to iterate
until interdependent parts of the model converge. In this case the interdependent parts of
the model are the inlet gas stream and three of the four convection section heat
exchangers. After the iteration is complete the stream (To Convection Section-2) enters
the third preheat heat exchanger (Mixed Feed Preheat Coil).
11


The next heat exchanger heats the mixed feed stream from 350
o
C to 450
o
C before
entering the reformer. The exchanger, again, does not model Ft correction factor, heat
loss, or pressure drop. The exchanger heat duty was estimated at 14.32 MW. From the
duty spec and outlet temperature a UA value of 151,700 kJ/
o
C-h was calculated for the
exchanger. After the feed has been heated the gas enters the reformer furnace on the tube
side.
The tube side of the reformer furnace (30-F-001-A) is modelled as a conversion
reactor. The reformation reaction converts hydrocarbons and steam to CO and H
2
. A
reformer shift reaction also occurs within the reformer which converts CO and steam to
12
CO
2
and H
2
. The components and mole balances for the multiple reforming reactions
and the shift reaction can be seen in Appendix E..2 and E2.2.
The reforming reaction is assumed to occur for all of the higher hydrocarbons
with 100 percent conversion. Methane is converted with 72.8 percent conversion and the
shift reaction is assumed to have 58 percent conversion. These conversions were
determined by trial and error in order to have the proper methane concentration in the
stream out of the reactor (To Waste HEX) on a water free molar basis, as given in the
simplified process flow diagram provided by Husky. The water free composition is
checked by splitting the water from the stream and checking the composition. This is
done by the hypothetical splitter (X-100) and checked with the top stream. (Hypothetical)
The stream is then remixed (MIX-100) before being sent to the waste heat exchanger.
(To Waste HEX2) The liquid stream on the reformer (DNE2) does not exist but is
required by HYSYS to operate.


13
The waste heat exchanger (E-103) cools the gas from 795
o
C to 365
o
C by using
steam from the 4500kPa steam drum. The steam flow is set at 5600 kgmol/h or 100,900
kg/h and was specified because it gives a saturated vapour at the exit of the exchanger.
(To SD1) The steam enters as a saturated liquid at 4500 kPa and 258.5
o
C and exits the
exchanger at 259.9
o
C as a vapour. The exchanger itself has a tube side pressure drop of
1200 kPa based on the flow diagrams and a shell side assumed pressure drop of zero. No
heat loss modelled and the Ft correction factor is not calculated. Again the default area of
heat transfer is 60 m
2
and the UA value is 493,200 kJ/
o
C-h. The UA value was found by
using the outlet temperature gas stream and specifying a value for the steam flow rate.
From the reformer waste heat exchanger the gas then moves to the shift converter.
The shift converter (30-R-004) is a reactor that uses the shift reaction seen above
to convert CO and steam to Hydrogen and CO
2
. The reactor is modeled as a conversion
reactor, again because kinetic reaction data was not available. A conversion of 65.5
percent gives the proper composition for the tail gas stream after the PSA unit (PSA Tail
Gas-1) and so it is used. The outlet temperature of the gas stream is 403
o
C, as calculated
by the heat of reaction. The liquid flow (DNE3) out of the reactor does not exist but must
be included for HYSYS to operate. The shift gas now moves to through a pair of heat
exchangers.
The next step in the process is a series of two heat exchangers which, in order, are
the shift waste heat exchanger (30-E-004) and the boiler feed water pre-heater. (30-E-
005) Both exchangers do not model heat loss and do not have a pressure drop over either
the tube or shell side. The water flow rates are 230,000 kg/h and 125,000 kg/h for the
shift waste heat exchanger and the boiler feed water pre-heater respectively. The water
14
for the shift waste heat exchanger (From P1) enters at a specified 125
o
C and exits at
162.1
o
C. The boiler feed water (From P2) enters at the same specified temperature of
125
o
C and exits at a temperature of 174.7
o
C. The overall heat transfer coefficients, UA,
are 204,600 kJ/
o
C-h and 421,700 kJ/
o
C-h for the shift waste heat exchanger and the boiler
feed water pre-heater respectively. Both the inlet temperatures and the flow rates of both
exchangers are specified in the Husky process flow diagrams. The pressure of both water
streams is 5200kPa which is specified in the process P&IDs.
The gas stream proceeds from the boiler feed water preheater to the first
condensate drum, the hot condensate drum. (30-D-007) The drum is modelled as a
component splitter that removes water from the stream. The splitter removes 2 percent of
the water in the stream and sends it to the dearator which is not shown in the HYSYS
model. The stream exits at 177.1
o
C and proceeds to the fin fan cooler section.
The raw gas coolers (30-E-007 A/B/C/D/E/F) are a set of large fans that lower the
temperature by moving air over a large number of tubes. The coolers are simply
modelled as a cooler. The cooler lowers the temperature of the gas stream from 177.1
o
C
to a 50
o
C, as stated in the Plant 30 documents supplied by Husky. The model predicts a
power of 40.67 MW which is feasible because they are designed for 56.72 MW. The
power was specified by setting the outlet temperature of the stream to 50
o
C and copying
the calculated power.
15


After the raw gas coolers the next step is through a second condensate drum. (30-
D-080) The drum, like the other drum, is modelled as a component splitter and removes
50 percent of the water in the stream, which amounts to 24,140 kg/h. The number is just
an estimate since no flow data was supplied and the flow will not have an appreciable
effect on the rest of the system. The next stage in the process is another heat exchanger.
The heat exchanger that follows the condensate drum is the raw gas trim cooler.
(30-E-008) The cooler uses 20
o
C water at 550kPa to lower the gas temperature from
50
o
C to 23
o
C. The water used, according to the model, flows at a rate of 667,700 kg/h
which may not be accurate since the water removed by the condensate drum may not be
accurate. The water on the outlet of the exchanger is specified in the flow diagrams as
16
being 23
o
C. A pressure drop of 99kPa on the tube side and 210kPa on the shell side are
assumed from the process flow sheets. The exchanger, like all of the others within the
model, uses a default heat transfer area of 60m
2
and has a UA value of 778,800 kJ/
o
C-h.
The next step for the gas is the final cold condensate drum. (30-D-008) The drum
is again modelled as a splitter and removes all of the water left in the stream. The water,
like in the last condensate drum, goes to the dearator which is not modelled at a flow of
241,400 kg/h. The gas then moves to the PSA unit where the gas is purified.
The pressure swing absorption unit (30-PK-004) is made up of 13 process vessels
that purify the Hydrogen. The unit is quite complex and for this reason it was decided
that it should be modelled as a mole and heat balance. The Hydrogen product stream
(Hydrogen Product) is assumed to be 99.5 percent pure, with the remaining .5 percent
being CO. The stream is specified as having a temperature of 25
o
C and a pressure of
2180kPa. The flow rate of the stream is determined from the inlet gas flow rate using the
set function (SET-2) which makes the molar flow of the outlet hydrogen stream 2.48
times the molar flow of the inlet gas stream; a specification which was provided by
Husky. The PSA tails gas (PSA Tail Gas-1) has a specified pressure of 40kPa and a
calculated temperature of 17.29
o
C. The flow rate of the gas is approximately 48,400 std
m
3
/h which does not agree with the value specified by Husky of 35,000 std m
3
/h, this is
discussed later in Section 3.1.2. The compositions of the stream are determined by the
mole balance and reflect the compositions of the actual gas stream. The removed CO
2

(CO
2
Out) also attaches to the PSA unit in the model simply because the tie in point for
the CO
2
removal system is directly before the PSA unit and the system does not have an
appreciable affect on the stream composition beyond removing CO
2
.
17
The tail gas from the PSA unit still has a large heating value and so is sent back to
the reformer furnace as a feed for the burners. The tail gas can be sent to vent if it is
deemed necessary and so a tee (TEE-100) has be placed in the model. The tee currently
assumes that no gas is sent to vent, however it is available if more accurate process
information is obtained. The tail gas then moves through a second recycle function.
(RCY-1) The function, like the other recycle, allows HYSYS to iterate. In this case the
recycle function is used to ensure that the temperature around the loop that begins and
ends with the mixed feed preheat coil (Mixed Feed Preheat Coil) is consistent. The tail
gas (PSA Tail Gas-2) is now sent to the reformer burners.
The furnace part of the reformer (30-F-001-B) is modeled, in a similar fashion to
the tube side of the reformer, as a conversion reactor. The combustion section of the
reformer has three main feed streams: the PSA tail gas, a combo gas make-up stream, and
combustion air. The combo gas (Combo Gas) enters at a temperature of 55
o
C and a
pressure of 146.3kPa. The flow rate is also specified at 3900 std m
3
/h. The composition
of the combo gas was provided in a similar format to that of the inlet gas stream and can
be seen below in Figure 7.

18

Figure 7: Specified Combo Gas Composition

The combustion air (Combustion Air) is assumed to be 79 mol percent Nitrogen
and 21 mol percent Oxygen. The air is preheated to 300
o
C in a section prior to the
reformer and is not modeled. The pressure of the stream is 102.8kPa. The gas flow is
regulated by an adjust function (ADJ-1) which changes the flow rate of the combustion
air so that 2 percent oxygen is in the reformer flue gas stream. (Waste Gas) The flow rate
of the air predicted by the model is 194,000 kg/hr which is the same value that Husky
provided for the stream. Once the three feeds are added to the reformer the combustible
products are converted. All of the combustible products are assumed to have 100 percent
conversions in the reactor. The reaction stoichiometry for the reformer furnace can be in
Appendix E1.2 or E2.2 in the HYSYS reports.
19
The energy from the reformer combustion section is used for the energy for the
tube side of the reformer. The energy from the combustion reactions that is not used to
heat the gas stream to the reformers 800
o
C temperature is shown by HYSYS as an
energy stream. (Q-100) There is also a similar stream (Q-102) providing energy to the
tube section of the reformer in 30-F-001-A. At steady state the energy produced by the
combustion reaction should be equivalent to the energy consumed by the tube side of the
reformer plus the heat loss to the atmosphere. This is taken into account by setting the
energy of the tube side stream using a set function (SET-1) with a less than one multiplier
that acts as an efficiency factor. The heat transfer efficiency factor was set by adjusting
the value until an outlet temperature of 795
o
C was observed from the tube side reformer.
(To Waste HEX) The factor was found to be .8641 which, according to Ulrich, is in an
acceptable region for an industrial furnace (Ulrich, 149). It was assumed that this factor
would remain constant when the CO
2
was removed because the reformer should be
running at the same temperature and therefore should have similar heat transfer within the
tubes.
The flue gas from the combustion section of the reformer is at a high temperature
of 800
o
C and so is used for heating other process streams. The gas has a flow rate of
246,600 kg/h and is at a pressure of 40kPa. The composition of the stream is
approximately 17 percent CO
2
, 18 percent H
2
O, 63 percent Nitrogen, and 2 percent
Oxygen. The gas first moves to steam generation coil I (Steam Generation Coil I) to
produce steam for the steam drum 30-D-003. The water enters as a saturated liquid at
5200kPa with a flow rate of 441,700 kg/h as specified on the P&IDs. The exchanger, like
all of the others, does not model heat loss or the Ft correction factor. There is no pressure
20
loss over the tube side which contains the flue gas and a 50kPa drop over the shell side,
again specified in the P&IDs. The UA value is specified at 91,180 kJ/
o
C-h which is
based off of the heat duty specification of 11.78MW. The outlet gas (WG to MFPC) has
a temperature of 668.4
o
C. The outlet steam has a vapour fraction of .0512. The gas
stream then moves through the mixed feed preheat coil, which is described above, and is
cooled to 558.3
o
C. The next step is another steam generation exchanger.
The second steam exchanger (Steam Superheat Coil) takes steam from the steam
drum 30-D-003 and heats it so that it can be used elsewhere and to mix with the inlet feed
gas in 30-MX-002. The exchanger does not have a pressure drop for the shell or tube
side, it does not model heat loss, and the Ft correction factor is not calculated. The UA
value of 80,050kJ/
o
C-h was found by specifying the flow of steam to elsewhere in the
plant, (To Steam Turbines) the flow rate of steam into the mixer, (Steam) and the
temperature of the steam out of the exchanger at 330
o
C as specified in the process flow
diagram. Once the UA value was determined an adjust function (ADJ-5) was introduced
to change the inlet flow rate of the stream until the temperature of the outlet steam was
330
o
C. The flow specification on the other stream was also removed so that changes in
the inlet flow rate would not cause an error. In the exchanger the gas is cooled to
498.5
o
C. The gas then moves through the first heat exchanger (Hydrocarbon Preheat
Coil) and is cooled to 432.2
o
C.
The flue gass final destination is steam generation coil II (Steam Generation Coil
II) which cools the gas to 332.9
o
C. The heat exchanger, in the nature of this simulation,
does not show pressure drop over the shell or tube side, does not calculate the Ft
correction factor, and does not model heat loss. The UA value of 273,500kJ/
o
C-h was
21
determined from the heat transfer specification that 8.26MW of power are transferred to
the steam stream. The vapour fraction of the outlet stream predicted is .0917.
Several additional adjust functions exist within the model, each with its own
purpose when adjusting the model after the CO
2
is removed from the system. First is the
adjust function (ADJ-4) for the stream before the sulphur guard. (Past Sulphur Guard)
Although the sulphur guard is not modeled in the simulation the temperature through the
guard must be maintained or the reaction, if one is needed, to remove the sulphur will not
occur. The adjust therefore adjusts the combustion air flow until the proper temperature
of 350
o
C is obtained. This works against the adjust to maintain the flue gas composition
at 2 percent Oxygen (ADJ-1) and therefore if ADJ-4 is being used ADJ-1 should be
ignored and vice versa. Another adjust function used after the CO
2
is removed connects
the combo gas and the outlet flow from the tube section of the reformer. (To Waste HEX)
This adjust function (ADJ-2) adjusts the combo gas flow rate so that the temperature of
the reformer outlet is 795
o
C, the normal exit gas temperature. Once the CO
2
is removed
the combo gas flow rate will have to be changed so that the outlet temperature of the
tubes is maintained. This lowering of combo gas flow rate is the source of revenue for
this project and so the adjust function allows for it to be accurately predicted.
Once the CO
2
is removed several process conditions change. These changes
generally are temperatures and flow rates in the initial section of the simulation leading
up to the tube side reformer. The flow rates of the combo gas and combustion air are also
changed to make sure process conditions are maintained as much as possible, specifically
the outlet temperature of the reformer and the temperature of the sulphur guard stream.
22
Detailed analysis of these changes can be seen in the HYSYS reports in Appendix E2. A
summary of the major process changes can be seen below in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Process Changes

Initial
(kg/hr)
With CO
2

Removed
(kg/hr)
Savings (M
$CAD)
Combo Gas 982.2 831.2 1207784
Combustion Air 194000 232580.217 -306873
Steam Produced 1.5787E+05 1.5771E+05 -7.69E+04
CO2 Emitted 63998 27760 n/a

3.1.2 Tail Gas Flow Rate Assumption
The major assumption made by the model revolves around the flow of the PSA
tail gas stream. The value for the tail gas was provided as being 35,000 std m
3
/h
however the model predicts a value of 48,400 std m
3
/h. The issue was discussed with our
industrial contact and he said to assume the losses were due to leaks in the reformer
and to send the appropriate amount to vent. It was decided to not follow these directions
for the following reasons:
1. Despite there being many leaks in a reformer, especially because it operates at
below atmospheric pressure and viewing ports are not completely sealed, it does
not seem feasible that over 25 percent of the stream is being sent to vent. A leak
of this size would have been noticed at some point during the operation and it
would be a major safety concern.
2. According to the model the flow rate of 35,000 std m
3
/h does not produce the
energy needed to heat the stream from 450
o
C to 795
o
C, the actual normal
operating temperature of the tube side reformer outlet.
23
3. The combustion air flow rate predicted by the model agrees with the higher tail
gas flow rate and matches both that flow rate and the outlet gas composition of
two percent excess oxygen. The air flow at the measured composition is not
matched at 35,000 std m
3
/h.
4. The measurement for the tail gas flow occurs on the FD fan in the reformer, but
the P&IDs do not indicate if that flow rate is used to control the operation or if the
outlet gas composition is. It is likely the outlet gas composition that is used since
a feedback loop could be applied. This means that a broken or improperly
calibrated flow meter on the tail gas could go undetected by the operators.
5. The specifications given for the Hydrogen gas stream, inlet gas stream, and
composition of the tail gas stream fully define the flow of the PSA tail gas. As
can be seen below the reformer process up to the PSA unit can be seen as a black
box process. If a balance of Carbon atoms is done over the process it can be seen
that since the inlet flow rate and composition is defined, as is that of the Hydrogen
gas outlet, and the compositions of the tail gas stream the flow rate is also defined.
Also seen below is a rough calculation using the molar flow of methane as being
the only source of carbon with the other hydrocarbons assumed as being
negligible.

24

Figure 8: Plant 30 Block Diagram

h
m std
3
3 3 3
3 3 3 2 1
3
4 2 4
43,990
gives Conversion
1860
) 066 (. ) 176 (. ) 445 (. ) 005 (. 3456 ) 93 )(. 1393 (
h
kgmol
h
kgmol
h
kgmol
CO CH CO CO CH
F
F F F
y F y F y F y F y F
=
+ + + =
+ + + =

The other hydrocarbons in the natural gas feed will increase the flow of the
stream, however it can be seen that the flow is fully defined by the conditions
given.

Natural Gas in
93% CH
4

F
1
= 1393 kgmol/h
H
2
O
Out
H
2
O In
H
2
Out
99.5% H
2

.5% CO
F
2
= 3456 kgmol/h
PSA Tail Gas
44.5% CO
2

17.6% CH
4

6.6% CO
F
3
= 3456 kgmol/h
25
3.2 AMSIM Simulation

The design of our CO
2
extraction process using an amine solution was completed
using a computer simulation as recommended by Seader. It is necessary to use a
computer simulation to accomplish the task of modeling the CO
2
extraction system
because the absorption of gas into the solution is a reversible chemical reaction.
AMSIM, AMine treating unit SIMulator, was utilized to simulate and design the
CO
2
extraction process. AMSIM is a software package developed by Schlumberger that
simulates the steady state removal of acid gas from process streams using aqueous amine
solutions and physical solvents. In our application no H
2
S was present in our process gas
stream, therefore only CO
2
was absorbed by the process.
In order to calculate the mass transfer process of the amine treating unit, AMSIM
uses a non-equilibrium stage model. The fundamental concept that AMSIM uses is that
the rate of absorption and desorption is considered as a mass-transfer rate process.
(Schlumberger) To simultaneously solve the non-linear stage equations for temperature,
composition and phase rates for each stage of the column AMSIM uses a modified
Newton-Raphson method. The Kent and Eisenberg approach is used as a basis to model
the equilibrium solubility of acid gases in amine solutions. AMSIM also validates the
solubility model with experimental data and proprietary information.
Utilizing AMSIM the following process was designed to remove the CO
2
from
the reformer gas stream. The tower contacting the aqueous MEA with the gaseous
reformer stream is illustrated as Absorber A. Absorber A is simulated to be 9.14 m high
and 2.74 m in diameter consisting of 15 bubble cap trays and operates at 2164 kPa and
38
o
C. Bubble cap trays were chosen to allow a longer interaction time of the amine
26
solution and process gas resulting in a more complete absorption. The amine solution,
which is 30% by weight MEA, circulates at a rate of 407 m
3
/hr.
Following Absorber A the rich amine is depressurized in a vertical flash drum
sized to be 6.75 m high and 2.25 m in diameter. 31 kmol/hr of gas is flashed off and sent
to the PSA tails gas. The rich amine then flows through a lean/rich amine plate and
frame heat exchanger increasing the temperature from 69.6
o
C to 83.5
o
C. Once the rich
amine is heated it flows into the regenerator tower. The regenerator tower which is used
to regenerate the rich MEA and capture the absorbed CO
2
, is 10.36 m high and 3.2 m in
diameter consisting of 17 sieve trays. Sieve trays were chosen as they resulted in the
greatest amount of CO
2
captured when simulated with valve or bubble cap and are the
most cost effective. The overhead vapour flow from the regenerator is 1221kmol/hr
which consists of 67% CO
2
and 33% H
2
O on a molar basis. An overhead condenser
condenses the water using a plate and frame heat exchanger with a surface area of 261
m
2
. Following the condenser 864.9 kmol/hr of acid gas is captured consisting of 94.1%
of CO
2
and 5.8% water. Once the water is removed the CO
2
can then be used by Husky
for enhanced oil recovery.
Once the amine is regenerated in the tower the lean amine flows through the
lean/rich amine heat exchanger decreasing the temperature from 125
o
C to 107
o
C. The
lean amine is further cooled by another plate and frame heat exchanger that is sized to be
203 m
2
. This solvent cooler reduces the temperature of the amine to 37.8
o
C before re-
entering the contactor tower, Absorber A.

27

Figure 9: Amine System Flow Diagram
28
Absorber B, the MEA Guard, was added to the simulation in order to ensure no
MEA would be entrained in the process gas stream and contaminate the PSA unit. This
tower uses water as a solvent to absorb MEA from the lean gas stream. The water is
recycled until the MEA concentration increases to 7% by weight at which time it can then
be replaced. The MEA guard is modeled to be 7.31 m high and 1.68 m in diameter using
12 bubble cap trays. The lean gas stream then moves to a water knockout drum which
removes any water in the stream. The lean gas stream then moves to the PSA unit for
Hydrogen purification.

29

4. Equipment Specification and Design

The equipment sizing was done using the text by Ulrich. Sample calculations are
summarized in Appendix A. Table 2 is a summary of the equipment sizing. EconExpert,
a Ulrich based web tool, was used along with the September 2007 Final CEPCI value of
528.2 (Chemical Engineering Journal, Jan 2008) to find the Total Capital Cost for the
new amine system. This cost was determined to be approximately $9.82 million. A
break down of the equipment costs are shown in Table C.1 and a summary of EconExpert
results is shown in Appendix C.

Table 2: Summary of Equipment Sizing and Specifications

Towers Diameter (m) Height (m) # of Trays Material
Operating
P (barg)
Absorber 2.74 9.14 15 St-St 22
Regenerator 3.20 10.36 17 St-St 2.2
MEA Guard 1.68 7.32 12 St-St 2.1

Heat Exchangers Type Sub Type
Surface
Area (m
2
)
Material

Regenerator Reboiler Shell & Tube
Kettle
Reboiler
481 St-St

Regenerator Condenser Plate&Frame Flat Plate 261 St-St
Lean/Rich Amine Plate&Frame Flat Plate 1725 St-St
Solvent Cooler Plate&Frame Flat Plate 203 St-St

Pumps
Pump Shaft
Power (kW)
Suction P
(barg)
Type Material

Pump REGEN to ABS
(220 to 2164 kpa) 15.8 2.2 Centrifugal St-St
Pump for MEA Guard
(2100 to 2150 kpa) 1.06 2.1 Centrifugal St-St

30

Storage Vessels Volume (m
3
) Material

Amine Holding Tank 33 St-St

Process Vessels Orientation Sub Type
Diameter
(m)
Height
(m)
Material
Amine Flash Drum Vertical
no packing
or trays
2.25 6.75 St-St
Condenser Drum Vertical
no packing
or trays
1.40 2.50 St-St

31

5. Plant Safety Analysis

A plant safety analysis was conducted for the proposed amine plant. A full report is
included in Appendix B.
The Plant Safety Analysis conducted includes:
HAZOP of the overall plant design
Inherently Safe Design
Process Safety Management System
Chemical Hazard Information and MSDS
Dow Fire and Explosion Index

Highlights of the HAZOP recommendations include the selection of stainless steel
material because MEA is highly corrosive. HAZOP analysis can be found in Appendix
B.2. MSDS and Chemical Hazard Information for the materials in the stream are
included in Appendix B.6 and Table B.1. Other recommendations include the addition of
secondary pumps in situations of no-flow. As well, the use of inert gas to purge storage
and process drums to reduce corrosion, amine degradation, and prevent build up of
explosive mixtures. Finally, minimizing the amine flow (407m
3
/hr) reduces hazardous
material handling onsite.

32
The Process Safety Management System highlights include employee safety training
in the areas of personal protective equipment, steam use, hazardous material handling for
MEA, gas detection, and emergency evacuation.
Documentation is important especially in new employee cases and the inclusion of
operating manuals, equipment specifications, and frequency of maintenance are
important. These are summarized in Appendix B.4 and B.5.
Inherently Safe Design analysis using the concept of Intensification is summarized in
Appendix B.3. The amine system is designed for a minimum amine flow and this
minimizes the amount of amine on site.
The Dow F&EI determined that the amine system would have a degree of hazard of
166 which is a severe risk since it is greater than 159. Since the reformer furnace uses the
same chemicals in similar amounts Husky should already be capable of dealing with the
risk. A summary of the analysis is shown in Appendix B.7.

33

6. Economic Analysis

The economics for this project were assessed based on methods taught in an
engineering economics class. The capital cost for the project was determined in Section
4. The method for determining the operating costs, savings, depreciation, and taxation
can be found in this section.
Operating costs were a major component of the overall cash flow for this project.
The cost of the electrical power needed to run the motors for the pumps was 5.062/kW-
h. (Saskpower) The system requirements for power were calculated to be 16.86 kW
resulting in a cost of $7,500 per year. A cost of $323,000 of MEA was calculated based
on 70 m
3
of MEA in the process at a cost of MEA of $6.86 per liter. The cost of steam at
the Husky Lloydminster Upgrader is $28.86 per ton. The steam necessary in the reboiler
to regenerate the amine is 64,140 kg/hr resulting in a cost of $16.2 million per year. An
additional operating cost of $253,000 per year resulted from a cost of additional operators
based on the additional equipment.
Depreciation for this project was determined using a sum of the years digits
approach. The depreciation schedule was set so that the plant would be fully depreciated
after 10 years. The values for the depreciation can be seen along with the overall cash
flow in Table D.1.
34
The savings for this system were calculated based on the HYSYS model
explained in Section 3. After the CO
2
has been removed several changes are made to
operating conditions at various points in the plant. These changes result in both direct
and indirect costs. The main savings are associated with a reduced need for combo gas
within the process. The main losses are due to lower steam production and increased
need for combustion air. Calculations for these amounts can be seen in Appendix A.8
through A.12. The combo gas savings amount to $1.208 million per year. The expenses
from steam losses and combustion air are $59,000 and $307,000 per year respectively.
Combining these values gives total revenues of $859,000 per year.
The cash flow analysis was based off several different specified conditions. First
it was decided to use a one year build time so the separation system begins operation at
the beginning of year one. The operating costs are higher in year one because additional
amine must be purchased to fill the tower in year one, whereas only a portion of the
amine is replaced in the subsequent years and is estimated as the amount in the amine
holding tank. The tax rate used was 41% which is based on 28% federal tax and 13%
provincial tax. (Canada Revenue Agency) The interest rate used to discount the cash
flow is 8% which is simply based on what was decided to be an acceptable MARR value.
The results of the cash flow analysis can be seen in Table D.1 or Figure 10.
Due to the high operating cost the system shows a negative cash flow. For this
reason an internal rate of return was not calculated. Also, because of the negative cash
flow, it was decided to place a value on the CO
2
to determine at what cost the system
would become feasible. Several values were placed on the removed CO
2
and the results
can be seen in Figure 10. The important points to note are the point where the projects
35
revenues match the operating costs at a combined carbon dioxide tax and value of $50.43
per tonne and the point at which the project has a break even point of 25 years, at a value
of $67.33 per tonne.

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time(Years)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
F
l
o
w
M
M
C
A
D
$
)
0
10
20
30
40
50.43
67.33

Figure 10: Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow at Different Carbon Tax Rates in $/tonne CO
2
Emitted

36

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

A HYSYS model of the existing Hydrogen plant was constructed and used to
predict the effect of CO
2
removal. The model predicted savings of $859,000 per year
based on reduced combo gas needed as fuel for the reformer, additional combustion air
needs, and slightly lowered steam production.
A CO
2
extraction process utilizing a Monoethanolamine based solvent was
designed and simulated using AMSIM. The system is successful in capturing 35.9
tonnes/hr of CO
2
which comprises 91.3% of the CO
2
in the original stream. The total
capital costs necessary for this project is estimated at $9.82 Million US. Using Huskys
current prices this project will reach a break even point after 25 years with a combined
value or tax on CO
2
of $67/tonne.
If Husky wants to explore this project further RPM recommends that an internal
study should be conducted to determine the monetary value they can place on the CO
2
.
If the value of CO
2
is economically feasible it is recommended that detailed design be
done for this project.

37

8. References

Airgas. 23 February 2008 <http://www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/1013.pdf>.
BOC. 23 February 2008 <http://www1.boc.com/uk/sds>.
Canada Revenue Agency. Corporation Tax Rates. Canada Revenue Agency. 2008.
CRA. 02 March 2008 <http://www.cra-
arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/corporations/rates-e.html>.
J. D. Seader, Ernest J. Henley. Separation Process Principles. United States of America:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Maddox, Dr. Robert N. and D. John Morgan. Gas Conditioning and Processing Volume
4: Gas Treating and Sulfur Recovery. Oklahoma: Campbell Petroleum Series,
2006.
Saskatchewan, University of. "CEPCI Value." Chemical Engineering Journal (January
2008).
SaskPower. 02 March 2008
<http://www.saskpower.com/services/busrates/oilfields/doc1.shtml>.
Schlumberger. "AMSIM User's Manual." (2003).
Scott, K. Industrial Membrane Seperation Technology. New York: Chapman and Hall,
1996.
Ulrich, Gael D. Chemical Engineering Process Design and Economics a Practical Guide.
Durham : Process Publishing, 2004.
38
University of Queensland Australia. 23 February 2008
<http://www.cheque.uq.edu.au/ugrad/theses/1998/DaveA/dow.html>.
Valley National Gas Website. 23 Feburary 2008 <http://www.vngas.com>.
Whitaker Oil Company. 23 February 2008
<http://www.whitakeroil.com/MSDS/MEA.pdf>.

39

Appendix A: Sample Calculations

40
The calculations from Ulrich may be slightly different compared with EconExpert
due to the subjective reading of values from the graphs in the textbook.

A.1 Membrane Size

The flux of the CO
2
through a membrane was calculated to see if a membrane
system would be feasible. The permeability value is based off of values given in Scotts
Industrial Membrane Separation Technology, the partial pressure defined by the
HYSYS simulation, and an assumed membrane thickness.
s m
mol
j
m
kPa kpa
barrer
barrer
j
L
p p P
j
CO
kPa
Pa
sPa m
m mol
CO
L i
CO
2
4
16
10 874 . 5
001 .
) 0 1000 650 )( 10 347 . 3 )( 2700 (
) (
2
2
2
2
=

=
=

A CO
2
removal of 600 kgmol/h, about 70% of the CO
2
in the stream, was used as
a basis to judge if the system could meet removal specifications.
2
2
2
4
284000
283736
1000
3600
1
600
10 874 . 5
2
2
m A
m A
A s m
mol
A
F
j
kgmol
mol
s
h
h
kgmol
CO
CO
=
=

=
=

41
A.2 Absorber Size and Cost

Using Figure 5.44b pg. 387 in Ulrich,
Assuming a vertical vessel with the following data taken from the AMSIM
n
act
= 15
D = 2.743 m
s = 0.6096 m
H
col
= 9.144 m

From Figure 5.44b gives a purchased equipment cost, c
P
= $8.5 x10
4
.

Since P < 4 barg use Figure 5.45.

Using stainless steel material due to the corrosive MEA material gives a Material
Factor, F
M
= 4.0 and a P = 22 barg gives a Pressure Factor, F
P
= 2.25.

Therefore, the Pressure Factor-Material Factor product, F
P
x F
M
= 9.

Using Figure 5.46 with a vertical vessel orientation gives a Bare Module Factor,
F
a
BM
= 18.
Figure 5.44 states that:
C
BM
= c
P
x F
a
BM

C
BM
= ($8.5 x 10
4
)(18)
C
BM
= $1.53 x 10
6

42

Costing the trays using Figure 5.48 gives a Bare Module Cost,
C
BM
= (c
P
ss
x F
BM
) * n
act
* f
q

C
BM
= ($4 x 10
3
) * (2.2) * (15) * (1.125)
C
BM
= $1.485 x 10
5

Total Cost of Absorber and trays = $1.53 x 10
6
+ $1.485 x 10
5
Total Cost of Absorber and trays ~ $1.6785 x 10
6

A.3 Regenerator Size and Cost

Using Figure 5.44b pg. 387 in Ulrich,
Assuming a vertical vessel with the following data taken from the AMSIM,
n
act
= 17
D = 3.2 m
s = 0.6096 m
H
col
= 10.3632 m

From Figure 5.44b gives a purchased equipment cost, c
P
= $9.2 x10
4

Since P < 4 barg use Figure 5.45
Using stainless steel material due to the corrosive MEA material gives a Material
Factor, F
M
= 4.0 and a P = 0.206 barg gives a Pressure Factor, F
P
= 1.

43
Therefore, the Pressure Factor-Material Factor product, F
P
x F
M
= 4.0.

Using Figure 5.46 with a vertical vessel orientation gives a Bare Module Factor,
F
a
BM
= 9.5.

Figure 5.44 states that:
C
BM
= c
P
x F
a
BM

C
BM
= ($9.2 x 10
4
)(9.5)
C
BM
= $8.74 x 10
5

Costing the trays using Figure 5.48 gives a Bare Module Cost,
C
BM
= c
P
ss
* F
BM
* n
act
* f
q

C
BM
= ($5.5 x 10
3
) * (2.2) * (18) * (1.17)
C
BM
= $2.5483 x 10
5

Total Cost of Regenerator and trays = $8.74 x 10
5
+ $2.5483 x 10
5
Total Cost of Regenerator and trays ~ $1.1288 x 10
6

44
A.4 Condenser Heat Exchanger Size

Q = UAT
lm

Where the following data was taken from AMSIM,
T
hi
= 89.4
o
C
T
ho
= 48.9
o
C
T
ci
= 23
o
C
T
co
= 49
o
C
C
P
= 4.501 kJ/kg
o
C

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
C T
C C
C C
T
T T T T
T T T T
T
o
lm
o o
o o
lm
ci ho co hi
ci ho co hi
lm
6 . 32
) 23 9 . 48 / 49 4 . 89 ln(
23 9 . 48 49 4 . 89
) / ln(
=

=

=

The surface area, A:

) 6 . 32 )( 2200 (
W x10 18695.89
A
2
3
C
C m
W
=
A = 261 m
2

45
A.5 Centrifugal Pump Size and Cost

(Regenerator to Absorber 220 to 2164 kPa)

Using equation 4.94 pg. 248 in Ulrich,
s
m
hr
m
q
ms
kg
x P
m
s
m
m
kg
gh P
P q
W
i
s
3 3
2
5
2 3
11306 . 0 407
10 0461 . 1
) 3632 . 10 )( 81 . 9 )( 939 . 1028 (
= =
=
= =

=

Assume efficiency,
i
= 0.75
Therefore, shaft power,
s
W = 15.8

kW.

Using Figure 4.2 pg.121 in Ulrich gives electric motor efficiency, e
d,em
= 0.93,
and gas turbine efficiency, e
d,gt
= 0.26.

Power, P, is calculated from equation 4.95 pg. 248 in Ulrich,

kW 64.2
) 26 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
) 10 0461 . 1 )( 11306 . 0 (
kW 18
) 93 . 0 )( 75 . 0 (
) 10 0461 . 1 )( 11306 . 0 (
2
5
3
,
2
5
3
,
= =

=
= =

=
ms
kg
x
s
m
p q
P
ms
kg
x
s
m
p q
P
gt d i
gt
em d i
em

Using Figure 5.49 pg. 390 in Ulrich,
46
Therefore, shaft power,
s
W = 15.8

kW yields a Purchased Cost (electric motor
included), c
P
= $1.7 x 10
4
with F
M
= 1.9 for stainless steel.
The calculation is based on a radial/centrifugal pump because axial flow or
regenerative units are ultimately negligible on economics (Ulrich 248).

Using Figure 5.50 pg. 391 in Ulrich,
Suction Pressure, P
i
= 2.2 barg give a Pressure Factor, F
p
= 1.

Using Figure 5.51 pg. 391 in Ulrich gives the Pressure Factor-Material Factor
Product, F
P
x F
M
= 1 * 1.9 = 1.9 which give a Bare Module Factor, F
a
BM
= 4.9.

Using Figure 5.49 pg. 390 gives a Bare Module Cost,
C
BM
= c
P
ss
* F
a
BM

C
BM
= ($1.7 x 10
4
)(4.9)
C
BM
= $8.82 x 10
4

47
A.6 Amine Holding Tank Size

Determine volume of Absorber and Regenerator and add 25% for piping and
assume need a tank to hold 20% of the amine volume in the system.

Volume of Absorber:
D = 2.743 m
H = 9.144 m
3
2
2
04 . 54
) 144 . 9 (
2
743 . 2
m V
m
m
H r V
ABS
ABS
=
= =

Volume of Regenerator:
D = 3.048 m
H = 10.3632 m
3
Re
2
2
Re
62 . 75
) 3632 . 10 (
2
048 . 3
m V
m
m
H r V
gen
gen
=
= =

Total Estimated Volume of MEA,
V
MEA
= 1.25 * (
ABS
V +
gen
V
Re
)
V
MEA
= 1.25 * (
3 3
62 . 75 04 . 54 m m + )
V
MEA
= 162 m
3
48
If the tank is to hold 20% of the Total Estimated Volume of MEA the volume of
the tank, V
T
= 33 m
3
.
A.7 Depreciation

340 , 786 , 1 $
869 , 824 , 9 $
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
Years of Sum
Left Years
=
+ + + + + + + + +
=
=
D
D
P D
o

A.8 Combo Gas Savings

The combo gas savings are calculated on the basis of reduced energy consumption
per year and rely on the cost of natural gas per unit energy.

Year
GJ
ComboGas
m
kJ
h
m
ComboGas
ComboGas ComboGas ComboGas
E
year
day
day
h
kJ
GJ
E
duction H F E
188128
) 1534 )(. 365 )( 24 )(
1000000
1
)( 35891 )( 3900 (
Re %
3
3
=
=
=
&
&
&

6
1
10 208 . 1 $
42 . 6 $ 188128
=
=
=
Savings
Savings
Cost NaturalGas E Savings
GJ year
GJ
ComboGas
&

A.9 Combustion Air

The costs of combustion air are based solely on the amount of steam that is
needed to run the ID fans for the air and ignores the cost of heating the air. So for the
20% increase in air flow the associated cost can be seen below.
49

year
tonne h
tonne
year
day
day
h
1
1
000 , 307 $ Losses Air
) 365 )( 24 )( 19899 )(. 86 . 28 )($ 1 . 6 ( Losses Air
Increase % Cost Steam In Steam Losses Air
=
=
=

A.10 Steam Losses

The losses associated with steam are calculated by using the internal steam cost
and the flow rate of steam in the vapour phase for the two steam flows that are affected
by the flue gas.

year
tonne h
tonne
year
day
day
h
1
1
200 , 59 $ Losses Steam
) 365 )( 24 )( 86 . 28 ($ )] 1 )( 503 . 6 ( ) 0918 )(. 52 . 24 [( Losses Steam
Cost Steam Fraction) Vapour In Steam ( Losses Steam
=
=
=

50

Appendix B: Safety Document

51
B.1 Amine Plant Design Criteria

Design for minimal MEA in the outlet stream of the amine system to the PSA
unit. MEA in the PSA unit will degrade the catalyst used.
Design for specified pressure to the PSA unit. The PSA unit runs at 2200 kPa and
is black boxed because it is beyond the scope of this project and there is not
enough information to determine effects to the PSA unit.
Maximize removal of CO
2
before the PSA unit to maximize savings.
30 wt% MEA is corrosive so stainless steel material will be used for the design of
the amine system.
Design for a no flow situation (pump cavitation or failure) and purchase (2)
secondary pumps for the amine system.

52
B.2 HAZOP/Safety Considerations

Identify Hazards by considering the following Process Parameters:

i) Flow:
- design for a no flow situation (pump cavitation/failure) and purchase
secondary pumps for the amine system
ii) Time:
- Consider designing tanks with level transmitters to prevent overflow (next
phase of project-detailed plant design and layout)
- Consider time and volume when fill a tank
iii) Frequency:
- Consider frequency of loading amine to the holding tank (next phase of
project-detailed plant design) how many times per year is necessary
iv) Mixing:
- N/A
v) Pressure:
- Design for specified pressure to the PSA unit . The PSA unit runs at 2200 kPa
and is black boxed (beyond the scope of the project). There is not enough
information to determine effects to the PSA unit.
- Absorber operates at high pressure/low temperature (2164-2200 kPa, 38-70C).
Consider piping that can withhold the high pressure to the flash drum and then
to the Regenerator
vi) Composition:
53
- 30 wt% MEA is corrosive and stainless steel material will be used in the
AMSIM design for the amine system
- High CO
2
concentrations will come out of the tops of the regenerator and if
the project is to go ahead a CEI will have to be completed on potential of CO
2
cloud forming around the plant
vii) Viscosity:
- liquid is used, no slurries or solids, only potential for freezing if system is
down, consider insulation, or placing knock-out tank indoors
viii) Temperature:
- Consider steam traps and safety training for use of high pressure steam in the
regenerator reboiler, steam will condense and when restarted can cause
condensate induced-water hammer
- Consider condensate induced water hammer, training in prepping condensate
lines, making sure lines are properly drained of cooled liquid before
proceeding with any opening or prep of lines
- Regenerator operates at low pressure/high temperature (200-220 kPa, 90-
125C). Consider piping that can withhold the high temperature corrosive
amine to the Absorber.
ix) pH:
- 30 wt% MEA is corrosive and stainless steel material will be used in the
AMSIM design for the amine system
- The amines in water solution are basic.

(Maddox)
x) Separation/absorption:
54
- Occurs inside absorber and regenerator columns. Consider using material that
can withstand high temperature and high pressure with corrosive amine.
Stainless steel material is chosen for vessels and equipment
xi) Level:
- Consider designing tanks with level transmitters to prevent overflow (next
phase of project-detailed plant design and layout)
- Consider time and volume when fill a tank, consider the dielectric constant for
amine (MEA) material
xii) Speed:
- Pumps have moving parts, consider operator maintenance manuals for the
pumps (next phase of project-detailed plant design and layout)
xiii) Information:
- Documentation such as operating manuals, equipment specifications, design
criteria, and MSDS to communicate details of amine system to new users
xiv) Reaction:
Amine+ Amine + H+
CO2 + H2O HCO3- + H+
H2O OH- + H+
HCO3- CO3= + H+
Absorption reaction is exothermic:
2MEA+CO
2
MEACOO
-
+MEAH
+

55
xv) Operation:

General Operating Problems

:

Failure to Sweeten Gas:
1) Solution circulation too low
2) Regenerator temporarily overloaded after foaming episode
3) Poor regeneration due to :
i. Tray Damage
ii. Too cold in reboiler
iii. Too low pressure
iv. Insufficient regenerator stripping
4) Foaming
5) Gas flow too high
6) Acid gas content too high
7) Leak in contactor dP cell
8) Amine concentration too low
9) Contactor pressure too low or temperature too high (Maddox).
Corrosion:
- According to Polderman et al. Corrosion will be most severe at places
where the highest concentrations of acid gases encounter the highest
temperatures. These points will include the amine-amine heat exchanger,
the stripping column and the reboiler. (Maddox).
56
- Stress corrosion is prevalent in amine systems. This generally is
associated with residual stresses which result from localized heating during
vessel construction, such as welds in absorbers, strippers and piping. Stress
relieving all major equipment and piping will help to alleviate stress
corrosion

(Maddox).
Solution Degradation:
- Amine solutions will slowly oxidize when exposed to air or oxygen. The
products of these oxidation reactions are generally considered to cause
corrosion problems. The oxidation can be minimized by use of an inert gas
blanket on amine storage containers and surge drums (Maddox).
- Consider purging storage containers and surge drums with inert gas to
reduce oxidation
Foaming:
- Foaming can cause several different problems. Plant gas through put may
be severely reduced and sweetening efficiency may decrease to the point
that pipeline specifications cannot be met. Also amine losses may be
significantly increased (Maddox).
- Causes of Foaming problems in amine units:
1) Suspended solids including iron sulphide
2) Hydrocarbon liquids
3) Condensed hydrocarbons:
i) Dew point shift
ii) Retrograde behavior
57
4) Amine degradation products
5) Almost any foreign material such as corrosion inhibitors, valve grease,
or even impurities in make-up water
6) Heavily gas overloaded tower
7) Methanol buildup in regenerator
8) Coatings on some filter cartridges
9) Amine contamination during shipping
10) Excessive antifoam addition
11) Coatings on metal and plastic tower packing
12) Other and unknown causes (Maddox).
General Considerations:
Inlet Scrubbing:
- Most troubles in the contactor section are from entrained solids or entrained
hydrocarbons
- Insufficient inlet scrub of the sour gas can cause foaming, corrosion, and
reboiler tube burnout because of excess amounts of foreign material in the
amine solution
- The process already has a sulphur guard in place to scrub the sour gas upon
inlet
Amine Losses:
- A sweet gas scrubber will help eliminate amine losses from unexpected
foaming or surges. (Maddox).
-
58
Piping Design:
- High velocity causes erosion of pipes
- advisable to:
1) Maintain liquid velocity below 0.9 m/s [3 ft/sec] in all piping unless
stainless or other appropriate alloy is used.
2) Avoid the use of screwed fittings whenever practical.
3) Use welded fittings with long radius ells; avoid tees when possible.
4) When making up pipe with valves, instruments, etc., avoid the use of
dissimilar metals to avoid bimetallic corrosion (Maddox).
59
B.3 Plant Safety

i) Safe Design:
See design criteria and HAZOP above
ii) Pollution Prevention:
- Project is to remove the CO
2
and will be used to inject into the ground for the
tertiary method called enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
iii) Lifecycle Analysis of Products:
- N/A. Project is to remove CO
2
and use of it is beyond the scope of this
project phase.
iv) Inherently Safe Design:
Goal: to eliminate all hazards in the process using the 10 concepts that follow:
1. Intensification:
Use very small amounts of hazardous material so that if there is a leak the
hazard will be small.
- Design to minimize the amine flow in the system and the amount of amine in
the holding tank to minimize the amount of amine on-site.
2. Substitution:
Replace hazardous materials with less hazardous ones.
- Design to use 30 wt% amine and dilute with water
3. Attenuation:
Use hazardous material under the least hazardous conditions.
- Design to minimize loss of amine to reduce the frequency of off-loading
corrosive amine (MEA) by tank truck
60
4. Limitation:
Limit the effects of failures by equipment design or by change in condition
rather than adding on protective equipment.
- N/A
5. Simplification:
Simpler plants provide fewer opportunities for error and less equipment that
can fail.
- Design based on a typical amine system
6. Knock on Effect:
Design so that a domino effect doesnt happen.
- N/A. There is no inherent domino effect that could occur in the process.
7. Avoid Incorrect Assembly:
- N/A. There is no assembly required at this stage of the project (beyond scope
of this project phase)
8. Status Clear:
It should be possible to see, at a glance, if valves are open or shut, if levels are
ok, if correctly assembled.
- N/A. There is no process controls in the design at this stage of the project
(beyond scope of this project phase)
9. Control:
Control systems should be in place.
- N/A. There is no process controls in the design at this stage of the project
(beyond scope of this project phase)
61
10. Survival:
If a hazard occurs personnel should be protected.
- Determine a fire, explosion, and emergency evacuation plan

62
B.4 Process Safety Management System
Employee safety training which includes:
Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) for hearing protection, protective
clothing, eye protection, and proper footwear (steel toed CSA approved)
Hazards of Steam
Hazardous materials (eg. MEA) used on-site, how and where to locate the
MSDS sheets on the materials and on-site via National Fire Protection
Agency (NFPA) signs
Gas detector training
Documentation such as operating manuals, equipment specifications, design
criteria to communicate details of amine system to new users
Employee training in fire, explosion, and emergency evacuation plans
Maintenance plans for equipment being installed

63
B.5 Chemical Hazard Information

Definitions:
LD-50/LC-50:
Lethal Dose 50.
The dose that kills half (50%) of the animals tested.
LEL/UEL:
Lower/Upper Explosive Limit.
Is the limiting/maximum concentration (in air) that is needed for the gas to ignite
and explode.
TLV:
Threshold Limit Value.
The reasonable level to which a worker can be exposed without adverse health
effects.
IDLH:
Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health.
The exposure to airborne contaminants that is likely to cause death or immediate
or delayed permanent adverse health effects or prevent escape from such an
environment.

64
Table B. 1: Chemical Hazard Information Summary
Component
LD-50 or LC-50
(route/species)
LEL/UEL TLV/Exposure Limits Reactivity
Hydrogen H
2

No known toxicological
effects from this product
Flammability
Range: 4-75 vol%
in air
Can form explosive mixture
with air. May react violently
with oxidants.
Monoethanolamine MEA
Oral: believed to be
>1.00-2.00g/kg(rat)
moderately toxic
Inhalation: Not
determined
Dermal: >1.00g/kg
(rabbit) slightly toxic
Flammable Limits
%: 5/17
6 ppm STEL-ACGIH; 3
ppm TWA-OSHA;
6 ppm STEL-OSHA;
3 ppm TWA-ACGIH
Reacts violently with: Air,
water, heat, strong oxidizers,
acids,
Methane CH
4

Flammability
Range: 5-15 vol%
in air
Can form explosive mixture
with air. May react violently
with oxidants.
Carbon Dioxide CO
2
IDLH: 40000ppm Non-Flammable
ACGIH TLV. STEL:
54000 mg/m
3
15
minute(s). Form: All
forms;
STEL: 30000 ppm 15
minute(s). Form: All
forms;
TWA: 9000 mg/m
3
8
hour(s). Form: All forms;
TWA: 5000 ppm 8
hour(s). Form: All forms
Stable
Carbon Monoxide CO 1807 ppm/4H (rat) 12.5%/74%
PEL-OSHA: 50 ppm
TWA; TLV-ACGIH: 25
ppm TWA
Stable; Incompatible with
oxidizers
Nitrogen N
2

Non-Flammable
Stable under normal conditions
65
B.6 MSDS
B.6.1 Hydrogen, H
2
(BOC)

66

67
B.6.2 Monoethanolamine, MEA (Whitaker Oil Company)

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75
B.6.3 Methane, CH
4
(BOC)

76

77

78

79
B.6.4 Carbon Dioxide, CO
2
(Airgas):

80

81

82

83

84

85
B.6.5 Carbon Monoxide, CO (Valley National Gas Website)

86

87

88

89

90

91
B.6.6 Nitrogen, N
2
(BOC)

92

93
B.7 Dow Fire and Explosion Index

(Univ. of Queensland)

94

95

Appendix C: EconExpert Equipment Costing Results

96
Equipment Costing Source:
Econ Expert: www.ulrichvasudesign.com/econ.html (usask05, design05)
C.1 Towers
Absorber

Regenerator

97
MEA Guard

98
C.2 Heat Exchangers

Regenerator Reboiler

Regenerator Condenser Plate & Frame HX

99

Lean/Rich Heat Exchanger

Solvent Cooler Plate & Frame HX to Absorber:

100
C.3 Pumps
Pump from Regenerator to Absorber (220 to 2164 kpa)

Pump for MEA Guard (2100 to 2150kPa)

101
C.4 Storage Vessel
Amine Holding Tank

C.5 Process Vessels
Amine Flash Drum

102

Condenser Drum

103

Table C. 1: Ulrich Equipment Costing

Equipment Cost $ US
Towers
Absorber 1420847
Regenerator 1115933
MEA Guard 406301
Heat Exchangers
Regenerator Reboiler 977485
Regenerator Condenser Plate & Frame HX 80076
Lean/Rich Amine Plate & Frame HX 356583
Solvent Cooler Plate & Frame HX 66607
Pumps
Pump REGEN to ABS (220 to 2164 kpa) 133408
Pump for MEA Guard (2100 to 2150 kpa) 48964
Storage Vessels
Amine Holding Tank 146487
Process Vessels
Amine Flash Drum 406530
Condenser Drum 140121
Total Bare Module Cost
$ 5,299,342
Contingency and Fee $ 937,469
Total Module Cost
$ 6,236,811
Auxiliary Facilities $ 249,472
Installation Costs
$ 3,338,585
Total Capital
$ 9,824,869

104

Appendix D: Cash Flow Analysis

105
Table D. 1: Cash Flow Analysis

year
Depreciation
(M CAD$)
Savings (M
CAD$)
CO2 Tax
(M $/kg)
Yearly
Operating
Costs (M
CAD$)
Net Cash
Flow (M
CAD$)
Tax
Savings
(M
CAD$)
Net
Expenses
(M CAD$)
After
Tax
Cash
Flow (M
CAD$)
Discounted
After Tax
Cash Flow
(M CAD$)
Cumulative
ATCF (M
CAD$)
Cumulative
ATCF (MM
CAD$)
0 -9824.87 -9824.9 -9824.9 -9825 -9.825
1 -1786.34 -17123 -18909.3 7752.8 -11156.5 -12942.9 -11984 -21809 -21.809
2 -1607.71 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -8093.02 3318.1 -4774.9 -6382.6 -5472 -27281 -27.281
3 -1429.07 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -7914.39 3244.9 -4669.5 -6098.6 -4841 -32122 -32.122
4 -1250.44 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -7735.76 3171.7 -4564.1 -5814.5 -4274 -36396 -36.396
5 -1071.80 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -7557.12 3098.4 -4458.7 -5530.5 -3764 -40160 -40.160
6 -893.17 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -7378.49 3025.2 -4353.3 -5246.5 -3306 -43466 -43.466
7 -714.54 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -7199.85 2951.9 -4247.9 -4962.4 -2896 -46362 -46.362
8 -535.90 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -7021.22 2878.7 -4142.5 -4678.4 -2528 -48889 -48.889
9 -357.27 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6842.59 2805.5 -4037.1 -4394.4 -2198 -51088 -51.088
10 -178.63 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6663.95 2732.2 -3931.7 -4110.4 -1904 -52992 -52.992
11 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1641 -54633 -54.633
12 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1519 -56152 -56.152
13 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1407 -57559 -57.559
14 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1303 -58862 -58.862
15 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1206 -60068 -60.068
16 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1117 -61185 -61.185
17 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -1034 -62219 -62.219
18 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -958 -63177 -63.177
19 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -887 -64063 -64.063
20 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -821 -64884 -64.884
21 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -760 -65644 -65.644
22 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -704 -66348 -66.348
23 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -652 -67000 -67.000
24 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -603 -67603 -67.603
25 859.34 9523.35 -16868 -6485.32 2659.0 -3826.3 -3826.3 -559 -68162 -68.162
106

Table D. 2: Cash flows at Different Carbon Tax Rates

Carbon
Tax
($/tonne)
0 10 20 30 40 50.43 67.33
Year
Cumulative ATCF
(MM CAD$)
0 -9.825 -9.825 -9.825 -9.825 -9.825 -9.825 -9.825
1 -21.81 -21.81 -21.81 -21.81 -21.81 -21.81 -21.81
2 -32.10 -30.49 -28.89 -27.28 -25.68 -24.00 -21.29
3 -41.40 -38.31 -35.21 -32.12 -29.03 -25.80 -20.58
4 -49.80 -45.33 -40.87 -36.40 -31.93 -27.27 -19.71
5 -57.39 -51.65 -45.90 -40.16 -34.42 -28.43 -18.72
6 -64.24 -57.31 -50.39 -43.47 -36.54 -29.32 -17.62
7 -70.41 -62.40 -54.38 -46.36 -38.34 -29.98 -16.43
8 -75.98 -66.95 -57.92 -48.89 -39.86 -30.44 -15.18
9 -80.98 -71.02 -61.05 -51.09 -41.12 -30.73 -13.88
10 -85.49 -74.66 -63.82 -52.99 -42.16 -30.86 -12.55
11 -89.54 -77.91 -66.27 -54.63 -43.00 -30.86 -11.19
12 -93.29 -80.91 -68.53 -56.15 -43.77 -30.86 -9.935
13 -96.77 -83.70 -70.63 -57.56 -44.49 -30.86 -8.771
14 -99.98 -86.28 -72.57 -58.86 -45.16 -30.86 -7.694
15 -103.0 -88.66 -74.37 -60.07 -45.77 -30.86 -6.696
16 -105.7 -90.87 -76.03 -61.18 -46.34 -30.86 -5.772
17 -108.3 -92.92 -77.57 -62.22 -46.87 -30.86 -4.916
18 -110.6 -94.81 -79.00 -63.18 -47.36 -30.86 -4.124
19 -112.8 -96.57 -80.32 -64.06 -47.81 -30.86 -3.391
20 -114.8 -98.19 -81.54 -64.88 -48.23 -30.86 -2.712
21 -116.7 -99.70 -82.67 -65.64 -48.62 -30.86 -2.083
22 -118.5 -101.1 -83.72 -66.35 -48.98 -30.86 -1.501
23 -120.1 -102.4 -84.69 -67.00 -49.31 -30.86 -0.961
24 -121.6 -103.6 -85.59 -67.60 -49.62 -30.86 -0.462
25 -122.9 -104.7 -86.42 -68.16 -49.90 -30.86 0.000

107

Appendix E: HYSYS Reports

108
Appendix E1.1: PSA Tail Gas With CO
2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSA Tail Gas-1 (Material Stream): Conditions, Properties, Composition, Attachments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Stream: PSA Tail Gas-1 Fluid Package: Basis-1

Property Package: Peng-Robinson
CONDITIONS

Overall Vapour Phase
Vapour / Phase Fraction 1.0000 1.0000
Temperature: (C) 17.29 17.29
Pressure: (kPa) 40.00* 40.00
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 2047 2047
Mass Flow (kg/h) 5.163e+004 5.163e+004
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 91.28 91.28
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -1.962e+005 -1.962e+005
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 175.7 175.7
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -4.016e+008 -4.016e+008
Liq Vol Flow @Std Cond (m3/h) --- ---
PROPERTIES

Molecular Weight 25.22 25.22
Molar Density (kgmole/m3) 1.658e-002 1.658e-002
Mass Density (kg/m3) 0.4181 0.4181
Act. Volume Flow (m3/h) 1.235e+005 1.235e+005
Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -7778 -7778
Mass Entropy (kJ/kg-C) 6.967 6.967
Heat Capacity (kJ/kgmole-C) 34.06 34.06
Mass Heat Capacity (kJ/kg-C) 1.350 1.350
Lower Heating Value (kJ/kgmole) 2.328e+005 2.328e+005
Mass Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg) 9232 9232
Phase Fraction [Vol. Basis] --- 1.000
Phase Fraction [Mass Basis] 4.941e-324 1.000
Partial Pressure of CO2 (kPa) 17.81 ---
Cost Based on Flow (Cost/s) 0.0000 0.0000
109
Act. Gas Flow (ACT_m3/h) 1.235e+005 1.235e+005
Avg. Liq. Density (kgmole/m3) 22.43 22.43
Specific Heat (kJ/kgmole-C) 34.06 34.06
Std. Gas Flow (STD_m3/h) 4.840e+004 4.840e+004
Std. Ideal Liq. Mass Density (kg/m3) 565.6 565.6
Act. Liq. Flow (m3/s) --- ---
Z Factor 0.9992 0.9992
Watson K 10.54 10.54
User Property --- ---
Partial Pressure of H2S (kPa) 0.0000 ---
Cp/(Cp - R) 1.323 1.323
Cp/Cv 1.325 1.325
Heat of Vap. (kJ/kgmole) --- ---
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 34.21 34.21
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) (kg/m3) --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow (Std. Cond) (m3/h) --- ---
Liquid Fraction 0.0000 0.0000
Molar Volume (m3/kgmole) 60.32 60.32
Mass Heat of Vap. (kJ/kg) --- ---
Phase Fraction [Molar Basis] 1.0000 1.0000
Surface Tension (dyne/cm) --- ---
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 4.211e-002 4.211e-002
Viscosity (cP) 1.430e-002 1.430e-002
Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kgmole-C) 25.74 25.74
Mass Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kg-C) 1.021 1.021
Cv (kJ/kgmole-C) 25.71 25.71
Mass Cv (kJ/kg-C) 1.019 1.019
Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kgmole-C) --- ---
Mass Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kg-C) --- ---
Cp/Cv (Ent. Method) --- ---
Reid VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- ---
True VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow - Sum(Std. Cond) (m3/h) 0.0000 0.0000
COMPOSITION

Overall Phase Vapour Fraction 1.0000

COMPONENTS MOLAR FLOW MOLE FRACTION MASS FLOW MASS FRACTION LIQUID VOLUME LIQUID VOLUME
(kgmole/h) (kg/h) FLOW (m3/h) FRACTION
Methane 360.5000 0.1761 5783.4649 0.1120 19.3172 0.2116
110
Ethane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Propane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 136.7177 0.0668 3829.5870 0.0742 4.7906 0.0525
CO2 911.3458 0.4452 40108.0559 0.7769 48.5961 0.5324
Hydrogen 613.9684 0.2999 1237.7603 0.0240 17.7180 0.1941
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Nitrogen 23.7409 0.0116 665.0549 0.0129 0.8247 0.0090
Oxygen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Hexane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ethylene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
tr2-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Helium 0.8802 0.0004 3.5233 0.0001 0.0284 0.0003
Propene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2047.1530 1.0000 51627.4464 1.0000 91.2751 1.0000
Vapour Phase Phase Fraction 1.000

Methane 360.5000 0.1761 5783.4649 0.1120 19.3172 0.2116
Ethane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Propane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 136.7177 0.0668 3829.5870 0.0742 4.7906 0.0525
CO2 911.3458 0.4452 40108.0559 0.7769 48.5961 0.5324
Hydrogen 613.9684 0.2999 1237.7603 0.0240 17.7180 0.1941
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Nitrogen 23.7409 0.0116 665.0549 0.0129 0.8247 0.0090
Oxygen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Hexane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ethylene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
tr2-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
111
Helium 0.8802 0.0004 3.5233 0.0001 0.0284 0.0003
Propene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2047.1530 1.0000 51627.4464 1.0000 91.2751 1.0000
UNIT OPERATIONS

FEED TO PRODUCT FROM LOGICAL CONNECTION
Tee: TEE-100 Balance: 30-PK-004
UTILITIES

( No utilities reference this stream )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyprotech Ltd. Aspen HYSYS Version 2006 (20.0.0.6728)

112
Appendix E1.2: Reformer Furnace With CO
2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-F-001-A (Conversion Reactor): Design, Reactions, Worksheet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion Reactor: 30-F-001-A

CONNECTIONS

Inlet Stream Connections

Stream Name From Unit Operation
To Reformer Mixed Feed Preheat Coil Heat Exchanger
Outlet Stream Connections

Stream Name To Unit Operation
To Waste HEX Component Splitter: X-100
DNE2
Energy Stream Connections

Q-102
PARAMETERS

Physical Parameters Optional Heat Transfer: Heating
Delta P Vessel Volume Duty Energy Stream
0.0000 kPa --- 3.160e+008 kJ/h Q-102
User Variables

REACTION DETAILS

Reaction: Meth Reform
Component Mole Weight Stoichiometric Coeff.
Methane 16.04 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -1.000
CO 28.01 1.000
Hydrogen 2.016 3.000
113

Reaction: Eth Reform
Ethane 30.07 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -2.000
CO 28.01 2.000

Reaction: Prop Reform
Propane 44.10 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -3.000
CO 28.01 3.000

Reaction: Reformer Shift
CO 28.01 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -1.000
CO2 44.01 1.000

Reaction: 1-butene ref
1-Butene 56.11 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
CO 28.01 4.000

Reaction: ethyl ref
Ethylene 28.05 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -2.000
CO 28.01 2.000

Reaction: i-but ref
i-Butane 58.12 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
114
CO 28.01 4.000

Reaction: i-pent ref
i-Pentane 72.15 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -5.000
CO 28.01 5.000
Hydrogen 2.016 11.000

Reaction: n-but ref
n-Butane 58.12 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
CO 28.01 4.000

Reaction: n-hex ref
n-Hexane 86.18 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -6.000
CO 28.01 6.000
Hydrogen 2.016 13.000

Reaction: n-pent ref
n-Pentane 72.15 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -5.000
CO 28.01 5.000
Hydrogen 2.016 11.000

Reaction: propene ref
Propene 42.08 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -3.000
CO 28.01 3.000

Reaction: tr-but ref
115
tr2-Butene 56.11 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
CO 28.01 4.000

REACTION RESULTS FOR : Reformer

Extents

Name Rank Specified Use Default Actual Base Reaction Extent
% Conversion % Conversion Component (kgmole/h)
Meth Reform 0 72.80 No 72.80 Methane 964.9
Eth Reform 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Ethane 29.16
Prop Reform 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Propane 8.390
Reformer Shift 1 58.00 No --- CO 616.4
1-butene ref 0 100.00 Yes --- 1-Butene 0.0000
ethyl ref 0 100.00 Yes --- Ethylene 0.0000
i-but ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Butane 0.1789
i-pent ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Pentane 0.4969
n-but ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Butane 2.016
n-hex ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Hexane 0.2413
n-pent ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Pentane 0.3407
propene ref 0 100.00 Yes --- Propene 0.0000
tr-but ref 0 100.00 Yes --- tr2-Butene 0.0000
Balance

Components Total Inflow Total Reaction Total Outflow
(kgmole/h) (kgmole/h) (kgmole/h)
Methane 1325 -964.9 360.5
Ethane 29.16 -29.16 0.0000
Propane 8.390 -8.390 0.0000
CO 0.0000 446.4 446.4
CO2 2.569 616.4 619.0
Hydrogen 12.27 3748 3760
H2O 4706 -1679 3027
Nitrogen 23.74 0.0000 23.74
Oxygen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Butane 0.1789 -0.1789 0.0000
n-Butane 2.016 -2.016 0.0000
i-Pentane 0.4969 -0.4969 0.0000
116
n-Pentane 0.3407 -0.3407 0.0000
n-Hexane 0.2413 -0.2413 0.0000
Ethylene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
tr2-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Helium 0.8802 0.0000 0.8802
Propene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CONDITIONS

Name To Reformer DNE2 To Waste HEX Q-102
Vapour 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 ---
Temperature (C) 449.9883 794.9993 794.9993 ---
Pressure (kPa) 3501.0000 3501.0000 3501.0000 ---
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 6111.7508 0.0000 8237.2949 ---
Mass Flow (kg/h) 108305.6690 0.0000 108306.4336 ---
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 160.8581 0.0000 231.9613 ---
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -1.875e+005 -1.007e+005 -1.007e+005 ---
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 184.1 174.5 174.5 ---
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -1.1458e+09 0.0000e-01 -8.2978e+08 3.1598e+08
PROPERTIES

Name To Reformer DNE2 To Waste HEX
Molecular Weight 17.72 13.15 13.15
Molar Density (kgmole/m3) 0.5960 0.3926 0.3926
Mass Density (kg/m3) 10.56 5.162 5.162
Act. Volume Flow (m3/h) 1.025e+004 0.0000 2.098e+004
Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -1.058e+004 -7661 -7661
Mass Entropy (kJ/kg-C) 10.39 13.27 13.27
Heat Capacity (kJ/kgmole-C) 44.71 38.97 38.97
Mass Heat Capacity (kJ/kg-C) 2.523 2.964 2.964
Lower Heating Value (kJ/kgmole) 1.857e+005 1.609e+005 1.609e+005
Mass Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg) 1.048e+004 1.224e+004 1.224e+004
Phase Fraction [Vol. Basis] --- --- ---
Phase Fraction [Mass Basis] 4.941e-324 4.941e-324 4.941e-324
Partial Pressure of CO2 (kPa) 1.472 0.0000 263.1
Cost Based on Flow (Cost/s) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Act. Gas Flow (ACT_m3/h) 1.025e+004 --- 2.098e+004
Avg. Liq. Density (kgmole/m3) 37.99 --- 35.51
Specific Heat (kJ/kgmole-C) 44.71 38.97 38.97
Std. Gas Flow (STD_m3/h) 1.445e+005 0.0000 1.948e+005
117
Std. Ideal Liq. Mass Density (kg/m3) 673.3 466.9 466.9
Act. Liq. Flow (m3/s) --- 0.0000 0.0000
Z Factor 0.9770 --- ---
Watson K 18.97 14.89 14.89
User Property --- --- ---
Partial Pressure of H2S (kPa) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cp/(Cp - R) 1.228 1.271 1.271
Cp/Cv 1.272 1.277 1.277
Heat of Vap. (kJ/kgmole) 5.007e+004 3.920e+004 3.920e+004
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 2.059 0.7359 5.299
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) (kg/m3) 741.0 --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow (Std. Cond) (m3/h) 146.2 0.0000 ---
Liquid Fraction 0.0000 1.000 0.0000
Molar Volume (m3/kgmole) 1.678 2.547 2.547
Mass Heat of Vap. (kJ/kg) 2826 2982 2982
Phase Fraction [Molar Basis] 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000
Surface Tension (dyne/cm) --- 0.0000 ---
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 7.302e-002 0.1432 0.1885
Viscosity (cP) 2.175e-002 3.799e-003 2.736e-002
Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kgmole-C) 36.39 30.65 30.65
Mass Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kg-C) 2.054 2.331 2.331
Cv (kJ/kgmole-C) 35.15 30.51 30.51
Mass Cv (kJ/kg-C) 1.983 2.320 2.320
Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kgmole-C) 36.24 --- 30.49
Mass Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kg-C) 2.045 --- 2.319
Cp/Cv (Ent. Method) 1.234 --- 1.278
Reid VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- ---
True VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow - Sum(Std. Cond) (m3/h) 146.2 0.0000 0.0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-F-001-B (Conversion Reactor): Design, Reactions, Worksheet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion Reactor: 30-F-001-B

CONNECTIONS

118

Combo Gas
PSA Tail Gas-2 RCY-1 Recycle
Combustion Air

waste gas Heat Exchanger: Steam Generation Coil I
DNE

Q-100
PARAMETERS

Physical Parameters Optional Heat Transfer: Cooling
0.0000 kPa --- 3.657e+008 kJ/h Q-100
User Variables

REACTION DETAILS

Reaction: Meth Combust
Methane 16.04 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -2.000
CO2 44.01 1.000
H2O 18.02 2.000

Reaction: Eth combust
Ethane 30.07 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -3.500
CO2 44.01 2.000
H2O 18.02 3.000

Reaction: Prop combust
Propane 44.10 -1.000
119
Oxygen 32.00 -5.000
CO2 44.01 3.000
H2O 18.02 4.000

Reaction: H2 combust
Hydrogen 2.016 -2.000
Oxygen 32.00 -1.000
H2O 18.02 2.000

Reaction: 1-but combust
Oxygen 32.00 -6.000
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 4.000
1-Butene 56.11 -1.000

Reaction: ethylene comust
Oxygen 32.00 -3.000
CO2 44.01 2.000
H2O 18.02 2.000
Ethylene 28.05 -1.000

Reaction: i-but combust
i-Butane 58.12 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -6.500
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 5.000

Reaction: i-pent combust
Oxygen 32.00 -8.000
CO2 44.01 5.000
H2O 18.02 6.000
i-Pentane 72.15 -1.000

Reaction: n-but combust
120
Oxygen 32.00 -6.500
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 5.000
n-Butane 58.12 -1.000

Reaction: n-hex combust
Oxygen 32.00 -9.500
CO2 44.01 6.000
H2O 18.02 7.000
n-Hexane 86.18 -1.000

Reaction: n-pent comust
Oxygen 32.00 -8.000
CO2 44.01 5.000
H2O 18.02 6.000
n-Pentane 72.15 -1.000

Reaction: propene combust
Propene 42.08 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -4.500
CO2 44.01 3.000
H2O 18.02 3.000

Reaction: tr2-but combust
Oxygen 32.00 -6.000
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 4.000
tr2-Butene 56.11 -1.000

Reaction:

121
REACTION RESULTS FOR : Combust

Extents

Meth Combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Methane 391.6
Eth combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Ethane 3.619
Prop combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Propane 1.653
H2 combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Hydrogen 370.6
1-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 1-Butene 1.400e-002
ethylene comust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Ethylene 0.2444
i-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Butane 5.982e-002
i-pent combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Pentane 4.084e-003
n-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Butane 8.196e-002
n-hex combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Hexane 3.305e-003
n-pent comust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Pentane 9.938e-003
propene combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Propene 0.3504
tr2-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 tr2-Butene 2.801e-003
CO Combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 CO 136.8
Balance

Methane 391.6 -391.6 0.0000
Ethane 3.619 -3.619 0.0000
Propane 1.653 -1.653 0.0000
CO 136.8 -136.8 0.0000
CO2 911.4 542.8 1454
Hydrogen 741.2 -741.2 0.0000
H2O 0.0000 1544 1544
Nitrogen 5336 0.0000 5336
Oxygen 1412 -1247 165.5
i-Butane 5.982e-002 -5.982e-002 0.0000
n-Butane 8.196e-002 -8.196e-002 0.0000
i-Pentane 4.084e-003 -4.084e-003 0.0000
n-Pentane 9.938e-003 -9.938e-003 0.0000
n-Hexane 3.305e-003 -3.305e-003 0.0000
Ethylene 0.2444 -0.2444 0.0000
tr2-Butene 2.801e-003 -2.801e-003 0.0000
122
1-Butene 1.400e-002 -1.400e-002 0.0000
Helium 1.020 0.0000 1.020
Propene 0.3504 -0.3504 0.0000
CONDITIONS

Name Combo Gas PSA Tail Gas-2 Combustion Air DNE
Vapour 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
Temperature (C) 55.0000 17.2199 300.0000 800.0000
Pressure (kPa) 146.3250 40.0000 102.8000 40.0000
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 164.9437 2047.1530 6724.0000 0.0000
Mass Flow (kg/h) 982.2490 51627.4464 193989.2181 0.0000
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 5.8716 91.2751 224.2517 0.0000
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -1.617e+004 -1.962e+005 8248 -8.404e+004
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 142.2 175.7 171.1 216.8
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -2.6663e+06 -4.0156e+08 5.5463e+07 0.0000e-01
Name waste gas
Vapour 1.0000
Temperature (C) 800.0000
Pressure (kPa) 40.0000
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 8501.0097
Mass Flow (kg/h) 246596.8774
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 295.4778
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -8.404e+004
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 216.8
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -7.1444e+08
PROPERTIES

Name Combo Gas PSA Tail Gas-2 Combustion Air DNE waste gas
Molecular Weight 5.955 25.22 28.85 29.01 29.01
Molar Density (kgmole/m3) 5.362e-002 1.658e-002 2.157e-002 4.483e-003 4.483e-003
Mass Density (kg/m3) 0.3193 0.4182 0.6222 0.1300 0.1300
Act. Volume Flow (m3/h) 3076 1.235e+005 3.118e+005 0.0000 1.896e+006
Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -2715 -7778 285.9 -2897 -2897
Mass Entropy (kJ/kg-C) 23.88 6.966 5.932 7.475 7.475
Heat Capacity (kJ/kgmole-C) 31.48 34.05 30.84 38.36 38.36
Mass Heat Capacity (kJ/kg-C) 5.286 1.350 1.069 1.322 1.322
Lower Heating Value (kJ/kgmole) 3.988e+005 2.328e+005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mass Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg) 6.697e+004 9232 --- --- ---
Phase Fraction [Vol. Basis] --- --- --- --- ---
Phase Fraction [Mass Basis] 4.941e-324 4.941e-324 4.941e-324 2.122e-314 2.122e-314
123
Partial Pressure of CO2 (kPa) 1.267e-002 17.81 0.0000 0.0000 6.842
Cost Based on Flow (Cost/s) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Act. Gas Flow (ACT_m3/h) 3076 1.235e+005 3.118e+005 --- 1.896e+006
Avg. Liq. Density (kgmole/m3) 28.09 22.43 29.98 --- 28.77
Specific Heat (kJ/kgmole-C) 31.48 34.05 30.84 38.36 38.36
Std. Gas Flow (STD_m3/h) 3900 4.840e+004 1.590e+005 0.0000 2.010e+005
Std. Ideal Liq. Mass Density (kg/m3) 167.3 565.6 865.1 834.6 834.6
Act. Liq. Flow (m3/s) --- --- --- 0.0000 ---
Z Factor 1.000 0.9992 1.000 --- ---
Watson K 25.94 10.54 6.042 6.967 6.967
User Property --- --- --- --- ---
Partial Pressure of H2S (kPa) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cp/(Cp - R) 1.359 1.323 1.369 1.277 1.277
Cp/Cv 1.360 1.325 1.370 1.277 1.277
Heat of Vap. (kJ/kgmole) 7195 --- 5891 --- ---
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 29.15 31.30 48.58 2.347 328.8
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) (kg/m3) --- --- --- --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow (Std. Cond) (m3/h) --- --- --- 0.0000 ---
Liquid Fraction 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.000 0.0000
Molar Volume (m3/kgmole) 18.65 60.31 46.37 223.1 223.1
Mass Heat of Vap. (kJ/kg) 1208 --- 204.2 --- ---
Phase Fraction [Molar Basis] 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000
Surface Tension (dyne/cm) --- --- --- 0.0000 ---
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 0.1298 4.210e-002 4.360e-002 7.160e-002 7.326e-002
Viscosity (cP) 9.309e-003 1.309e-002 3.022e-002 3.052e-004 4.276e-002
Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.16 25.74 22.53 30.05 30.05
Mass Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kg-C) 3.890 1.021 0.7808 1.036 1.036
Cv (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.14 25.71 22.52 30.04 30.04
Mass Cv (kJ/kg-C) 3.886 1.019 0.7805 1.036 1.036
Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.12 --- 22.48 --- ---
Mass Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kg-C) 3.882 --- 0.7791 --- ---
Cp/Cv (Ent. Method) 1.362 --- 1.372 --- ---
Reid VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- --- --- ---
True VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- --- 1.630e+005 1.630e+005
Liq. Vol. Flow - Sum(Std. Cond) (m3/h) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124
Appendix E2.1: PSA Tail Gas Without CO
2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSA Tail Gas-1 (Material Stream): Conditions, Properties, Composition, Attachments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Stream: PSA Tail Gas-1 Fluid Package: Basis-1
Property Package: Peng-Robinson
CONDITIONS
Vapour / Phase Fraction 1.0000 1.0000
Temperature: (C) 31.98 31.98
Pressure: (kPa) 40.00* 40.00
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 1231 1231
Mass Flow (kg/h) 1.570e+004 1.570e+004
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 47.74 47.74
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -6.438e+004 -6.438e+004
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 167.7 167.7
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -7.924e+007 -7.924e+007
Liq Vol Flow @Std Cond (m3/h) --- ---
PROPERTIES

Molecular Weight 12.75 12.75
Molar Density (kgmole/m3) 1.577e-002 1.577e-002
Mass Density (kg/m3) 0.2011 0.2011
Act. Volume Flow (m3/h) 7.805e+004 7.805e+004
Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -5048 -5048
Mass Entropy (kJ/kg-C) 13.15 13.15
Heat Capacity (kJ/kgmole-C) 31.59 31.59
Mass Heat Capacity (kJ/kg-C) 2.477 2.477
Lower Heating Value (kJ/kgmole) 3.873e+005 3.873e+005
Mass Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg) 3.036e+004 3.036e+004
Phase Fraction [Vol. Basis] --- 1.000
Phase Fraction [Mass Basis] 4.941e-324 1.000
Partial Pressure of CO2 (kPa) 3.086 ---
Cost Based on Flow (Cost/s) 0.0000 0.0000
Act. Gas Flow (ACT_m3/h) 7.805e+004 7.805e+004
Avg. Liq. Density (kgmole/m3) 25.78 25.78
Specific Heat (kJ/kgmole-C) 31.59 31.59
Std. Gas Flow (STD_m3/h) 2.910e+004 2.910e+004
125
Std. Ideal Liq. Mass Density (kg/m3) 328.8 328.8
Act. Liq. Flow (m3/s) --- ---
Z Factor 0.9999 0.9999
Watson K 15.10 15.10
User Property --- ---
Partial Pressure of H2S (kPa) 0.0000 ---
Cp/(Cp - R) 1.357 1.357
Cp/Cv 1.358 1.358
Heat of Vap. (kJ/kgmole) --- ---
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 60.91 60.91
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) (kg/m3) --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow (Std. Cond) (m3/h) --- ---
Liquid Fraction 0.0000 0.0000
Molar Volume (m3/kgmole) 63.42 63.42
Mass Heat of Vap. (kJ/kg) --- ---
Phase Fraction [Molar Basis] 1.0000 1.0000
Surface Tension (dyne/cm) --- ---
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 7.500e-002 7.500e-002
Viscosity (cP) 1.225e-002 1.225e-002
Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.28 23.28
Mass Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kg-C) 1.825 1.825
Cv (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.27 23.27
Mass Cv (kJ/kg-C) 1.824 1.824
Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kgmole-C) --- ---
Mass Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kg-C) --- ---
Cp/Cv (Ent. Method) --- ---
Reid VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- ---
True VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow - Sum(Std. Cond) (m3/h) 0.0000 0.0000
COMPOSITION

Overall Phase Vapour Fraction 1.0000

Methane 360.5000 0.2929 5783.4649 0.3684 19.3172 0.4046
Ethane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Propane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 136.7177 0.1111 3829.5870 0.2440 4.7906 0.1003
CO2 94.9458 0.0771 4178.5362 0.2662 5.0628 0.1060
126
Hydrogen 613.9684 0.4989 1237.7603 0.0788 17.7180 0.3711
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Nitrogen 23.7409 0.0193 665.0549 0.0424 0.8247 0.0173
Oxygen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Hexane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ethylene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
tr2-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Helium 0.8802 0.0007 3.5233 0.0002 0.0284 0.0006
Propene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1230.7530 1.0000 15697.9267 1.0000 47.7418 1.0000
Vapour Phase Phase Fraction 1.000

Methane 360.5000 0.2929 5783.4649 0.3684 19.3172 0.4046
Ethane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Propane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO 136.7177 0.1111 3829.5870 0.2440 4.7906 0.1003
CO2 94.9458 0.0771 4178.5362 0.2662 5.0628 0.1060
Hydrogen 613.9684 0.4989 1237.7603 0.0788 17.7180 0.3711
H2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Nitrogen 23.7409 0.0193 665.0549 0.0424 0.8247 0.0173
Oxygen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Butane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Pentane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-Hexane 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ethylene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
tr2-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Helium 0.8802 0.0007 3.5233 0.0002 0.0284 0.0006
Propene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1230.7530 1.0000 15697.9267 1.0000 47.7418 1.0000
127
Appendix E2.2: Reformer without CO
2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-F-001-A (Conversion Reactor): Design, Reactions, Worksheet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion Reactor: 30-F-001-A

CONNECTIONS


To Reformer Mixed Feed Preheat Coil Heat Exchanger

To Waste HEX Component Splitter: X-100
DNE2

Q-102
PARAMETERS

Physical Parameters Optional Heat Transfer: Heating
0.0000 kPa --- 3.160e+008 kJ/h Q-102
User Variables

REACTION DETAILS

Reaction: Meth Reform
Methane 16.04 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -1.000
CO 28.01 1.000
128

Reaction: Eth Reform
Ethane 30.07 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -2.000
CO 28.01 2.000

Reaction: Prop Reform
Propane 44.10 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -3.000
CO 28.01 3.000

Reaction: Reformer Shift
CO 28.01 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -1.000
CO2 44.01 1.000

Reaction: 1-butene ref
1-Butene 56.11 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
CO 28.01 4.000

Reaction: ethyl ref
Ethylene 28.05 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -2.000
CO 28.01 2.000

Reaction: i-but ref
i-Butane 58.12 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
129
CO 28.01 4.000

Reaction: i-pent ref
i-Pentane 72.15 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -5.000
CO 28.01 5.000
Hydrogen 2.016 11.000

Reaction: n-but ref
n-Butane 58.12 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
CO 28.01 4.000

Reaction: n-hex ref
n-Hexane 86.18 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -6.000
CO 28.01 6.000
Hydrogen 2.016 13.000

Reaction: n-pent ref
n-Pentane 72.15 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -5.000
CO 28.01 5.000
Hydrogen 2.016 11.000

Reaction: propene ref
Propene 42.08 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -3.000
CO 28.01 3.000

Reaction: tr-but ref
130
tr2-Butene 56.11 -1.000
H2O 18.02 -4.000
CO 28.01 4.000

REACTION RESULTS FOR : Reformer

Extents

Meth Reform 0 72.80 No 72.80 Methane 964.9
Eth Reform 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Ethane 29.16
Prop Reform 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Propane 8.390
Reformer Shift 1 58.00 No --- CO 616.4
1-butene ref 0 100.00 Yes --- 1-Butene 0.0000
ethyl ref 0 100.00 Yes --- Ethylene 0.0000
i-but ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Butane 0.1789
i-pent ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Pentane 0.4969
n-but ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Butane 2.016
n-hex ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Hexane 0.2413
n-pent ref 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Pentane 0.3407
propene ref 0 100.00 Yes --- Propene 0.0000
tr-but ref 0 100.00 Yes --- tr2-Butene 0.0000
Balance

Methane 1325 -964.9 360.5
Ethane 29.16 -29.16 0.0000
Propane 8.390 -8.390 0.0000
CO 0.0000 446.4 446.4
CO2 2.569 616.4 619.0
Hydrogen 12.27 3748 3760
H2O 4706 -1679 3027
Nitrogen 23.74 0.0000 23.74
Oxygen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i-Butane 0.1789 -0.1789 0.0000
n-Butane 2.016 -2.016 0.0000
i-Pentane 0.4969 -0.4969 0.0000
131
n-Pentane 0.3407 -0.3407 0.0000
n-Hexane 0.2413 -0.2413 0.0000
Ethylene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
tr2-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-Butene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Helium 0.8802 0.0000 0.8802
Propene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CONDITIONS

Name To Reformer DNE2 To Waste HEX Q-102
Vapour 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 ---
Temperature (C) 449.9139 795.0129 795.0129 ---
Pressure (kPa) 3501.0000 3501.0000 3501.0000 ---
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 6111.7508 0.0000 8237.2949 ---
Mass Flow (kg/h) 108305.6690 0.0000 108306.4336 ---
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 160.8581 0.0000 231.9613 ---
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -1.875e+005 -1.007e+005 -1.007e+005 ---
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 184.1 174.5 174.5 ---
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -1.1458e+09 0.0000e-01 -8.2978e+08 3.1600e+08
PROPERTIES

Name To Reformer DNE2 To Waste HEX
Molecular Weight 17.72 13.15 13.15
Molar Density (kgmole/m3) 0.5961 0.3926 0.3926
Mass Density (kg/m3) 10.56 5.162 5.162
Act. Volume Flow (m3/h) 1.025e+004 0.0000 2.098e+004
Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -1.058e+004 -7661 -7661
Mass Entropy (kJ/kg-C) 10.39 13.27 13.27
Heat Capacity (kJ/kgmole-C) 44.71 38.97 38.97
Mass Heat Capacity (kJ/kg-C) 2.523 2.964 2.964
Lower Heating Value (kJ/kgmole) 1.857e+005 1.609e+005 1.609e+005
Mass Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg) 1.048e+004 1.224e+004 1.224e+004
Phase Fraction [Vol. Basis] --- --- ---
Phase Fraction [Mass Basis] 4.941e-324 4.941e-324 4.941e-324
Partial Pressure of CO2 (kPa) 1.472 0.0000 263.1
Cost Based on Flow (Cost/s) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Act. Gas Flow (ACT_m3/h) 1.025e+004 --- 2.098e+004
Avg. Liq. Density (kgmole/m3) 37.99 --- 35.51
Specific Heat (kJ/kgmole-C) 44.71 38.97 38.97
Std. Gas Flow (STD_m3/h) 1.445e+005 0.0000 1.948e+005
132
Std. Ideal Liq. Mass Density (kg/m3) 673.3 466.9 466.9
Act. Liq. Flow (m3/s) --- 0.0000 0.0000
Z Factor 0.9770 --- ---
Watson K 18.97 14.89 14.89
User Property --- --- ---
Partial Pressure of H2S (kPa) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cp/(Cp - R) 1.228 1.271 1.271
Cp/Cv 1.272 1.277 1.277
Heat of Vap. (kJ/kgmole) 5.007e+004 3.920e+004 3.920e+004
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 2.059 0.7359 5.299
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) (kg/m3) 741.0 --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow (Std. Cond) (m3/h) 146.2 0.0000 ---
Liquid Fraction 0.0000 1.000 0.0000
Molar Volume (m3/kgmole) 1.678 2.547 2.547
Mass Heat of Vap. (kJ/kg) 2826 2982 2982
Phase Fraction [Molar Basis] 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000
Surface Tension (dyne/cm) --- 0.0000 ---
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 7.301e-002 0.1432 0.1885
Viscosity (cP) 2.175e-002 3.799e-003 2.736e-002
Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kgmole-C) 36.39 30.65 30.65
Mass Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kg-C) 2.054 2.331 2.331
Cv (kJ/kgmole-C) 35.15 30.51 30.51
Mass Cv (kJ/kg-C) 1.983 2.320 2.320
Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kgmole-C) 36.22 --- 30.49
Mass Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kg-C) 2.044 --- 2.319
Cp/Cv (Ent. Method) 1.234 --- 1.278
Reid VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- ---
True VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow - Sum(Std. Cond) (m3/h) 146.2 0.0000 0.0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-F-001-B (Conversion Reactor): Design, Reactions, Worksheet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion Reactor: 30-F-001-B

CONNECTIONS

133

Combo Gas
PSA Tail Gas-2 RCY-1 Recycle
Combustion Air

waste gas Heat Exchanger: Steam Generation Coil I
DNE

Q-100
PARAMETERS

Physical Parameters Optional Heat Transfer: Cooling
0.0000 kPa --- 3.657e+008 kJ/h Q-100
User Variables

REACTION DETAILS

Reaction: Meth Combust
Methane 16.04 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -2.000
CO2 44.01 1.000
H2O 18.02 2.000

Reaction: Eth combust
Ethane 30.07 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -3.500
CO2 44.01 2.000
H2O 18.02 3.000

Reaction: Prop combust
Propane 44.10 -1.000
134
Oxygen 32.00 -5.000
CO2 44.01 3.000
H2O 18.02 4.000

Reaction: H2 combust
Hydrogen 2.016 -2.000
Oxygen 32.00 -1.000
H2O 18.02 2.000

Reaction: 1-but combust
Oxygen 32.00 -6.000
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 4.000
1-Butene 56.11 -1.000

Reaction: ethylene comust
Oxygen 32.00 -3.000
CO2 44.01 2.000
H2O 18.02 2.000
Ethylene 28.05 -1.000

Reaction: i-but combust
i-Butane 58.12 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -6.500
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 5.000

Reaction: i-pent combust
Oxygen 32.00 -8.000
CO2 44.01 5.000
H2O 18.02 6.000
i-Pentane 72.15 -1.000

Reaction: n-but combust
135
Oxygen 32.00 -6.500
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 5.000
n-Butane 58.12 -1.000

Reaction: n-hex combust
Oxygen 32.00 -9.500
CO2 44.01 6.000
H2O 18.02 7.000
n-Hexane 86.18 -1.000

Reaction: n-pent comust
Oxygen 32.00 -8.000
CO2 44.01 5.000
H2O 18.02 6.000
n-Pentane 72.15 -1.000

Reaction: propene combust
Propene 42.08 -1.000
Oxygen 32.00 -4.500
CO2 44.01 3.000
H2O 18.02 3.000

Reaction: tr2-but combust
Oxygen 32.00 -6.000
CO2 44.01 4.000
H2O 18.02 4.000
tr2-Butene 56.11 -1.000

Reaction:

REACTION RESULTS FOR : Combust
136

Extents

Meth Combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Methane 386.8
Eth combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Ethane 3.059
Prop combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Propane 1.397
H2 combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Hydrogen 360.8
1-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 1-Butene 1.184e-002
ethylene comust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Ethylene 0.2066
i-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Butane 5.057e-002
i-pent combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 i-Pentane 3.452e-003
n-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Butane 6.928e-002
n-hex combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Hexane 2.794e-003
n-pent comust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 n-Pentane 8.400e-003
propene combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 Propene 0.2961
tr2-but combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 tr2-Butene 2.368e-003
CO Combust 0 100.00 Yes 100.0 CO 136.8
Balance

Methane 386.8 -386.8 0.0000
Ethane 3.059 -3.059 0.0000
Propane 1.397 -1.397 0.0000
CO 136.8 -136.8 0.0000
CO2 94.96 535.8 630.7
Hydrogen 721.5 -721.5 0.0000
H2O 0.0000 1512 1512
Nitrogen 6390 7.994e-013 6390
Oxygen 1692 -1223 468.8
i-Butane 5.057e-002 -5.057e-002 0.0000
n-Butane 6.928e-002 -6.928e-002 0.0000
i-Pentane 3.452e-003 -3.452e-003 0.0000
n-Pentane 8.400e-003 -8.400e-003 0.0000
n-Hexane 2.794e-003 -2.794e-003 0.0000
Ethylene 0.2066 -0.2066 0.0000
tr2-Butene 2.368e-003 -2.368e-003 0.0000
1-Butene 1.184e-002 -1.184e-002 0.0000
137
Helium 0.9984 0.0000 0.9984
Propene 0.2961 -0.2961 0.0000
CONDITIONS

Name Combo Gas PSA Tail Gas-2 Combustion Air DNE
Vapour 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
Temperature (C) 55.0000 31.9294 300.0000 800.0000
Pressure (kPa) 146.3250 40.0000 102.8000 40.0000
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 139.4231 1230.7530 8057.8742 0.0000
Mass Flow (kg/h) 830.2727 15697.9267 232471.8488 0.0000
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 4.9631 47.7418 268.7376 0.0000
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -1.617e+004 -6.439e+004 8248 -4.229e+004
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 142.2 167.7 171.1 211.1
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -2.2538e+06 -7.9244e+07 6.6465e+07 0.0000e-01
Name waste gas
Vapour 1.0000
Temperature (C) 800.0000
Pressure (kPa) 40.0000
Molar Flow (kgmole/h) 9002.2071
Mass Flow (kg/h) 248998.0490
Std Ideal Liq Vol Flow (m3/h) 296.1206
Molar Enthalpy (kJ/kgmole) -4.229e+004
Molar Entropy (kJ/kgmole-C) 211.1
Heat Flow (kJ/h) -3.8073e+08
PROPERTIES

Name Combo Gas PSA Tail Gas-2 Combustion Air DNE waste gas
Molecular Weight 5.955 12.75 28.85 27.66 27.66
Molar Density (kgmole/m3) 5.362e-002 1.577e-002 2.157e-002 4.483e-003 4.483e-003
Mass Density (kg/m3) 0.3193 0.2012 0.6222 0.1240 0.1240
Act. Volume Flow (m3/h) 2600 7.804e+004 3.736e+005 0.0000 2.008e+006
Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) -2715 -5048 285.9 -1529 -1529
Mass Entropy (kJ/kg-C) 23.88 13.15 5.932 7.631 7.631
Heat Capacity (kJ/kgmole-C) 31.48 31.59 30.84 36.10 36.10
Mass Heat Capacity (kJ/kg-C) 5.286 2.477 1.069 1.305 1.305
Lower Heating Value (kJ/kgmole) 3.988e+005 3.873e+005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mass Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg) 6.697e+004 3.036e+004 --- --- ---
Phase Fraction [Vol. Basis] --- --- --- --- ---
Phase Fraction [Mass Basis] 4.941e-324 4.941e-324 4.941e-324 2.122e-314 2.122e-314
Partial Pressure of CO2 (kPa) 1.267e-002 3.086 0.0000 0.0000 2.803
138
Cost Based on Flow (Cost/s) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Act. Gas Flow (ACT_m3/h) 2600 7.804e+004 3.736e+005 --- 2.008e+006
Avg. Liq. Density (kgmole/m3) 28.09 25.78 29.98 --- 30.40
Specific Heat (kJ/kgmole-C) 31.48 31.59 30.84 36.10 36.10
Std. Gas Flow (STD_m3/h) 3297 2.910e+004 1.905e+005 0.0000 2.129e+005
Std. Ideal Liq. Mass Density (kg/m3) 167.3 328.8 865.1 840.9 840.9
Act. Liq. Flow (m3/s) --- --- --- 0.0000 ---
Z Factor 1.000 0.9999 1.000 --- ---
Watson K 25.94 15.10 6.042 6.557 6.557
User Property --- --- --- --- ---
Partial Pressure of H2S (kPa) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cp/(Cp - R) 1.359 1.357 1.369 1.299 1.299
Cp/Cv 1.360 1.358 1.370 1.299 1.299
Heat of Vap. (kJ/kgmole) 7195 --- 5891 3.433e+004 3.433e+004
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 29.15 51.08 48.58 2.408 350.4
Liq. Mass Density (Std. Cond) (kg/m3) --- --- --- --- ---
Liq. Vol. Flow (Std. Cond) (m3/h) --- --- --- 0.0000 ---
Liquid Fraction 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.000 0.0000
Molar Volume (m3/kgmole) 18.65 63.41 46.37 223.1 223.1
Mass Heat of Vap. (kJ/kg) 1208 --- 204.2 1241 1241
Phase Fraction [Molar Basis] 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000
Surface Tension (dyne/cm) --- --- --- 0.0000 ---
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 0.1298 7.500e-002 4.360e-002 7.018e-002 7.294e-002
Viscosity (cP) 9.309e-003 1.028e-002 3.022e-002 2.985e-004 4.345e-002
Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.16 23.28 22.53 27.78 27.78
Mass Cv (Semi-Ideal) (kJ/kg-C) 3.890 1.825 0.7808 1.004 1.004
Cv (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.14 23.27 22.52 27.78 27.78
Mass Cv (kJ/kg-C) 3.886 1.824 0.7805 1.004 1.004
Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kgmole-C) 23.12 --- 22.48 --- ---
Mass Cv (Ent. Method) (kJ/kg-C) 3.882 --- 0.7791 --- ---
Cp/Cv (Ent. Method) 1.362 --- 1.372 --- ---
Reid VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- --- --- ---
True VP at 37.8 C (kPa) --- --- --- 2.042e+005 2.042e+005
Liq. Vol. Flow - Sum(Std. Cond) (m3/h) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
139

Appendix F: AMSIM Reports
140

2
in Absorber A
Stage Amine Sol. [Fraction] Vapor [Fraction]
1 0.022656 0.011879
2 0.02514 0.018135
3 0.029085 0.027852
4 0.035361 0.042966
5 0.044617 0.066199
6 0.052562 0.098851
7 0.056291 0.1255
8 0.058416 0.137557
9 0.059852 0.144295
10 0.060906 0.148791
11 0.061711 0.152062
12 0.062343 0.15455
13 0.062871 0.156513
14 0.063431 0.158226
15 0.064456 0.160386
AMSIM 7.2 --- Copyright by Oilphase-DBR,
Schlumberger Canada Ltd.

Table F. 2: Vapour Phase Properties in Absorber A
Stage Pressure Temperature
Mass
Flow
Vol.
Flow
Molar
Flow
Mol.
Weight Density
[ kPa ] [ C ] [ kg/h ] [ m3/h ] [ kmol/h ] [ kg/kmol ] [ kg/m3 ]
1 2163.6 39.7 22174.9 5544.1 4554.758 4.869 3.99972
2 2166.2 42.7 23530.5 5635 4591.706 5.125 4.17575
3 2168.8 47.4 25642 5773.5 4642.399 5.523 4.44134
4 2171.4 54.4 29053.8 5995.3 4725.238 6.149 4.84608
5 2174 63.2 34577 6320.1 4860.23 7.114 5.47097
6 2176.6 69.8 42741.5 6689 5056.142 8.453 6.38986
7 2179.2 72.8 49796.9 6955.6 5222.87 9.534 7.15928
8 2181.8 74.5 53185.8 7086.8 5303.828 10.028 7.50496
9 2184.5 75.7 55153 7163.7 5351.418 10.306 7.69896
10 2187.1 76.5 56496.9 7215.1 5384.172 10.493 7.83042
11 2189.7 77.1 57488.7 7251 5408.421 10.629 7.92837
12 2192.3 77.6 58245.7 7275.6 5426.863 10.733 8.00566
13 2194.9 77.7 58822.1 7287.3 5440.412 10.812 8.07193
14 2197.5 76.7 59210.2 7267.6 5447.056 10.87 8.14714
15 2200.1 70.4 59235.9 7111.8 5434.766 10.899 8.32927

141
Table F. 3: Liquid Phase Properties in Absorber A
Stage Pressure Temperature
Mass
Flow
Vol.
Flow
Molar
Flow
Mol.
Weight Density
1 2163.6 39.7 420406.8 409.9 18023.88 23.325 1025.582
2 2166.2 42.7 422518.3 411.3 18074.58 23.376 1027.243
3 2168.8 47.4 425930.1 413.6 18157.42 23.458 1029.801
4 2171.4 54.4 431453.3 417.3 18292.41 23.586 1033.813
5 2174 63.2 439617.8 422.7 18488.32 23.778 1040.047
6 2176.6 69.8 446673.2 427.2 18655.05 23.944 1045.676
7 2179.2 72.8 450062.1 430.9 18736.01 24.021 1044.576
8 2181.8 74.5 452029.3 433.1 18783.6 24.065 1043.682
9 2184.5 75.7 453373.2 434.7 18816.35 24.095 1043.072
10 2187.1 76.5 454365 435.8 18840.6 24.116 1042.622
11 2189.7 77.1 455122 436.7 18859.04 24.133 1042.284
12 2192.3 77.6 455698.4 437.3 18872.59 24.146 1042.045
13 2194.9 77.7 456086.5 437.7 18879.23 24.158 1041.978
14 2197.5 76.7 456112.2 437.5 18866.94 24.175 1042.501
15 2200.1 70.4 455473.2 435.5 18809.79 24.215 1045.839

2
in Regenerator
Stage Amine Sol. [Fraction] Vapor [Fraction]
1 0.000665 0.941076
2 0.059573 0.666759
3 0.055604 0.539271
4 0.050837 0.398938
5 0.046309 0.29988
6 0.04242 0.237417
7 0.039191 0.194647
8 0.036465 0.163104
9 0.034147 0.138419
10 0.032144 0.118575
11 0.030382 0.102133
12 0.028796 0.088182
13 0.027346 0.076009
14 0.025995 0.065202
15 0.02471 0.055401
16 0.023481 0.046308
17 0.02095 0.037835

142
Table F. 5: Vapour Phase Properties in the Regenerator
Stage Pressure Temperature Mass Flow Vol. Flow Molar Flow Mol. Weight Density
1 199.9 48.9 36737.6 11477.1 864.864 42.478 3.20096
2 206.2 92 43279.6 17837.9 1220.853 35.45 2.42627
3 207.1 101 46380.6 21455.7 1440.796 32.191 2.1617
4 208 108.6 51643.5 27281.1 1805.303 28.607 1.89302
5 208.9 113.2 56016.7 32668.1 2148.032 26.078 1.71473
6 209.8 115.9 58180.4 36198.7 2376.248 24.484 1.60726
7 210.7 117.7 59093.7 38464.8 2526.154 23.393 1.53632
8 211.7 119 59557.6 40086.8 2636.715 22.588 1.48572
9 212.6 120 59852.7 41352.5 2725.796 21.958 1.44738
10 213.5 120.8 60060.2 42367.7 2799.826 21.451 1.41761
11 214.4 121.5 60253.3 43230.2 2864.872 21.032 1.39379
12 215.3 122.2 60440.2 43979.1 2923.255 20.676 1.37429
13 216.3 122.7 60619.5 44642.8 2976.664 20.365 1.35789
14 217.2 123.2 60796.7 45242.4 3026.364 20.089 1.34381
15 218.1 123.7 60971.3 45794.2 3073.336 19.839 1.33143
16 219 124.1 61145.9 46313.3 3118.448 19.608 1.32028
17 219.9 125 61490.7 46824.8 3159.503 19.462 1.31321
AMSIM 7.2 --- Copyright by Oilphase-DBR, Schlumberger Canada
Ltd.

Table F. 6: Liquid Phase Properties in the Regenerator
Stage Pressure Temperature Mass Flow Vol. Flow Molar Flow Mol. Weight Density
1 199.9 48.9 6545.1 6.6 355.989 18.386 998.6405
2 206.2 92 464022.1 449 19354.28 23.975 1033.371
3 207.1 101 469290.5 456.8 19718.78 23.799 1027.448
4 208 108.6 473650.3 463.4 20061.51 23.61 1022.022
5 208.9 113.2 475807 468.6 20289.73 23.451 1015.443
6 209.8 115.9 476718.3 472.3 20439.63 23.323 1009.263
7 210.7 117.7 477181.5 475.1 20550.19 23.22 1004.37
8 211.7 119 477476.4 477.3 20639.28 23.134 1000.343
9 212.6 120 477683.7 479.1 20713.31 23.062 996.9533
10 213.5 120.8 477876.6 480.7 20778.35 22.999 994.0457
11 214.4 121.5 478063.4 482.2 20836.73 22.943 991.4991
12 215.3 122.2 478242.7 483.5 20890.14 22.893 989.213
13 216.3 122.7 478419.8 484.7 20939.84 22.847 987.1263
14 217.2 123.2 478594.3 485.8 20986.82 22.805 985.1855
15 218.1 123.7 478768.9 486.9 21031.93 22.764 983.3416
16 219 124.1 479113.6 488.1 21072.98 22.736 981.529
17 219.9 125 417622.9 427.8 17913.48 23.313 976.2471
AMSIM 7.2 --- Copyright by Oilphase-DBR, Schlumberger Canada
Ltd.

Hydro Carbon Alkylization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydro Carbon Alkylization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ T Y P E T H E C O M P A N Y A D D R E S S ]

You might also like